Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1968 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Reports of the Committee - Appropriation Accounts 1966 - 1967

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin 22 Feabhra 1968

Thursday 22nd February 1968

The Committee met 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 38—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. J. C. Nagle called and examined.

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

“Subhead C.E.3.—World Food Programme (Grant in Aid)

Reference was made in paragraph 41 of the report on the accounts for 1962-63 to the provision of a sum of £300,000 as a three-year contribution to the World Food Programme, jointly administered by the United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. This sum was paid into a grant-in-aid account and was used to meet cash contributions to the Organisation and to purchase food for dispatch abroad. It has been agreed to contribute a further sum of £600,000 to the Programme for the three-year period 1966-68 and £300,000 of this amount was provided in 1966-67 and paid into the grant-in-aid account. £50,000 was paid from the account during the year in cash and £2,092 for food supplied. The total amounts paid to 31 March 1967 were £135,961 cash and £187,178 for food and the balance in the account at that date was £276,861.”

679. Have you anything to add. Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph refers to Ireland’s second payment of £300,000 to the World Food Programme, making a total of £600,000 to 31st March 1967. A further sum of £300,000 has been pledged. The money was paid out of the Vote into the grant-in-aid account from which payments are made to meet commitments under the programme as they arise. The grant-in-aid account is appended to the Appropriation Account.

680. Deputy Healy.—Do we have any say on the method of payment, whether in money or in food?

Mr. Nagle.—The Assembly of the UN and the FAO, which between them have established this programme, requested that countries should aim to make about 25 per cent of their contributions available in cash and approximately 75 per cent in the form of commodities. The reason they asked for an amount in cash is that they have to find cash to pay for a number of essential services such as the transporting of the goods— chartering of ships and so on—and if they had only commodities available, then they would have no way of paying for transportation.

681. Chairman.—Are there many countries in this scheme?—The majority of the members of the UN, practically all of which are also members of the FAO, contribute to the scheme. A number of what are described as the less developed countries also make contributions, but usually in their cases the contributions are of a token nature because they are all big recipients.

682. Deputy Treacy.—Is it envisaged that this programme will be continued?—It looks like it at the moment because there has been quite recently another pledging conference in New York for the two-year period 1969-70. We have entered into a further commitment of £400,000—£200,000 a year—which would be at the same annual level as the current three-year commitment of £600,000. As a matter of interest, I should like to add that, since the pledges are expressed and recorded in dollars, because of the devaluation, we shall appear to be giving somewhat less in dollars than in the current period though it will cost us the same in pounds.

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

“Subhead E.1.—Improvement of Live Stock, Milk Production, etc.

In September 1965 when the Department of Agriculture was importing continental cattle, facilities were provided for private breeders to import at the same time 39 Charolais cattle on the understanding that they would meet the charges incurred on their own animals. I asked for an explanation for the delay in seeking recoupment of outstanding charges of £7,451 and was informed that this was the first quarantine involving private interests and that, in the light of the experience gained, administrative measures were being taken that would in future reduce the period between release of animals from quarantine and the furnishing of recoupment accounts.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I deemed it desirable to draw attention to the fact that a considerable sum of money due by private interests for services provided by the Department had not been collected. The animals had been released from quarantine in April 1966 but demands for amounts due were not issued until April, 1967.

685. Deputy Healy.—Was there some reason for the delay?

Mr. Nagle.—There was a delay here. The account was cleared finally in December, 1967. I should say that the importers in question did pay another account away back in March, 1966. This account, which amounted to more than £2,800, related to expenses incurred on their behalf in the quarantine station at the Hook of Holland, so they made a substantial payment reasonably early. After that, the animals, of which there were 51 altogether, 39 of which were imported on behalf of private interests, had to be transported to the Spike Island quantine in Cork. The quarantine in Spike Island lasted until April, 1966, three months longer than was originally envisaged. The reason was that a very recently discovered and very sensitive test for foot and mouth had been investigated by our veterinary people. They felt that in addition to the other precautions that had been taken, these animals should be submitted to the new test in Spike. This involved a test called the Probang Test. This involved a delay. The accounts could not be made up until after that and the number of individual items amounted to about 100. For example, there were such rather difficult matters as the cost of sending animals from Ireland to the Hook of Holland where they were left alongside the continental animals for a period to test whether there was a carrier among the continental animals. If there were, our animals which were free of the disease would have taken the disease. As well as that, we sent the fodder out from Ireland. The cost of that had to be divided up between private importers on the one hand and the Department on the other and, furthermore, between the private importers. Nonetheless, I agree there was a considerable delay but it was not due to any reluctance by the importers to pay the bill. There was considerable difficulty in sorting out all the details of costs mathematically and then apportioning them on the importers. I am glad to say this has been cleared. In future we must try to find some other way of apportioning such costs between importers and our own Department.

686. Deputy Crowley.—How many Charolais cattle have we in the country?—This particular import covered about 50 pedigree cattle. The number in the country now must be around 100.

687. Deputy Molloy.—Was there any particular reason for exporting the fodder for feeding these cattle?—This was done on veterinary advice. They had to be super-careful. If anything went wrong, it would have been quite calamitous. They had a feeling that, although it was a remote chance, if they purchased feeding stuffs locally—it might be a thousand to one against—they might be contaminated; for example, hay coming off a field on which there might have been animals. I agree that the risk was somewhat remote but I also agree it was the proper course to take.

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

“Subhead K.8.—Land Project

42. 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 (in Gaeltacht areas three-quarters) of the estimated cost subject to a maximum of £50 per statute acre in western and north-western counties and £45 per acre elsewhere. Grants to farmers amounted to £1,777,037 in the year as compared with £1,580,828 in the previous year.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph gives the usual analysis of the expenditure incurred. The total expenditure increased by approximately £350,000 over the previous year.

690. Chairman.—Does this item include minor schemes like your pilot scheme and mountain fencing scheme?—Mr. Nagle.— It would include the mountain fencing scheme and also the pilot scheme in so far as land project work is included. In the pilot scheme there is an extra grant for land project work as well as other scheme work in the pilot areas, and it would come out of this.

691. Are you still continuing the scheme you had in the Leitrim rush pastures?—I think that is still in progress.

692. Deputy Molloy.—In regard to Payments to Contractors, what type of grants are they?—This was largely a hangover from the days of section B of the Land Project. There were a number of accounts which it took a long time to settle. In some cases there might be differences of opinion and this was probably the tail-end of section B.

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

“43. In order to facilitate land reclamation, drainage works on the River Rye were carried out by the Office of Public Works in the years 1955 to 1958 at a cost of £51,669 which was met from the National Development Fund. It was originally arranged that the Office of Public Works would maintain the scheme, the cost to be charged to this subhead, and the county councils of Meath and Kildare undertook to repay the Department. In 1961 the councils were advised that, because the work had not been carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, they lacked the statutory authority to comply with their undertaking. Maintenance ceased in 1962 by which time £3,620 had been expended by the Office of Public Works on behalf of the Department of Agriculture.

In reply to my inquiry I was informed that in May, 1967, the Department had written to the Office of Public Works asking if the substantial amount of work requiring attention at that stage could be undertaken as an arterial drainage scheme under the provisions of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, when future maintenance costs would statutorily be met by the two county councils.

As it appears to me that the failure to maintain this scheme has resulted in undue deterioration and has detracted considerably from the value of the original work I have deemed it desirable to draw attention to the matter.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph outlines the circumstances in which a drainage scheme associated with land project work has been left without maintenance for five years. The Committee has, in past years, expressed dissatisfaction with the practice of leaving expensive works of this nature unattended because of disagreements in fixing the liabilities of the various interests involved. I understand that no progress has been made in this matter yet.

695. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Nagle could help us further on this?

Mr. Nagle.—This was a rather difficult case. Perhaps I should give very briefly the history of it. About the year 1955 it was found that drainage works on this river were required as a matter of urgency. The matter was regarded as very urgent. However, as we know, the procedure under the Arterial Drainage Acts is necessarily a protracted one. Certain requirements have to be met, certain documents issued, notices given, and so forth. This was regarded at the time as particularly urgent. The National Development Fund existed and if my recollection is right, the suggestion emanated from the Department of Finance at the time, who had been asked to advise on a quick method of financing these works, that it could be met from the National Development Fund, the works to be carried out by the Office of Public Works who would be recouped from the National Development Fund through the Department of Agriculture. The capital works having been done, the maintenance was then to be shared equally between Meath and Kildare County Councils. As the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General records, the two councils undertook to pay between them the annual maintenance cost. No difficulty was raised by them at the time. The work was carried out and then maintenance was subsequently carried out by the Office of Public Works, but when the question of recoupment of the cost of maintenance arose, the two county councils began to raise difficulties. Correspondence dragged on for a considerable time and eventually they produced a counsel’s opinion to the effect that they had no legal authority to pay for maintenance under a scheme which had been undertaken in this way.

Naturally enough, we had to get our own legal opinion and that took a little time. We had to make a submission to our legal advisers and their advice was that they felt there was no point in proceeding against the two councils because the outcome of such action would be in doubt. Maintenance then ceased, and since then we have been looking around to see if there was any way out of this riddle. Eventually, we made a suggestion to the Office of Public Works last year to the effect that they might consider undertaking some work, whatever is now needed on the rivers, under the Arterial Drainage Acts, in which case the full cost of maintenance would automatically fall on the two councils. The two county councils would not have to fear their own local government auditor in such a case. We agreed that there must have been some deterioration in the position since the original works were carried out and we did not see how the matter was to be solved except on the basis of trying to get the county councils to do what they had undertaken to do originally but on which, evidently, they were legally mistaken.

The Office of Public Works are considering this suggestion, which possibly might involve some legal point for them also, but if they find it is possible, work will be resumed on the river and that arrangement will provide, incidentally, for maintenance work in the future. Every year in our Vote we have carried the sum of approximately £1,000 for maintenance. Funds have been provided but as the original machinery has never worked, the money has lapsed on each occasion. On the other hand, we do not feel that the restoration of the position of the River Rye would cost an enormous amount of money. I could not guarantee a figure but my estimate is about £5,000 or £6,000.

696. Chairman.—How many years is it since the work was carried out?—The work was done between 1955 and 1958 and, as the Comptroller and Auditor General mentions, maintenance ceased in 1962.

697. Deputy Healy.—I take it that since that happened, you have not entered into any other similar undertaking?—No, not to my knowledge.

698. Could you say whether the Office of Public Works will accept the suggestion put to them?—We have been in touch with them fairly recently and we are hopeful they may be able to give an answer reasonably soon.

Chairman.—For how long have they been considering it?—We made the suggestion originally last May. This was mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the paragraph.

699. Deputy Molloy.—Out of what Vote is the National Development Fund, out of which this work was financed, paid?

Mr. Suttle.—It is a fund which was set up in 1957 when a sum of £7 million was set aside. It was voted once and put into a special account and we have reported on that account each year. It is wound up this year. It was referred to in Paragraph 7 of my Report. That is the tail-end of it. That fund of £7 million was utilised until there was just £300,000 left and then what little is to be done is carried out under the various Votes.

700. Chairman.—Has any recent estimate been made of the deterioration that has taken place?

Mr. Nagle.—I guessed at a figure a few minutes ago—but as I said, I could not stand over it—I worked it out from the provision we have been carrying annually in the Vote for maintenance, which was £1,000. Five or six years have passed since any maintenance was carried out. Of course, it could be argued that to restore the position would cost more than the sum total of the annual provision for maintenance, and that might be so. On that basis, although I am not an architect or an engineer, to put matters right again, and this is a guess, it might perhaps cost between £5,000 and £10,000.

Mr. Suttle.—Originally the cost was £51,669.

701. Deputy Crowley.—Surely there is bound to have been a tremendous amount of deterioration?

Mr. Nagle.—Some maintenance work was done but that ceased in 1962.

Deputy Treacy.—It seems to me that it is a great pity that we cannot pin responsibility for maintenance on some authority because otherwise, having regard to the annual deterioration, it seems to me that the sizeable expenditure involved will have been very largely wasted on the project. I hope that some means will be found to ensure that maintenance will be carried out.

702. Deputy Crowley.—The cost of the project was £51,669. Could Mr. Nagle give us a breakdown on what was involved?—I am afraid I do not have this readily available, but if the Committee wishes, I could inquire and send them particulars.

The reason I ask is that we might be able to work out how much of the original cost would still stand; in other words, how much can still be utilised and how much is needed for servicing?— Yes. I will try to get these particulars and forward them to the Committee.*

703. Chairman.—Are there many complaints from farmers in the area?—I am not personally aware of a great many. The primary reason for undertaking the works was to facilitate our land project operations in the area. There was an insufficient outfall from our own field drainage schemes to take off all the water into the river. The present situation has, I suppose, delayed land project work in the area and it would be only natural if some of the farmers concerned were rather annoyed about this. I do not, however, recollect any specific complaint from anybody. The real difficulty arose at the beginning: if the county councils, and there is now no suggestion that they acted in anything but good faith, before they had agreed to pay for the maintenance had looked into their legal position, then the whole thing could have been done otherwise.

704. Paragraph 44 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads:

“Subhead K.9.—Lime and Fertilisers Subsidies

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

Subsidy is paid on the phosphatic content of fertilisers. In the case of imported compound fertilisers the rate of this subsidy is lower than in the case of home produced compounds, the differential being based on the relative costs of superphosphate in the 1959-60 and 1960-61 seasons. I have inquired whether any procedure exists for the periodic review of this differential in the light of changes that may have taken place in the relevant prices.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This differential between the rate of subsidy on home produced and imported fertilisers was introduced in 1961. The Accounting Officer has informed me that he does not consider that he was required to review this differential. As no information is available regarding the cost of imported fertilisers, I cannot satisfy myself that the subsidy on imports should not be less than it is.

706. Deputy Crowley.—What exactly does that mean?

Mr. Suttle.—There is a subsidy on all fertiliser to make it cheap for farmers to use. There are two rates of subsidy— one on home produced fertiliser and one on imported. In 1961 there was a differential fixed of, I think, 3/- per unit of phosphate in the mixtures, which works out roughly at about 30/- a ton between the subsidy on home produced as against imported, the home produced getting the higher subsidy. That 33/- a ton was fixed back in 1961. Since then the subsidy on home produced fertiliser has been increased from time to time to meet increasing costs of manufacture and, to arrive at the subsidy on imported, you just take the 33/- per ton fixed in 1961, without reference to the cost of import of fertiliser. In effect, this has brought up the subsidy on imported fertiliser in line with home manufactured. We have no information as to whether the cost of manufacture on the Continent or in England has gone up proportionately with our own costs, and I feel that, on that account, possibly imported fertiliser has gone down in price and yet they are getting increased subsidy all the time.

Deputy Molloy.—Has it in actual fact gone down?

Mr. Suttle.—We do not know. We have no information.

Deputy Burke.—It came out in the House the other day that imported fertiliser was a good deal cheaper.

707. Chairman.—I should like to hear Mr. Nagle on this matter.

Mr. Nagle.—There were two stages in the introduction of the fertiliser subsidy. First of all, quite a long time back, in return for giving a greater degree of freedom to our imports, the then Government decided to make a payment on home produced fertilisers so as to enable the manufacturers to sell these at what was called the world price. It was assumed at the time that the difference between the economic price to the home manufacturers and the world price was of the order of, I think, 24/- a ton for eight per cent superphosphate. Now, looked at from another point of view, this particular subsidy could be regarded as an alternative form of protection for the home manufacturers. But the then Government did not want to protect the industry to such an extent that, in the ordinary way, it would mean a higher price to the farmer, so this particular method was resorted to. Now, in a case in which protection is granted—this is the more normal one—by import duty or quota, it is very rarely that the amount of protection afforded by the duty or quota is reviewed. Most duties are put on and remain on, subject to any international obligations we have, such as those under the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain. When the then Government introduced this subsidy originally, they made no provision for review. I would think that the reason was that neither do the Government usually make provision for review of any other forms of protection which they impose in relation to imports. Later on the Government introduced a different kind of subsidy, which was intended to cheapen considerably the cost of phosphates to the farmer. The two figures were in due course amalgamated so that the nett result is that the Irish manufacturer receives in his subsidy a total amount which is higher than that paid on imported fertilisers to the extent of the protection originally afforded. Frankly, when it comes to calculating world prices for fertilisers and to finding out the exact price at which fertilisers may be imported, it is not by any means a very easy task. I wonder whether, even if the Government had provided for review, the nett result to the Exchequer might not have been more expensive. I cannot, of course, be sure, but I think it is not altogether impossible. At the same time, from the point of view of my Department, we would be very keen to have healthy competition between imported and home produced fertiliser. We would like to avoid anything in the nature of monopolistic practices by one side or the other. Just taking our experience into account, I would say, broadly speaking, that the maintenance of this differential has not prevented quite a considerable amount of competition developing. That is a good thing. It tends to keep the price of home produced fertiliser at a reasonable level.

If the price of certain imported fertilisers had gone down lately, if there is any truth in the allegation that some of these fertilisers are being dumped, and if they were reviewed, the home manufacturers could ask for an even higher subsidy. If on the other hand it was suggested that the subsidy on the imported fertilisers should be reduced, I should be afraid that in practice this would discourage the competition which we consider is needed.

Putting it in a nutshell, I look on this as a form of protection, but of an unusual kind. However, from the home manufacturers’ point of view, it has a similar effect to that of an import duty of a corresponding amount, and the purpose of an import duty is to meet the difference between the higher home cost and the cost of the imported product. Though I agree I could not prove this without a great deal of research, my feeling and instinct is to leave this as it is. That is a personal opinion. The price of home-produced fertiliser is reviewed every year by the Department of Industry and Commerce and possibly, in the course of that exercise, if anything obviously out of gear emerged it would be noted.

708. Chairman.—Has it varied much during the years?—There is a certain variation but I do not think it is dramatic. What happens sometimes is that certain what you might call very keen importers manage to get, from one source or another, quantities of imported fertiliser that might be cheaper than the general run; but to the best of our knowledge, they pass on the benefits of these low-priced fertilisers in the normal way of competition. Indeed, recent suggestions that some of the compound fertilisers are being dumped seem to bear out the idea that the competitive element does exist. From the farmers’ point of view that is highly important.

709. Deputy Crowley.—Did Mr. Suttle find, in his initial request for more information, any difficulty in carrying out the audit because of this subsidy which he could not calculate?

Mr. Suttle.—From the point of view of the audit, there is no difficulty at all because the audit is carried out on the basis of the agreed subsidy. It was a question of the rates of subsidy.

710. Deputy Crowley.—Could Mr. Nagle give us a breakdown of the subsidy paid to meet the delivery cost of ground limestone? How many firms was this paid to, if it was paid to firms?—I will furnish that to the Committee in a note.* There is one point on the other matter which I should like to mention to the Committee. It is a rather interesting point. Because of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain, the differential in this subsidy will have to be removed during a period of ten years and the method of doing that, which is a little complicated, is at present being negotiated with the British authorities. Under the Agreement all import obstacles on industrial products between the two countries will disappear. This has been classified as falling into the same category as a duty or a quota. We have agreed that this must go and there are two ways of doing it.

711. Do the complaints about dumping involve British firms or are they entirely Continental firms?—I should not like to say what the allegations are in respect of any particular country but my understanding is that they include some British products among fertilisers which it has been alleged may have been dumped—not all British fertilisers but some.

Would it be a minority?—It would be.

Therefore, it does not apply.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—It will be very hard to prove that dumping takes place.

712. Chairman.—Paragraph 45 of the Report reads:

“I noted that excess payments of £30,000 made by the Department in respect of subsidy on imported compound fertilisers had been recovered and I have inquired regarding the circumstances in which the overpayments were made.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has explained that for administrative convenience and to facilitate the firms concerned, subsidy is paid on sales of all compounds at the higher home rate and a recovery is later made in respect of the quantities imported. But I feel that since the Department is aware that subsidy is not automatically payable at the full rate in all cases consideration should be given to devising some method whereby retention of an equitable proportion of sums due could be effected rather than knowingly making excess payments with the intention of subsequent recovery.

714. Chairman.—Would Mr. Nagle like to comment?—The Comptroller and Auditor General is correct in what he has said. There is no question of an accidental excess payment having arisen. The position is that in the case of a number of firms, not all, they convinced our people that it was impossible for them to give an exact return month by month which would segregate their sales of imported fertilisers from their sales of home-produced fertilisers. We have a standing arrangement under which we make a payment on account every month. Otherwise, the firms would be out of a large amount of money. A couple of firms made what was considered to be a good case for this arrangement and we believe there are plenty of safeguards built in to the system. First of all, firms are under an obligation to make an exact return of their imports as soon as possible and the import papers are checked by our staff. Secondly, and what is rather more important, our own staff visit every firm which received a subsidy every year and carry out an audit in the course of which they have access to all books of account, including ledgers, as well as any relevant papers of any kind whatsoever. There is therefore no possibility of an incorrect payment being made. We are always in debt to these firms—we always owe them money—so there is plenty of scope for adjustment when the final figures are available.

Another point is that we have an arrangement with these firms that in invoicing the fertilisers, they are, of course, required to give the gross cost, the amount of the subsidy and the nett price, but they are required to deduct the higher subsidy—the one paid on home-produced fertilisers. It appears to us that unless we were to introduce perhaps a very comprehensive and, maybe, staff-consuming system, the present system of administering the subsidy, is a good one. Of course it is very economic because the number of staff engaged in this is surprisingly small. I recall that in some previous reports the Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned that he had checked the annual audit made by us and he used words to the effect that it had been done in a satisfactory manner.

715. Deputy Treacy.—In respect of the checks referred to by Mr. Nagle on the firms concerned in respect of the fertiliser subsidy, have any discrepancies come to light?—Not to my knowledge. Of course it may happen during the course of audit that something comes to light; but the matter can be corrected there and then. I do not remember anything in the final reports by our people on the various audits to the effect that they had discovered anything out of order at all. I should like to emphasise that this audit by our people is a very detailed and genuine one.

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

“Subhead K.12.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme

46. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

Receipts amounting to £968,549 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 1967 was £58,189,735 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £18,327,459. The net cost was, therefore, £39,862,276.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. The expenditure varied by less than £20,000 as compared with the previous year. Receipts from the sale of reactors, however, showed a considerable increase. They were up by £120,000, that is, by about 14 per cent on the 1965-66 figure.

718. Chairman.—You appear, Mr. Nagle, to be getting a better price for the sale of your reactor cattle than is shown in the next paragraph for the sale of the cattle under the brucellosis scheme. Have you any explanation for that?—Of course under the tuberculosis scheme we slaughter all and sundry, as you know. Whatever is affected by tuberculosis goes to the butcher’s block. Certainly in 1966-67 for the T.B. reactors our loss on salvage showed a sharp decline, in the case of cows from about £35 a head in 1965-66 to about £30 a head in 1966-67. In the case of other cattle the loss declined from £30 a head in 1965-66 to nearly £15 in 1966-67. I think when I was here about a year or two ago the question arose as to the price received for these reactors and I think I explained that considerable difficulties existed at that time. For certain reasons these difficulties have now gradually worked themselves out, so that in the year here under review, we had a much better experience as regards the quotations we got for the reactor cattle.

719. Are the same people purchasing under both schemes?—Yes: so far as they are concerned, it is the same to them. I do not think we ask for separate bids for T.B. reactors and cattle slaughtered under the brucellosis scheme. We ask for bids for the estimated number of cattle which would come off the two schemes. Any difference in the loss as between the tuberculosis reactors and the brucellosis reactors must be strictly due to differences in practice in the actual value of the animals slaughtered under each scheme. I would assume that there would be a higher proportion of cows slaughtered under the brucellosis scheme than in the case of the bovine tuberculosis scheme and that may be one factor.

720. Deputy Treacy.—May we have perhaps some kind of explanation as to how it transpired that the fees to veterinary surgeons amounted to £1,344,464, almost equal to the amount paid in compensation to farmers for reactor cattle—£1,470,086. This seems to me to be an exceptionally high price to pay?

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Are they permanent veterinary surgeons?—They are all private practitioners. In point of fact, the fee paid to the veterinary practitioner for tuberculosis testing had remained at the same level as when it was first fixed in 1954. The fees cost a lot. One of the reasons of course is that up to recently every animal in the country had to be tested annually.

721. Deputy Crowley.—Of course they are paid so much per beast?—They are paid so much a beast and the number of cattle in the country was steadily increasing. The number of animals tested in this particular year was 5,167,000 and the total number of tests per herd was 215,000. The average cost per herd tested was about £6.5.

You said per herd tested; how many herds would that be?—The total number tested was 215,000. That would represent the number of herds.

722. That does not represent the number of cattle for which compensation was paid? —No. The total tested was 5,167,000 but the number of reactors taken would have been a small fraction of that. A test is equally important, whether the animal turned out to be a reactor or not. I do not know whether you would wish me to give the actual amount of the fee, the rate for each veterinary practitioner.

Mr. Suttle.—Roughly 4/- a head, on average.

723. Deputy Molloy.—Could Mr. Nagle tell us the total number of vets to whom payments were made?—The total number operating under the scheme this year was 672. Of these, 492 were what we call principals, heads of their practice, and 180 were assistants. The full 672 participated in the tests. Payment is made to the principals; then these 492 make their own arrangements with their assistants.

724. Chairman.—Of the total expenditure on the tuberculosis eradication scheme to date—£58 million—how much was for veterinary fees?—I could hazard an estimate but I would prefer to get the exact figure and send it to you, if you would permit.*

725. Deputy Healy.—How is the bovine eradication scheme progressing? Will it always remain at this cost?—The country was officially attested in October, 1965, because the incidence of the disease had then dropped to a very low figure, well under 1 per cent, and it had reached a level at which, it is internationally agreed, a country can, to all intents and purposes, be declared free of the disease. That is what attestation means. It does not mean there is no animal whatever with any evidence of the disease in it. Since then, while the overall incidence of the disease has remained very low indeed, there have been fluctuations in the disease in some areas. For example, in the south there was some increase experienced which gave us cause for some concern. I should not like to exaggerate this because I am talking in terms of 0.43 per cent of an incidence, but supposing that at a previous test the incidence had been .28 per cent and then in the subsequent test, as in this case, it had gone up to 0.43 per cent, that does worry our veterinary authorities a bit. It does not mean that the disease is on the rampage or anything like that. In those cases we have to put on an extra spurt to try to get the reactors out fast. In a number of cases it means locking up the herds, of which we have a number, and impounding the blue cards for a period, which of course causes great inconvenience to the farmers.

726. Deputy P. J. Burke.—How often are the tests carried out?—In any counties where we believe it is needed, there is at least an annual test. If we detect a number of herds which give cause for worry, they are given special attention and they would be retested quite frequently, especially after the removal of the known reactors. A test would be necessary then after an interval of a month or two to see if any other animals had been infected in the meantime.

727. What do you do in counties which are free of the disease?—In some counties, especially in the north-west, it is no longer necessary to have an annual test, the overall position is so good, but there is a certain amount of check testing done by our own officers in these areas on a sample basis. Our veterinary men go in and carry out a check test on a percentage of the animals. If the result gives cause for worry, we have to lay on a complete check again.

728. Deputy Crowley.—Would the Veterinary Department accept the explanation that, because of the intensive stocking of lands, especially of the farms in the south, as a natural consequence the disease would spread more rapidly and to a greater number?—That is undoubtedly the case. The original history of the disease was that it was very heavy in the south, and rather light in the north, in counties like Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim and Mayo. In the south it was heavy and this was associated with the great concentration of cattle in Limerick, Cork and Kerry especially, where you would have herds of cows particularly susceptible to infection. Similarly with the build up of herds and cow numbers in recent years, there was obviously an increased risk of reinfection. Again, I should like to emphasise that the figure is not what you would call an alarming one. There has been some move up in the south but it is still far from 1 per cent,

729. Chairman.—In the present circumstances of being clear of tuberculosis, what would be the annual cost of keeping on the observation services? Have you any estimated figure?—It is rather a guess but judging by our own experience and the experience of other countries, including Britain, it will be necessary, first of all, to have a rather substantial amount of testing, some of it on an annual basis. That has to be paid for. We will always be getting some reactors on which there will be a loss. I would hope that the annual cost should decline gradually from the figure shown here and maybe it will settle down—and I give this figure in all humility—at somewhere between £1 million and £2 million. I doubt if it will fall below £1 million. The disruption caused by the foot and mouth disease regulations in recent months has held up all schemes, including this scheme. We will have to overtake anything that has been lost there in the meantime.

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

“Subhead K.14.—Brucellosis Eradication Scheme.

47. The expenditure under this subhead is made up as follows:—

The gross cost of the scheme from its introduction in 1964-65 to 31 March 1967 was £367,525 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £52,848. The net cost was, therefore, £314,677.

Full scale eradication measures involving the testing of all eligible animals and the slaughter of reactors were introduced in County Donegal in May 1966 and extended to Counties Cavan, Leitrim, Monaghan and Sligo in December 1966 and will be gradually extended to other areas. The taking of blood samples for testing is carried out by private veterinary practitioners and the samples are tested free of charge at the Department’s laboratory. Reactors are disposed of by the Department to canning firms and compensation is paid to the owners.

Preparatory to the extension of full-scale eradication measures to other areas a programme of vaccination of heifer calves designed to reduce progressively the incidence of the disease has been introduced in eleven countries.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. This scheme which is similar in its operation to the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme has now got fully under way in some counties and expenditure is beginning to increase. This is the first year in which moneys were received for animals slaughtered under the scheme.

Deputy Crowley.—We discussed this already.

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

“Subhead K.15.—Scheme of Grants for Calved Heifers

48. This scheme which commenced on 1 January 1964 continued in operation during 1966-67 The total amount of grants paid in the year was £1,888,005, representing grants for 125,867 calved heifers compared with £2,725,575 for 181,705 heifers in the previous year. Other expenditure during the year was made up of travelling expenses £75,060, and incidental expenses £35,721. The total cost of this scheme to 31 March 1967 was £8,003,911.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This is the third year of the operation of the scheme and the figures mentioned in the paragraph show that the number of grants paid in the year was more than 30 per cent lower than in the previous year. The average annual cost of the scheme was almost £2.7 millions.

734. Chairman.—What is the latest position and when do you expect to reach the target, Mr. Nagle?

Mr. Nagle.—The latest figures we have are for June 1967. The January 1968 census has been delayed because of the foot and mouth disease regulations and will not be available for some time. There has been some variation from year to year in the number of cows but the overall position in our opinion remains quite good. The cow numbers in June 1967, according to my figures, were 1,547,900 and the number of heifers in calf was 177,500. In the year 1966, in June, the number of cows was somewhat higher at 1,582,000 but the number of heifers in calf was less, 165,500, as against 177,500.

735. Deputy Treacy.—Could we have a comment, if it is appropriate, about the false claims for grants under the scheme for calved heifers which have come to the notice of the Department?—I presume, Mr. Chairman, the Deputy is referring to cases in which some offence would have been involved. The number was not vast. In all cases investigations were made by the police and prosecutions were taken. The scheme does provide that, if you make a false claim, tamper with tattoo marks or identity tags, or alter entries on identity cards, you are committing an offence for which there is a penalty. We have had a number of convictions. The most frequent type of offence was the borrowing of animals for official inspection or representing as a first-calf heifer an animal which had, in fact, calved previously. Since the beginning of the scheme we have referred 127 cases to the Garda.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—127 cases over the whole country?—Over the whole country and, as the majority of herd owners participate in the scheme, this does not seem to indicate any vast incidence of offence.

736. Deputy Treacy.—Roughly, what amount of money would be involved in the 127 cases?—I do not think I could give you the figure offhand. To work it out on the basis of the average grant might not produce the right figure, but I will get the figure and send it to you.*

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Something over four per county?—The number of grants per applicant was 3.8—that is less than four per applicant.

737. Deputy Treacy.—Does Mr. Nagle feel he has got on top of this problem with regard to unfair practices?—That is our belief. More stringent conditions have, of course, been incorporated in the scheme. One of these is that, if there is any offence of any kind, such as keeping an unlicensed bull, the farmer is immediately rejected, however good the animal he produces may be, or however well qualified. He has also to give a general undertaking of intention to retain the animals for a fairly long period and I think that has had an effect on quite a number of applicants. This was an attempt to stop any in and out movement and I think it has been accepted by farmers generally. I might add—I am not talking now of something in the nature of a criminal offence—that, if there were people in a position to assemble a very large number of heifers, and so on, with the intention of getting rid of them en bloc, the value of this practice must be blunted because it cancels itself out in time. There probably was a certain amount of that at the outset.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—It is very hard to get away from an old practice?—Yes.

738. Deputy Crowley.—Is the use of scrub bulls allowed in any circumstances?—No. In fact, the using of a scrub bull on any of the heifers now acts as a disqualification. The same disqualification applies if the herd owner has, in fact, been known to have a scrub bull in his possession. He is now automatically disqualified.

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

“Subhead K.22.—Temporary Scheme of Headage Payments on Fat Cattle exported for immediate slaughter

49. Because of an unusually steep decline in the market prices of fat cattle it was decided, as a temporary emergency measure, to introduce a scheme of guarantee payments for fat cattle exported for immediate slaughter. The scheme operated from 31 August 1966 to 6 December 1966 and payments totalling £655,953 were made in respect of approximately 90,000 bullocks and 20,000 heifers exported in that period. The weekly rate of payment per head was calculated at approximately two-thirds of the rate payable to carcase meat exporters and was based on minimum weights of 8½ cwts. for bullocks and 7½ cwts. for heifers.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph gives a brief-outline of this temporary scheme which operated for just over three months in 1966 and was provided for by Supplementary Estimate.

741. Chairman.—That scheme is not in operation now, I take it?—The scheme was purely temporary; it was an emergency scheme during the slump in cattle prices. It finished on 5th December, 1966.

742. Paragraph 50 of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“50. In the course of audit it was observed that 41 cattle, described as stores on documents issued at the time of export by the six-county Ministry of Agriculture, were accepted as fat cattle for headage payments under the scheme. As the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme which operated in the six counties at that time prescribed lower minimum weights for fat cattle I asked for an explanation.

I was informed that the fact that animals were described as stores by northern veterinary officials did not imply that they were below the minimum weights prescribed under the scheme, that it is their common practice to describe as stores animals not consigned direct to a slaughterhouse, that other considerations besides weight must be taken into account in deciding whether animals are fats or stores and that the terms “fat” and “store” are in many cases interchangeable depending on the market for which the animal is destined. I have also been informed that all cattle exported under the scheme were inspected by officers of the Department at the time of exports to ensure that they complied with the minimum weight and quality specifications.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I raised this matter because it seemed that there was a lack of consistency in the definitions of the terms “fat” and “store”, and consequently it appeared to me to be possible that store cattle which, under the terms of the Free Trade Area Agreement, would in due course qualify for subsidy in Britain might also be subsidised as fat cattle under this scheme.

744. Chairman.—Would Mr. Nagle comment further on this?

Mr. Nagle.—As the Comptroller and Auditor General says in his report, our reply—I think it was correct—was to the effect that the permits, known as Form TT6, which, I think, clearly has reference to animal disease—I assume TT has something to do with tuberculosis—relate entirely to animal health and have nothing to do with the British Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. In this particular case I assume the animals in question were probably sold through Enniskillen mart, which is used by a number of people this side of the Border. I should mention they were our animals, not Six-County area animals, and it is quite normal that they should come in here for shipping; coming over the Border, the practice is, apparently, that the Six-County veterinary authorities describe anything which is not presented for immediate slaughter, and these were not for immediate slaughter, as store cattle. That is our information. We also mention in our reply that an exact definition of store cattle is not the easiest thing in the world. We worked this temporary scheme on the basis of two things—a minimum live weight for bullocks and heifers, coupled with a requirement that animals should be good quality and the kind of animals which could properly be slaughtered immediately for beef. It is true, of course, that different areas in the export market in Britain have different consumer tastes. In some parts of England they like a lot of fat on their meat. Some even like a particular coloured fat. In Devon they like yellow fat; it would be abominated in this country, It is the kind of fat you get from dairy beef. In other parts of England they like something really lean.

745. Chairman.—In fact no cattle were bought from Northern Ireland for export?— No. They would be automatically excluded. Our own cattle all have their own tags and can be readily identified. In the Six-Counties their own cattle qualify, of course, for the full British deficiency payment. This subsidy we were paying was calculated at only two-thirds of the British one and, furthermore, after certification, all Six-County animals for subsidy are earmarked so that they could not be confused with our own animals.

746. Chairman.—Paragraph 51 of the Report reads:

“51. The official forms on which exporters submit claims for headage payments provide for the listing by claimants of the identification numbers of all animals claimed for and also for the certification of the claims by departmental inspectors at the points of export and the listing by them, of any animals which they reject as ineligible for payments under the scheme. It was observed in the course of audit that on a claim form four animals were listed as rejected although they had not been included in the number claimed for by the exporter. The Accounting Officer has explained that this was because the identification numbers of the rejected animals had been inserted in error on a wrong claim form. To trace the correct form would, he stated, involve a disproportionate amount of work.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph relates to a matter which I raised during the year arising out of a limited test audit of claims paid. It seems that there was some confusion of identification numbers resulting in the possibility that payments were made for animals listed for rejection by the Department’s officials

748. Chairman.—Would you give us your observations on this matter, Mr. Nagle?

Mr. Nagle.—What happened here is as follows. First of all, there were 323 animals presented by one exporter. They were entered on different forms. On the back of the application form there was another form on which, if any animals were rejected, the tag numbers were to be inserted by our official. Apparently there were four animals rejected but, through some error, our man at the boat must have entered the four rejected animals on what we call Part II of another form. I should like to point out at this stage that there are two safeguards.

First of all, we had a rule under which all animals rejected were ringed in ink on the claim form itself as well as being entered overleaf in the reject form. This practice was followed in this case. Furthermore, our men had instructions that at the close of each day’s business the number of animals certified together with the total number of rejects had to be recorded and checked against the total number of cattle shipped, as returned to us by the shipping company, so as to be certain that our men did not certify more animals than they should have.

The value of the subsidy on these animals would have been £16 and our reply to Mr. Suttle was not intended, so to speak, to evade investigation. There was a physical problem. We have about 10,000 of these forms and a search through them to confirm that the rejected animals were handled properly and disallowed would be a formidable job. In view of the two safeguards I have mentioned, it is reasonable to assume that these animals were not paid for.

749. Chairman.—Paragraph 52 reads:

“52. It was also observed that a claim submitted by an exporter and certified by the departmental inspectors at the point of export had been altered by the deletion of five bullocks and the addition of five others and that four of those added were not paid for because in the course of the departmental examination of the claim it came to light that they had been included in earlier claims paid to this and another exporter. As the control over the payment of grants under the scheme appears to have rested entirely on the certification of claims by the Department’s officers at the points of export I have asked for information as to the circumstances in which the same animals were certified as having been exported on two different dates. I have also asked why the five bullocks were added to the claim in question, by whom they were added and whether they were added before or after certification of the claim at the point of export.”

750. Have you anything to add, Mr. Stutle?

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has explained that there was a mix-up in the preparation of claims for 51 cattle which were exported in three separate lots, and that the ear tag numbers of five included in one of those lots were erroneously entered on the claim for a different lot. He had stated that this interchanging of numbers was due to a clerical error on the part of the exporters, but it seems to me to indicate that the certification of claims on which the control of the scheme depended was not being carefully done. He has also stated that he does not doubt that the alterations to correct the errors were made in the presence of an officer of the Department, but the claims themselves bear no evidence of this.

751. Would Mr. Nagle give the Committee more information as to how this arose?

Mr. Nagle.—Before going into the details, I should mention first of all that we have confirmed that 51 animals were presented in different lots and 51 were exported. The subsidy has now been paid on all 51 animals. This was a case of out-shipment. The exporter brought the animals in different lots, filled up the application form and as rather frequently happened at that time, because of heavy offers of cattle, he found the ship could not take them. We had a procedure which provided for that eventuality. Another form called an out-shipment form was filled up by our man in which he recorded clearly the tag numbers of all the 51 cattle. The animals in question were also ear-punched so that when they turned up later you would know they were out-shipped animals and you would turn to your out-shipment form. A copy of that form goes to headquarters, which is the final authority for the payment of the subsidy, as well as to the exporter.

When it came to the claim form, the exporter, who now sent the animals in three different lots, entered on a claim form for 13th September, five animals which in fact were not exported until 17th September and entered on the claim form for 17th September five animals which in fact had gone out on 13th September. In other words, he did a transposition. He corrected the claim form for 17th September by deleting the five animals which had gone out on 13th September, adding in their place five animals which did go on the 17th. Apparently, however, he overlooked making the corresponding change on the form for 13th September, so that his form for the 13th included five animals which did not go until 17th; but the records show quite clearly that five other animals did go on 13th September. Therefore, there was not any question of excess payment. The practice was to allow corrections until the form came into our possession and was finally submitted to our officials.

Our officers at the boat always worked in pairs, sometimes in threes, and there were at least two. One of them was always of a rather senior grade and his job was to supervise the men of the lower grades. They all had to keep notebooks so that you had another form of evidence in what you might call those internal notebooks. It is correct that our man apparently did not notice that the exporter had failed or forgotten to make the necessary alteration in the application form in relation to 13th September. This point was noticed immediately at headquarters because they had a copy of what we call the out-shipment form which clearly gave the right information—the numbers of cattle and the dates, so that no real difficulty arose in this case. It has been found that all the 51 cattle have been qualified for payment, which has now been made.

752. Chairman.—Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the Report read:

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

53. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

The payment to An Bord Bainne is accounted for in the accounts of An Bord which are audited by me.

54. The creamery milk price allowance was increased from 4d. to 6d. per gallon as from 27 May 1966 and the special allowance of 1d. per gallon for high quality creamery milk was continued throughout the year. Towards offsetting the increase a consumer levy of 28s. 0d. per cwt. was imposed, with effect from 4 June 1966, on butter sold on the home market and yielded £780,905 up to 31 March 1967. The levy was retained by An Bord Bainne and the grant payable by the Department was adjusted accordingly.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—These paragraphs give the usual analysis of the expenditure on support for the dairy industry and also explains the procedure adopted to finance in part the increase in milk price allowance which came into effect during the year.

754. Chairman.—Would I be correct in saying the advance of the allowance from 4d. to 6d. per gallon costs the Exchequer something over £2 million?—Mr. Nagle.— The cost of 1d. a gallon is increasing as the milk output is increasing and my recollection is that in terms of present production 1d. a gallon is very nearly £2 million now. This payment was not made throughout the financial year. It began on the 27th May, so it would apply to about ten months of the financial year. While June is usually the peak month, quite a lot of milk is received in May.

755. Deputy Treacy.—On subhead C.3.— Subscriptions, etc., to International and other Research Organisations—I take it that the subscriptions to these Organisations are in cash mainly. This does not refer to foodstuffs as such?—No, it should be read as a cash contribution.

756. On subhead CC.3.—World Food Programme (Grant-in-Aid)—may I take it that this takes the form of condensed or skimmed milk?—Yes. It mainly took the form of whole or skimmed milk powder. There was a certain amount of canned meat, canned mutton and lamb for some project in Jordan.

757. Chairman.—Could you tell us something about the Irish Meat Association under subhead C.6?—Quite a number of years ago the Association had a project involving the setting up of a research organisation for their own use and when the question of how to finance it arose, they suggested to us that the amount to be made available by the meat industry should be collected from the meat industry compulsorily. They said it would be less embarrassing for them than to have to go around to their members asking how much they would contribute, and so forth. I think by a Resolution of both the Dáil and Seanad— I do not recollect the year—the fee imposed for meat inspection in the factories was increased by a particular amount and that was to be earmarked and passed back to the Meat Association as soon as they had this research going. The fee has been collected over the years. At one time it was kept in a suspense account, but on the suggestion of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it was put into Exchequer on the understanding that the proceeds of the fee would in due course be paid out of the Exchequer. The Exchequer is merely a way of collecting the fee. The amount of £50,000 here is the sum total of the fees collected up to that date. The meat trade have not yet set up a fund into which payment can be made.

758. How long is the project going?—It goes back four or five years at least.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—It has not been collected?—The money has been collected but not paid.

759. Deputy Treacy.—In respect of subhead D.9.—Additional grants to University Colleges—with regard to the moneys voted and the fact that striking amounts were not taken up, does Mr. Nagle feel that there is a slackening of interest in agricultural careers as such, a disinclination on the part of students to take up the faculty of agriculture? There is evidence of this in certain counties of which I am aware, where we find scholarships in the faculty of agriculture are not taken up as often as we would like?—The saving in this case related to the Dairy Science Faculty in University College Cork. The grant to the Agricultural Faculty in University College Dublin—the additional grant I mean—very slightly exceeded the original provision of £200,000 which was intended to be paid to UCD. They got about £203.000. University College Cork was to get £105,000 for the Dairy Science Faculty. They received £42,000 but the reason was that the additional amount here for University College Cork included a substantial amount for an extension of the Dairy Science Faculty. In fact, the College was unable to get around to this job in that particular year so it will really fall to be expended in a later year, I think.

760. Chairman.—On subhead E.1.—Improvement of Live Stock, Milk Production, etc.—you had a system of testing production of milk, you had three different authorities at one stage. Has that been rationalised now? Have you only one?—There are proposals for rationalising and unifying the milk testing arrangements. These proposals have been made public but they have not yet been decided on finally or put into operation. You still have the cow testing associations doing a certain amount and you also have our own Department which directly deals with the pedigree cattle, and then you have arrangements with the artificial insemination stations for progeny testing. Proposals have been mentioned publicly for an integration of all these services but it has not come about yet.

761. Could I ask you what were the results of your work at Dungarvan?—I understand this experiment was quite a promising one and the results look good. I do not know that we have the detailed figures yet but my impression from what I have been told is that the amount of milk which is available to that very large creamery unit is very big and this bulk collecting system can justify itself in those conditions.

762. Deputy P. J. Burke.—In regard to subhead F.—Grants to County Committees of Agriculture—could you let us have a note on how much the various Agricultural Committees received, as between each county, by way of grant?—Certainly.*

763. Deputy Treacy.—May we take it that the sum of £3,396 less than granted is attributable to one or other of the committees not availing of the full amount allocated to them in that particular year?— Most of this is accounted for by the fact that the cost of a sea sand subsidy in County Cork included in this subhead was less than estimated. The subhead is made up of two items, the normal grant, which amounts to £704,500 under which the expenditure was £704,365, and a sea sand subsidy of £5,500, under which the expenditure was £2,239. This is a scheme operated by the Cork County Committee. It goes back a very long time but apparently during the year more and more ground limestone was becoming available in these rather remote areas and was replacing the sea sand. It appears as if the sea sand is on the way out as a substitute for ground limestone.

764. In regard to subhead H.—National Stud—it surprises me that the grant is so small. I would have thought that the Stud would have received much more State aid?—This purely represents the land purchase annuity payable on part of the National Stud land and which under agreement with the Stud is borne by the Exchequer.

Chairman.—A statement from the Irish Stud Company Limited, which contains all the accounts, is laid before the House.

765. In regard to subhead K.5.—Agricultural Production Council—could we have some comment on that?—This council was formed a long time ago. It has not met for a considerable time.

766. In regard to subhead K.13.—Grants for Pasteurisation of Separated Milk, etc.— are these grants given to creameries?—Yes. This scheme is also practically at an end. It was financed out of the old Marshall Aid Moneys, the Grant Counterpart Fund, and creameries were eligible for 50 per cent of the cost of pasteurising equipment. Of course, any new creamery that comes into existence would also qualify for a similar grant. Otherwise, it can be taken that all the existing creameries are now equipped.

767. In regard to subhead K.18.—Grants to Bacon Factories—what is the present position in regard to factory capacity and the production position?—The total factory capacity is considerably in excess of the number of pigs available. The pig position has fluctuated. The numbers in June last year and the numbers of pigs delivered to factories in 1967 were less than in 1966 or 1965, but if you go back a few years before that, they were actually higher. What happened was that pigs went up very considerably in the years around 1963 to 1966, when they reached an all time record; then they went back a bit. They began to go back in 1966 and 1967. Whether this is due to the operation of the pig cycle about which we hear so much, I do not know, but there are some indications that they may be starting to go up again because the number of gilts-in-pig for last June showed an increase. As these are the younger animals it might indicate that things are turning up. To the best of my knowledge, the total capacity of the bacon factories during the last 20, 30 or 40 years has been greater than what they received and they could have handled a lot more pigs. Of course, the quality of the capacity varies. Some factories are very good and some not so good.

768. Deputy Treacy.—May we take it that all the bacon factories avail of all these grants, which are tantamount to adaption grants?—That is so, but as a rule we do not consider anything exceeding a cost of something around £30,000.

769. Chairman.—Is the Landrace Pig Scheme showing prospects?—As far as I can see the Landrace pigs are being absorbed into the pig industry. A year or two ago there was a re-awakening of interest in the Large White again. There was a bit of a swing back, but the fact is we now have a white breed which is partly Landrace and partly Large White. It could be improved further, but it seems to be doing fairly well.

770. Deputy Treacy.—On subhead K.18.— Grants to Bacon Factories—could we have details of the various grants paid in order to find out to what extent adaptation grants were taken up?—I can give you the total amount paid. The total amount paid was over £400,000 but, if you want more detail, I will let you have it in due course.*

771. On subhead K.24.—Mountain Sheep Subsidy Scheme— how is that scheme going? I see that the total grant was not taken up?—No, but as may have been noted from the Supplementary Estimate introduced last week, the amendments to the scheme have apparently proved popular and we are going to spend a good deal of money on it in future. Possibly the reason is the original scheme, while well thought out, was a bit theoretical perhaps. It fell into two parts. There was a lamb subsidy scheme and it was a condition of that scheme that the lambs had to be sold; secondly, there was a hogget ewe subsidy scheme. The subsidy was paid to the stock owner for grey-faced or half breed hogget ewes. In practice, this hogget ewe scheme proved extremely difficult. There were disputes as to whether or not a particular ewe was grey-faced, and so forth, so the scheme was simplified last year by dropping the hogget-ewe part and giving a flat subsidy of 10/- a head on all good quality lambs in the hill areas of the black faced or Cheviot breeds, with no conditions of sale, and expenditure now is therefore, considerable.

772. Are mountain sheep farmers fully aware of their entitlement under this scheme? Is there need for more propaganda?—I think that is possibly so, though the response last year was very good. At the same time, I remember that our advertising in relation to the revision of the scheme came at a rather late date. We could, I think, do with some more educational and propaganda measures in the future.

773. Could we have in relation to subhead M.8.—Agricultural Wages, etc., Acts 1936 to 1961—some more detail?—This is really the administrative cost of the Agricultural Wages Board. From the beginning this has been borne on our Vote. It includes the main items: the salaries of the chairman and staff—expenditure there amounted to £9,956; the next biggest item was travelling expenses, mainly incurred by the Board’s inspectors; they amounted to about £2,700; and then miscellaneous items such as advertising, telephone, legal expenses and incidentals.

774. Chairman.—We have received statements of the accounts of An Foras Taluntas,* the Dairy Disposal Company† and the Pigs and Bacon Commission.‡

Mr. Suttle.—I have certified them as correct. If there had been any question raised on them, I would have dealt with that in the report on the accounts.

VOTE 39—FISHERIES.

Mr. J. C. Nagle further examined.

775. Chairman.—Paragraph 55 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.—Inland Fisheries Development

55. The charge to this subhead includes an extra-statutory payment of £9,000 being ex-gratia compensation in respect of the abandonment of a claim to ownership of a several fishery in tidal waters. The claimant had applied to the High Court for a declaration that he was the owner of the fishery but in consideration of a payment of £9,000 he agreed to abandon the proceedings, make a formal surrender of all claims to the fishery and accept full responsibility for the costs of all parties other than the Attorney General, who had been named as a defendant on behalf of the public.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The agreement has effectively enabled the Minister to place the fishery under the control of the local Board of Conservators who may issue special licences for its use.

777. Deputy Treacy.—On subhead D.— An Bord Iascaigh Mhara (Grant-in-Aid) perhaps Mr. Nagle might be good enough to explain further why expenditure is £55,000 less than granted?

Mr. Nagle.—One reason is that it is rather a difficult item to estimate. The Board, of course, are essentially a promotional and developmental body and it is possible that the various new promotion and development schemes they had in mind did not mature in that financial year.

Mr. Suttle.—The accounts of the Board are laid on the Table of the House.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 35—LANDS.

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

778. Chairman.—Paragraph 35 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead I.—Improvement of Estates, etc.

35. Complaints were made by a number of tenants concerning defects in their dwellinghouses which had been erected in recent years by the Land Commission using direct labour. In the case of a house which had been built in 1960 at a cost of £1,654, expenditure amounting to £490 was incurred between 1962 and 1965 to remedy defects and in 1967 a settlement of £1,000 was made to meet the cost of further repairs plus professional fees. Offers of £200 and £300 were made in two other cases in settlement of claims for defects in houses built in 1961 and 1964 at a cost of £1,836 and £2,784, respectively, and expenditure of £723 was sanctioned in January 1967 to repair five houses built in 1964-65 at a cost of £15,567. I have asked the Accounting Officer the cause of the early deterioration of these houses, and if he is satisfied that the day-to-day supervision and control over direct labour works is adequate.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I have the following letter from the Accounting Officer on this matter:

1. The main factors leading to the deterioration of these houses may be summarised as follows, viz:

(a) Shortcomings in the house sites, coupled with working specifications which have recently been found to be less than adequate, gave rise to damp penetration of outside walls;

(b) the employment of semi-skilled workmen and the inability of the Inspectorate (Land Commission Engineers), arising from excessive work-loads, to adequately supervise building progress.

Regarding (a), the sites selected were the best available on the holdings concerned; it may be appreciated that ideal sites are not always available. So many factors enter into the determination of boundaries of holdings and smaller allotments that it is not always possible to ensure perfect sites but the best possible sites are chosen.

The specifications operative up to the recent issue of revised and improved specifications provided for—

(i) hollow blocks in outside wall construction;

(ii) wall construction in mass concrete in some instances;

(iii) one coat only of plaster rendering. These construction and plastering methods had an element of risk in not being universally damp proof; they have now been abandoned and replaced under revised specifications which provide for use of solid concrete blocks, cavity wall construction and two rendering coats in plastering. It may also be mentioned that in some of these cases, failure by the tenants to maintain adequate heating and ventilation, and to carry out normal maintenance such as painting, contributed partly to the early deterioration, although the basic fault lay in the standard specifications which were inadequate for buildings on lowlying or exposed sites.

As regards (b), fully-skilled tradesmen could not always be procured; in a remote area handymen or tradesmen not fully skilled were taken on. The Inspectorate are now under specific instructions not to employ unskilled or partly skilled workers.

Initially, it is appropriate to say that the number of those direct labour houses which have given rise to complaints is a very small percentage of the total of such houses constructed by the Land Commission. In the 4 year period in question the number of houses built by direct labour was 236. Also it should be borne in mind that buildings erected by direct labour cost less than similar buildings erected by contract. For example each set of buildings on the Roscrea Meats Estate cost on average £2,750 (not including the cost of septic tanks, yards, gates and side walls) whereas similar buildings erected by contract during the same period cost £3,356 representing a saving of over £3,000 on the buildings for the 5 migrants in question compared with remedial costs estimated at £723.

In 1965, in order to cope with the workload, it was found necessary to increase the strength of the improvement Inspectorate (Engineers) for the Eastern Division (12 counties); this is the main reception area for migrants and accordingly the main area for building construction. Additionally the Engineer most experienced in house construction and repair has been given special responsibility for supervising direct labour building work (all Divisions). Having regard to these measures and generally the Accounting Officer is now satisfied with the supervision arrangements for this type of building work.

780. Deputy Treacy.—Does this mean we will be disinclined somewhat to use the direct labour method of housebuilding and that we will see more houses going to contract? Have we been disillusioned by our schemes?

Chairman.—There was a considerable saving, of between £2,700 and £3,000?

Mr. O’Brien.—We go in for a good deal of building by contract; in that year, we built 118 houses, 60 by contract, 33 by direct labour and 25 by tenants themselves. Generally our experience has been that it is wiser to build more by contract though circumstances sometimes made it necessary to resort to direct labour.

781. Deputy P. J. Burke.—What has your experience been of tenants building the houses?—They would be in rearrangement schemes, mostly in the west of Ireland. We give grants to the value of the skilled labour and the materials, the tenants supplying their own free labour. On the relevant paragraph in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, one point I should like to emphasise is that we are not building in cities or towns where one house in a group or terrace is sheltered by the others. We are building single houses out in the open countryside where there is little or no shelter, where the houses are open to wind and driving rain. On the law of averages we are bound to strike a bad patch and this was just such an unlucky patch we came across here. People are more exacting and demanding in their standards and I suppose in this enlightened age they ought to be that way; they are more articulate when they make their complaints and they are quite right. Faulty works should be put right; that is what we did here.

782. Deputy P. J. Burke.—You have changed the architecture of the Land Commission houses?—Yes: we have new designs.

That was long overdue. This is just an observation; it was nearly like a rubber stamp some years ago, but now you have changed the design?—We have five separate dwellinghouse designs and we have new designs for outoffices as well.

783. Deputy Treacy.—The defects in the housing schemes built by direct labour were attributed to lack of skill on the part of the people who built, and I take it this will be corrected and that none but skilled men will be engaged on this work?—That is so; there is now a standing instruction to that effect. Occasionally we found isolated cases where we had not been able to get it.

784. Chairman.—Paragraph 36 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead L.—Preservation and Improvement of Game Resources

36. The charge to this subhead includes expenditure of £10,094 on schemes administered by a joint committee consisting of representatives of the Department of Lands and Bord Fáilte. The committee, set up for a trial period of two years, is to examine and assist schemes of game development for visiting sportsmen.”

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information.

785. Chairman.—Would you give us more information on this Committee?

Mr. O’Brien.—That committee was formed two years ago and comprises senior officers of the Department of Lands and Bord Fáilte. The whole purpose was to arrange shooting for out of State visitors while ensuring through our own Departmental contacts, the regional game councils, that the production is not at the expense of home shooters. The underlying idea is that the off-season for hotels mainly coincides with the open season for shooting and the overall ambition is to spread the tourist season into that otherwise empty part of the year. The purpose is to develop different types of sport, demesne shoots, hotel shoots and club shoots with Bord Fáilte to arrange for their sale to overseas visitors.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Are you pleased with the development of that?—That was our first year and we sold for a start 402 gun days altogether; some can fetch good prices, £10-£25 per gun.

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

“Land Purchase Annuities

37. A considerable number of the instalments of annuities being collected under the Land Purchase Acts are for very small sums. I have asked the Accounting Officer if, in the interest of economy in administration, redemption of annuities is encouraged and if any formal procedures towards this end are in operation.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer in replying to my inquiry stated that the Land Commission have no fixed policy, as such, of encouragement of redemption of land purchase annuities; that there are many factors to be taken into account in considering the initiation of such a policy. An effort will be made on a selective basis, and at a chosen time, to encourage redemption of small instalments and the effect will be assessed; if successful it could be extended. The total amount of annuities collectible in the year ended 31st March, 1967, was £2,569,812. This amount represents the 526,125 accounts mentioned in the reply to the reference sheet. This would give an average instalment per half year (gale) of £2. 9s. 0d., approximately. An examination of two counties, Donegal and Mayo, revealed that there was a total of 95,298 accounts—Donegal 37,681, Mayo 57,617— collecting £102,899—Donegal £36,785 and Mayo £66,114—at the second gale 1966. These included a number of instalments ranging from 4d. to 5/- each.

788 Chairman.—Are there many very small annuities, Mr. O’Brien.

Mr. O’Brien.—We now have a computer in the Collection Branch and I have been able to get exact figures in relation to this point. The total number of annuities of less than 10/- is 23,000. To redeem an annuity of 10/- could cost a capital sum in the region of £10.

789. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Have you encouraged them to do it?—We did make a test in some cases of what are known as “quit rents”, where the amounts are quite small. The result of that was that out of a total of 800 cases we got 18 redeemed in the year 1964 when the redemption value was 20 years purchase of the rents. Then, with the goodwill of the Department of Finance, we got the period of redemption reduced to 12 years and from there on we carried out a campaign based on that lesser period. The result was 79 redemptions in the year ending March, 1965, 52 in the year ending March, 1966 and 28 for the year ending March, 1967. It had but a small effect really.

790.—It was very poor?—By way of amplification of my general statement, I might say that strictly speaking lump sum cash redemptions are alien to the whole idea of the Land Acts. These Acts were probably the earliest instrument in major hire-purchase transactions; the whole objective was to avoid payment in cash and instead to make an advance or loan to the tenants repayable by means of a terminable annuity. Outright purchase through half-yearly instalments of a timed annuity, as distinct from rack rents payable in perpetuity to landlords—that was the victory won by the Land Acts. On the particular paragraph, I might say that the bulk of these small annuities would be in the western regions where the land is poor and the holdings small, and the occupiers there are least able to afford lump sums in cash. However, we are quite willing to carry out a pilot effort and make a test of it. We are selecting Donegal where there is a preponderance of small cases. In fact, Donegal has one-quarter of all the cases under 10/-. If the response there is promising, we shall extend it elsewhere but all this would have to be on a purely voluntary basis. The sum of £10 might mean a lot to small-holders.

791. Are they afraid that if they buy it out they will not get additional land? That feeling might be there?—I know farmers who like to keep their receivable orders readily visible in their homes; they seem to equate possession of a current receivable order with title.

Mr. Suttle.—I noticed in a number of cases in Donegal people are inclined to pay in five or six years instalments at a time. I noted a few where they paid from £1 18s. to £2 against a 2/- annuity and there was a payment of 20 years.

Mr. O’Brien.—We would accept that in partial or total redemption.

Mr. Suttle.—It is obvious that to these people it is an irritation to pay 4d every half year, and instead of that they pay £2.

Mr. O’Brien.—There may be a single isolated case like that and even one would surprise me; however, there is no point in going from the general to the particular.

792. Chairman.—Do you have much arrears on the annuities?

Mr. O’Brien.—Our record in land annuity collection is remarkably good indeed. From the time the annuities were halved in 1933 up to the middle of 1967, a period of 34 years, the total amount collectible by way of land purchase annuity was £84,848,000 and of that we have in fact collected to date £84,800,000, or 99.9 per cent of the total amount. There are arrears of only £48,000 which are almost entirely attributable to islands where neither annuities nor rates are paid. It is a very fine record.

793. Deputy Treacy.—We will be watching the experiment in Donegal with interest.

Mr. O’Brien.—It is a fine tribute to the creditworthiness of farmers. However, I got away from the point made by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I certainly agree that there can be an irritation where small amounts are involved but it is surprising how a number of people are quite reluctant to pay small redemption amounts and prefer to continue to pay the 2/6d. or 5/- a year.

794 Chairman.—For how many years do annuities run?—At the moment for 47 years; that is based on the current rate of interest, 7½ per cent, and ¼ per cent sinking fund.

795. Are there any annuities nearing maturity now?—Under the earlier Acts, the Land Acts of 1881 to 1896, some of them have expired while others are in the process of expiring and will terminate in the next few years. The great bulk of annuities arose under the Acts of 1903 and 1909 for which the repayment periods were 66½ and 68½ years, based on an over-all repayment of 3 per cent or 3½ per cent, with in each instance ¼ per cent sinking fund. They will begin to expire around 1980 and the annuities under the Land Act 1923, financed by means of Land Bonds, will probably go on to the year 2,000. They are also for a 66½ year period.

796. Deputy Treacy.—Mr. O’Brien has given us some figures in relation to the cost of the redemption of small annuities; has he any figures in regard to legal costs? —There would be no legal costs. If owners apply for the redemption of an annuity we calculate the value, send out a receivable order for it and they lodge the cash direct without any legal costs at all. Occasionally people do, quite voluntarily, redeem an annuity of a sizeable amount if they happen to have the money. I should also explain that in a sub-division case if an annuity has to be apportioned and a small section is being assigned to the severance, then we insist on the redemption of that small annuity as part of the sub-division transaction, in order not to open up another account for it. I will keep the Comptroller and Auditor General advised on how the test in Donegal goes.

797. Deputy Treacy.—In regard to subhead H.—Gratuities to ex-Employees—what category of employee is referred to?— They would be ex-employees on an estate that we take over; where they become redundant following the acquisition of the estate and lose employment, we pay these gratuities. A total of £14,452 was paid that year to 60 persons, making an average per person of £240. The amount paid is based on such factors as length of employment, personal and family circumstances, possibility of alternative employment, etc.

798. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Length of service is taken into account?—Yes, length of service and personal and family circumstances. A married man with a family, for instance, would get a bigger gratuity than a bachelor. These gratuities are generally paid only to people who would not qualify for land themseves on the division of the estate.

VOTE 36—FORESTRY.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

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

“Subhead C.2.—Forest Development and Management

38. Machinery hired for use on road construction was retained for periods considerably longer than originally authorised. Technical staff has reported that because of pressure of other work it was impossible for them to control engineering works satisfactorily, and that road works carried out by mechanical means were costing in some cases almost twice what they would have cost with proper supervision. I have asked the Accounting Officer for his observations on the general question of control and supervision of machinery in forestry work.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I am informed by the Accounting Officer in a reply dated 29th September 1967, and a further reply of 15th February 1968, that in the cases to which reference was made in the technical staff report, he is satisfied that the degree of direct supervision devoted to the work was not less than that given to similar operations in outside practice and that on the evidence available he has no reason to believe that the overall cost was excessive or unreasonable. On the general question on which his observations were sought, he accepts, within appropriate limits, that the closer supervision which an enlargement of engineering staff would permit would be warranted. Staff proposals are with the Department of Finance and these will, it is hoped, meet present deficiencies.

801. Chairman.—Has the Department of Finance made any comment?

Mr. O’Brien.—The Department are well disposed towards the staff proposals and they have, in fact, authorised us to advertise the posts.

They have then accepted this need?—They have. But we do not ourselves, of course, accept that there were any unreasonable costs incurred in the cases in question. I am satisfied there was no serious over-expenditure in relation to these roads and the use of this machinery.

802. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On subhead C.1.—Acquisition of Land (Grant-in-Aid)— are you finding it easy to get land for forestry?—Our prices have been improved in recent years. In the past we usually worked to a maximum of £10 per acre but we are paying more than that now and results will begin to show from now on. That year 1966/67, was not at all a good year for acquisition; we acquired only 18,300 plantable acres at a total cost of £108,000, roughly £6 per acre. In future, the average price will be much higher than that. We will get better quality land, reducing the preponderance of heavy peat ground and inferior land. We will get moderately good land which will give a better tree growth and a better yield.

803. Deputy Treacy.—Under subhead E. —Forestry Education—could you tell us the nature of that education?—We recruit our own foresters; they are recruited as trainees by means of a competition held by the Civil Service Commission. They are usually between 17 and 20 years of age with a minimum educational standard of the intermediate certificate. We take them in at the rate of 30 per year. The first year we send them to Kinnitty Castle near Birr, where they get a year’s practical training; for their second and third years, they are transferred to Shelton Abbey in Wicklow, where we run another forestry training school; these two years are devoted to theory. In their first year they receive 40/- per week; in their second and third years they get 45/- a week—that is by way of pocket money. They do a great deal of forest work as well as being trained to beecome future foresters. After training and having passed the final examination they are incorporated in the Department’s service as established foresters.

804. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Do you have enough applicants?— Yes. We recruit a maximum of 30 in each year. Actually, at the moment, there are 27 in each year. We have no shortage of applicants. We have up to 300 applicants each year.

Deputy Treacy.—The minimum standard for recruitment is intermediate certificate? —Yes, and they must have practical knowledge of forestry, farming or horticulture.

805. On subhead G.—John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial Park—could you tell us what the up-to-date position is?—We have acquired 500 acres altogether for the park. It will incorporate an arboretum and a forest garden; we have assigned 53 acres exclusively to the Department of Agriculture for a horticultural school. We will have specimens of trees from all over the world—all properly identified. The buildings will include a reception hall, where the public will be received. There will be a lecture hall for university students and others who want to know something about the different species planted there. There will also be an administration block, toilet accommodation, etc.

806. Deputy P. J. Burke.—When will this be ready?—It will be opened on 29th May next—the fifty-first anniversary of the late President’s birth. Towards the purchase of this memorial park we got 100,000 dollars from the Irish societies in America.

807. Chairman.—On the Accounts of Saw-milling operations on pages 86 and 87, I see there was a loss at Dundrum?—The overall result has been a final profit of £1,752, representing a net profit of £2,272 at Cong and a loss of £520 at Dundrum.

808. Chairman.—That seems to be a recurring position?—There had been a profit in Dundrum in the previous year. The Cong premises were erected during the last ten years and at Dundrum the building is an old one. One telling factor I noticed about the two mills is that the carriage inwards of the timber used at Cong amounted to only £1,555. What I mean is that there is a good deal of timber near the mill there, and the haul is short. At Dundrum, on the other hand, the freight cost was £2,117 or almost £600 more, the reason being that there is no timber quite near the mills. It is brought in from a distance and the haul is comparatively long. The employment content at the two mills is exactly the same—24 in each.

809. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Is the demand for the timber keen?—It is. We supply it to builders’ providers and to local merchants; that is the main source of receipts. There are other sales as well and we supply fencing posts and portable shelters which go into our own forests. Notice boards are made also and provided for the use of the Department.

810. Chairman.—What is the position about the National Development Fund?— I should like to say that, as the Committee knows, the National Development Fund has been wound up. Our total expenditure was £139,082. The Fund, as such, is finished but we estimate that another £11,000 may be needed to conclude the schemes and that sum will come direct from the Lands Vote in the future.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.45 p.m.

* See Appendix 16

* See Appendix 17

* See Appendix 18

* See Appendix 19

* See Appendix 20

* See Appendix 21

* See Appendix 22

† See Appendix 23

‡ See Appendix 24