Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1969 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1967 - 1968

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin 20 Márta 1969

Thursday 20th March 1969

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

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

VOTE 37—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. J. C. Nagle called and examined.

912. Chairman.—Paragraph 47 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead C.2—Veterinary Research

47. Particulars furnished to me of the work being carried out at the Department’s Veterinary Research Laboratory appeared to indicate that there was a similarity between this work and some of the research projects undertaken by An Foras Talúntais. I inquired whether there was in fact any unnecessary duplication of effort and I also invited the observations of the Accounting Officer on the situation generally. He assured me that overlapping is avoided as far as practicable and that there is consultation towards this end. In the instances which I noted he stated that generally there was no duplication, but that research by An Foras Talúntais on certain aspects of animal production could impinge on veterinary research in some areas common to both veterinary and non-veterinary interests. He also stated that the Department has the principal and basic responsibility for veterinary research. The Department had endeavoured to ensure that An Foras would not become involved in unnecessary duplication of research properly related to the veterinary field, but the work of An Foras is determined by the Director under the direction of the Council and, so far as the Department was aware, the Council had not set up a veterinary research unit.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The projects I noticed that seemed to indicate a duplication of effort in veterinary research were: research into mastitis, liver fluke, swayback in lambs, and brine and water problems in bacon factories. The Accounting Officer is satisfied that, generally, there was no overlapping in these cases. On the general question of duplication of effort in veterinary research work, the Department is represented on the Council of An Foras Talúntais which directs policy and should therefore be in a position to ensure that An Foras does not set up a veterinary research unit nor engage in work which is stated by the Accounting Officer to be specifically the responsibility of the Department. On this question I do not know whether there is any liaison with the Universities to avoid duplication of effort in this field.

914. Do you get an annual report from the universities on their activities?

Mr. Nagle.—We do.

Does it cover that aspect of it?—Yes, it covers all their activities, whether in the agricultural faculty or the veterinary faculty, the faculties with which our Department is particularly concerned. On the particular point raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, I should first say that veterinary research, as such, is appropriately one of the subjects to be looked after by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Act setting up An Foras Talúntais referred to a number of scientific disciplines but not to veterinary medicine or veterinary science. I think that was a deliberate omission. It was also made clear by the Taoiseach and other Ministers when the Bill of 1958 was being discussed in the Houses of the Oireachtas that it was not intended that veterinary research would be taken away from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I think there were certain reasons. One of them is that we find that in all countries the national veterinary research laboratory seems to be invariably located in the Department or Ministry looking after agriculture. The reason probably is that there is a necessity, which is particularly acute in this particular case, to have a close liaison between those who are responsible for keeping out serious animal diseases and the laboratory facilities which are obviously necessary to enable the job of control of diseases to be properly done. Having said that, so far as we are aware, we do not think that there is any really serious overlapping here between An Foras Talúntais and the Department. I think it only right to say that there are what are called by the experts sometimes certain “grey” areas in regard to matters of this kind and I think what is meant by that is really something like this: some particular subjects coming into this field would have a purely veterinary aspect but they would also have an animal husbandry aspect. For example, in the case of mastitis I think it would be correct to say that the control of mastitis is a veterinary matter but, as is well known, the impact of mastitis can be lessened by good farming methods, by careful attention to milking machines, to the hygiene of the milkers and so on. I think it is probably in an area of that kind that An Foras Talúntais becomes involved and we do not see that there is any real duplication in that case. There was reference to the disease known as swayback in lambs which is a nervous disorder of the newborn lamb marked by lack of co-ordination of movement. This apparently has some association with a deficiency of copper in the pregnant ewe. Again I suppose the agricultural research people, An Foras Talúntais, would have an interest in the copper content of the various pastures and grazing on which these ewes might have been located prior to the birth of the lambs. Again I think we would have a common interest. The veterinary interest would be to diagnose the disease and see if there is any way of treating it. The agricultural people might be interested in trying to increase the copper content of the soil; to persuade farmers and the Department to do something about that. I think, broadly speaking, that would be the distinction. I might add that we have a joint committee dealing with another matter which was referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General. This relates to liver fluke. On that we have the Department. An Foras Talúntais, UCD, TCD and the Irish Veterinary Association trying to co-ordinate all work on liver fluke. That is also an effort to avoid any unnecessary duplication. I hope the Committee will not regard me as a heretic and contradicting what I said previously if I say with great humility that some people hold that a certain element of duplication in research is both unavoidable and even desirable and that some discoveries have been made in this way including, it is alleged, I believe, penicillin; that quite a number of teams were working on this independently and were duplicating work and one of them found the answer. I am not offering that as an excuse but I think it is one aspect of the matter.

915. Chairman.—On a point of information, the Department has its laboratory, An Foras Talúntais has a laboratory, UCD has a set of laboratories, TCD has a set of laboratories—has the Veterinary College, as such, a set of laboratories?—The Veterinary College is only a set of buildings and facilities used by both universities. It includes laboratories which are used by the two universities, mainly for teaching purposes. One would expect professors in any faculty of the university to do a certain amount of research and I think some research is done by the staff of University College and Trinity College. We have also our own research laboratory at Abbotstown available if they wish to make use of it. An Foras Talúntais employ only a very small number of veterinary surgeons. The number would not exceed eight, whereas in the Department’s own laboratory I think the authorised posts would certainly number about 40 professional veterinary surgeons. We do not know the limit of recruitment of veterinary surgeons in An Foras Talúntais. There are a number of matters which are not necessarily confined to strictly veterinary areas.

916. Chairman.—Altogether there are laboratory facilities in five of six areas?— Not for specifically veterinary purposes. The Department’s laboratory is beyond any doubt the national research centre for veterinary science and it is by far the biggest. The university laboratory is located in the Veterinary College and is primarily for teaching students. The Foras Talúntais laboratories are not veterinary laboratories, in so far as my knowledge goes, but are designed for agricultural research purposes. There are a number of committees, which look after different problems. I gave an illustration of this in the case of liver fluke. Quite a good deal is being done to ensure co-ordination in this particular field.

917. Deputy Treacy.—I am very grateful to Mr. Nagle for his elaborate report on this but could we have some information as to the approximate cost involved in the operation of those various veterinary research works?

Mr. Suttle.—It would be difficult to do that. You could do it in the case of the Department but in the case of the universities it would be almost impossible.

Deputy Treacy.—It would be desirable if it could be achieved. I know it is difficult.

Mr. Suttle.—It would be far better if there was some sort of an attempt made to ensure that there is no duplication. Mr. Nagle has said that there is no unnecessary duplication.

918. Chairman.—Duplication per se is quite common by having separate teams working on the same project. It is hard to get over that.

Deputy Treacy.—We ought to be satisfied that there is no unnecessary duplication at all.

Mr. Suttle.—I am afraid we have no veterinary experts and it is purely on the subject matter of the report coming from An Foras Talúntais and also being aware of certain areas of investigation in the Department’s laboratory that on the face of it it seemed there was duplication. As the Accounting Officer has explained there are a lot of overlapping areas and it is possible there may be a certain amount of duplication. My feeling in the matter was that this should be controlled as far as possible. While the Accounting Officer has told me he is satisfied in those particular areas that there is no real duplication I feel there is a certain weakness in liaison between the various bodies. It is from that angle I wanted to ensure that there was closer cooperation by the other bodies concerned in this question of research.

919. Deputy Healy.—Could the Accounting Officer tell us if it is possible to have better liaison with An Foras Talúntais and the universities?

Mr. Nagle.—There is nothing which cannot be improved. There are a number of existing committees mainly for co-ordination purposes. There is a liaison between the Department and An Foras Talúntais on animal husbandry on which our veterinary side is represented as well as the agricultural side. I mentioned the rather important advisory committee on the liver fluke which includes anybody who has any interest in this matter, that is the universities, An Foras Talúntais, our own Department and the Irish Veterinary Association. They should certainly ensure that there is none of the kind of duplication which everybody wishes to avoid. Similarly, it is proposed to have a committee on the same lines in connection with mastitis and we are hoping to set that up pretty soon. There is certainly need for co-ordination in all those areas which involve those various institutions. There are one or two other matters to which the Comptroller and Auditor General called attention in his queries to us. One concerns the question of brine samples from bacon factories. I have been advised that what happens here is that An Foras Talúntais, by arrangement with the Pigs and Bacon Commission, have regular analyses of brine carried out for the bacon factories. If they find anything abnormal this is reported to the Veterinary Research Laboratory and it is then that the Veterinary Research Laboratory comes into the question of brine analysis. That seems to me to be a reasonable division of functions. If a problem of an abnormal kind is thrown up then the Veterinary Laboratory is brought in so it is probably true to say that both bodies concern themselves with different stages of this problem. Similarly, with water samples, the Veterinary Research Laboratory has for many years been testing water samples from abattoirs and bacon factories. An Foras Talúntais carry out bacteriological analyses of water when they discover a problem arises in brine analyses. Therefore you would have the analysis of water by two bodies but the tests would be carried out in different circumstances.

920. Deputy Healy.—In fact, although the Accounting Officer has told us about those joint committees surely it would be far easier if the views of the Comptroller and Auditor General were made known to them. I think that would solve the problem. Mr. Nagle has fully convinced us that every step is taken to ensure that there is not any unnecessary duplication. Surely we should be satisfied with having this matter brought to the attention of these people. I think the Accounting Officer should bring the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General to those committees and that should be sufficient?—I would be glad to do that.

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

“Subhead CC.3.—World Food Programme (Grant-in-Aid)

48. Including the £150,000 grant in the year under review £750,000 has been made available for the World Food Programme. From these moneys a total of £509,669 has been paid to 31 March, 1968, comprising £235,961 in cash and £273,708 for food supplied. An account of receipts and payments in the year is appended to the Appropriation Account.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph summarises the contributions made to the World Food Programme up to 31 March, 1968. The Balance of the £900,000 pledged by this country up to 1968, i.e. £150,000, is provided in the 1968-69 Vote. A further sum of £400,000 has been pledged for the two-year period 1969 and 1970.

923. In respect of the payment shown here, I understand that the United Nations determine the contribution on the basis of 25 per cent cash and 75 per cent food. I suppose it is an accounting matter but it seems here that the cash payment and the value of food are equal?

Mr. Nagle.—I think the reason is probably the fact that payment of the cash contribution was requested in full by the United Nations Organisation whereas the food contribution is contributed gradually. They always say they are rather short of cash to pay shipping companies and various services of that kind. Undoubtedly we shall not pay more than 25 per cent eventually in cash. I think the cash is probably paid out before all the food is made available.

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

“Subhead K.8.—Land Project

49. 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 £2,449,692 in the year as compared with £1,777,037 in the previous year.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The increase of £713,677 in the expenditure under this subhead as compared with the previous year’s figure is due to the increase in the amount of grants paid to farmers.

926. Perhaps the Accounting Officer could give us some idea as to how the fertiliser credit scheme is going? I understand under that scheme the farmer repays 90 per cent of the capital cost on a four per cent annuity basis to the Irish Land Commission. I should like to know what progress has been made under that scheme?

Mr. Nagle.—The expenditure has increased considerably under that scheme, from £220,000 in 1965-66, which is the earliest year for which I have figures to £375,000 in 1967-68. I am almost certain that there has been a further big increase in 1968-69. As the Chairman said it provides long-term credit to farmers for fertilisers and ground limestone. They make a down-payment of 10 per cent and the remainder can be paid off by way of land annuity secured on the land. These are relatively easy credit terms. The demand for this particular scheme under the Land Project has been increasing considerably.

927. As commercial interest rates increase I suppose this becomes a more attractive proposition for the farmers? It will remain stabilised, presumably, at four per cent?— I do not think there is any change contemplated.

928. Deputy Molloy.—I wonder why £16,000 was paid to contractors by the Department? I thought farmers themselves paid contractors out of grant money paid to them?—I think these particular payments —perhaps the description “contractors” is confusing, because they do not refer to the old Section B—really cover payments to county councils, for example, for work done in lowering levels of culverts on roads and also to CIE where various alterations of railway culverts may be necessary in the course of the work. That is really what is involved. In 1967-68 nothing was paid under the old Section B. It was all county council and CIE payments.

929. What is the old Section B to which you refer?—That was abolished quite a number of years ago. A farmer could at one time elect to have the job done for him by the Department who would organise it and engage a contractor directly.

930. Chairman.—Could the Accounting Officer let us have the latest acreage figure of work done under the Land Project?— It is certainly well over one million acres. I can get the precise figure if the Committee would like to have it and furnish it after the meeting.*

931. Chairman.—Very good. Paragraph 50 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.9.—Lime and Fertilisers Subsidies

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

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. The charge to the subhead shows a considerable increase over the 1966-67 figure—almost £1 million or approximately 20 per cent.

933. I know the subsidies vary with the type of fertiliser but the cost has increased considerably. Could the Accounting Officer tell us what percentage of the cost the subsidy amounts to in the case of phosphatic fertilisers and potassium fertilisers?

Mr. Nagle.—If one could take eight per cent superphosphate, which I think would be regarded as fairly standard phosphatic fertiliser, in the financial year in question, 1967-68, the price of that fertiliser —this is the wholesale price after deduction of subsidy—was £8 6s. 6d. and the subsidy on that was £5 11s. 4d. so that the gross price would have been £13 17s. 10d. Deducting £5 11s. 4d. you get a net wholesale price of £8 6s. 6d.

About 40 per cent?—Yes, less than 40 per cent. In the case of potassium it is a smaller percentage. This is a more expensive fertiliser. I am referring to muriate of potash, 50 per cent. Again, in the same financial year its price went up to £17 13s. 0d. per ton after deducting a subsidy of £5 so that the gross would have been £22 13s. 0d. and the net wholesale price would have been £17 13s. 0d.

934. In the case of lime, it is just a question of providing free transport?—It is purely a question of subsidising the transport. There is a maximum price attached to the scheme of 16/- per ton.

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

“Subhead K.12.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme

51. The expenditure is made up as follows:—

Receipts amounting to £990,108 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, 1968, was £61,283,270 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £19,317,567. The net cost was, therefore, £41,965,703.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The expenditure under this subhead now represents the cost of keeping the country in a fully attested state. There was an overall increase of about £180,000 over the 1966-67 cost.

937. I think it was last year that there was some apparent incidence of TB in southern counties. Can the Accounting Officer say if that has flattened out since?

Mr. Nagle.—We still have some anxiety about the southern counties. In fact we are trying to take special steps at the moment with a view to mopping up the situation. I would not like to exaggerate it but it is a cause of anxiety in certain areas. We are at the moment engaged in a very special project to try and stop it. It is known that other countries which eradicated TB earlier than we did had experience of breakdowns, which were sometimes inexplicable. At the same time it is not the kind of situation we would like to see continuing or even to tolerate.

938. In respect of the total cost of the scheme to the 31st March, 1968, which was £61 million, how much veterinary fees were included in that?—The veterinary fees on £3 million were £1,278,000.

939. I mean out of the overall £61 million?—I think there would probably have been a similar percentage, very roughly, to the one represented here. As the figure is rather important maybe I could get the exact figure and send it to the Committee.

Deputy Healy.—We would like a breakdown since the beginning of the scheme as analysed here.

Mr. Nagle.—I will send that to the Committee.*

940. Deputy P. J. Burke.—How many veterinary surgeons would be employed?— There are about 660 at the moment. Those are private practitioners.

941. Chairman.—Paragraph 52 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.14.—Brucellosis Eradication Scheme

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

Receipts amounting to £145,633 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 introduction in 1964-65 to 31 March 1968 was £848,332 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £198,481. The net cost was, therefore, £649,851.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph analyses the expenditure on the scheme under similar headings as the BTE scheme. The two schemes operate in much the same way.

943. Would the Accounting Officer tell us what counties at the present time have full eradication schemes in operation and what counties are brucellosis free?

Mr. Nagle.—We have one attested county, which is now finished, County Donegal. Then we have Cavan, Monaghan, Sligo and Leitrim which are at present clearance areas. Orders which provide for a third round of clearance testing in those four counties came into effect on 17th February of this year so we are very hopeful that the four counties can also be declared free of brucellosis during the present calendar year, depending on the result of the third round tests. Unless something really has gone wrong there it should be possible to finish them this year and then we would have five counties free. The intention then is to move ahead probably in the direction of County Mayo and County Roscommon and across the Midlands to County Westmeath, County Meath and County Kildare. In the southern dairying counties, just as in the case of the TB scheme originally, the intention is to try and hold the position there by the free vaccination scheme which is also voluntary in those counties. According as the attested or cleared area increases we would hope to infiltrate into the southern counties but that might be after a few years. By that time we would hope that the vaccine would have stayed the disease and the position improved in the south so that there would not be the same need as there would be at present to take out very heavy numbers for slaughter.

944. It is a holding operation as far as the southern counties are concerned?—Yes. According as older cattle are cleared away we hope the new “killed” vaccine for young heifers will result in a new generation of healthier animals within the next couple of years and by the time we arrive at the eradication stage the incidence will not be very bad in those counties.

945. Chairman.—Paragraph 53 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

53. The total amount of grants paid from the introduction of the scheme on 1 January, 1964, to 31 March, 1968, was £8,797,485 representing grants for 586,499 calved heifers of which £1,147,530 for 76,502 heifers was paid in the year. Other expenditure during the year consisted of travelling expenses £45,000 and incidental expenses £40,690. The total cost of the scheme to 31 March, 1968, was £9,237,131.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This is the fourth year of the operation of this scheme which will, by Government decision, finish on 30th June, 1969. Expenditure on grants in the year decreased by £740,475 as compared with the previous year.

947. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.18.—Grants to Bacon Factories

54. Grants of one-half of the cost are payable in respect of approved works of modernisation or reconstruction at bacon factories. A factory for which grants to a total of £22,398 had been paid in the years 1960 to 1968 ceased production and was closed down in January 1968. I was informed on inquiry that it was not intended to seek repayment or partial repayment of the grants and that the Department did not consider it appropriate to include in the modernisation scheme any provision for repayment.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The grant-aided assets have not all been lost to the industry in this case. The Accounting Officer has informed me that some of the equipment in this factory was transferred to other bacon factories in the same ownership and that it would not rank for grant in modernisation claims for these premises. Also that the grant aided work included the erection of new lairages which could be adapted for use in the beef and lamb export business being carried on by the purchaser of the premises.

The scheme of grants to bacon factories has now ended but it is usual, in the case of State grants of a capital nature to industry, to have a repayment proviso if the industry ceases to operate within a short period.

949. Chairman.—There was no specific proviso in those grants in the event of a failure. Is that correct?

Mr. Nagle.—That is the position. There was no such condition attached to the issue of the grant. I suppose, whatever one might like to do now, it is not possible to create a condition post hoc. I am not absolutely clear why there was not such a condition attached originally. It may have been due to a feeling at the time that those improvements were really urgently needed. Some of the factories were old, rather dilapidated and not as fully hygienic as one would like. I think possibly we felt the important thing was to try and get the improvements done without attaching too many conditions. On the other hand I quite accept that it probably would have been prudent and a proper precaution to have attached such a condition originally. I could not say whether, if there was such a condition, it would have impeded progress.

950. Deputy P. J. Burke.—They were in a very bad way at that time?—They were.

And you wanted to get on with the job?— Yes. In the case of the particular factory that came to the notice of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is owned by a company which I think has about three other factories and equipment to the value of £8,600 in the closed factory was transferred to the company’s other factories which are operating. I am also informed that the remainder of the equipment, or most of it, and facilities are being used by the company which took over the closed premises and is turning them into a beef export premises.

951. Chairman.—But I understood there was an attempt to integrate and rationalise this matter of a number of vacant factories that we had in the country? I find it difficult to reconcile that with the making of grants without any condition attached?— There is no official rationalisation scheme for the bacon industry. It was considered on a number of occasions and I think it was felt better to let the industry work out its own salvation.

952. Does An Foras Tionscail give grants? —We maintain close contact with them. I think they would come on the scene where there was a question of some really big scheme. Our grants are limited, I think, to a maximum of about £35,000 in any one case.

953. Deputy P. J. Burke.—In your opinion did the grants justify themselves in the modernising of factories?—Yes. The results have been good and there has not been a waste of money in this case at all.

954. Deputy Healy.—In the case under review, in as much as the company had other factories, the grants given for machinery and equipment were virtually transferred to the other factory and therefore the money was not wasted. Also the premises the company occupied is now occupied by a somewhat similar concern dealing with agricultural products. But it does seem to me strange that grants could be given without any stipulation regarding repayment if the company failed through no fault of its own. Is it the position that if a company after all investigations were completed could get a substantial grant and could fail through negligence or bad workmanship after three or four years the State would lose without hope of recoupment?

955. Deputy P. J. Burke.—If you had a factory that you could not get off the ground so as to make it an efficient concern, you would not give a grant?—No. I cannot say that I recollect any such case. No grants were given until the factory had been visited by qualified people from our Department. Of course we supervise those bacon factories and we are very familiar with the set-up. I think the basic reason that this condition was not laid down at the beginning—it is debatable whether it was a very sound reason or not—was what I said originally—that it was felt that these improvements were so urgent that too many conditions might impede the acceptance of the scheme. In fact the scheme went rather slowly at first and it became necessary to increase the percentage of grant to about 50.

956. Chairman.—The factory in question here ceased production in January, 1968, and the last payment possibly would have been made in 1968. Was it made after it had ceased production?—I think it was just about the same time but before the notification of the closure of the factory was received. It is probable that it was in the same month. These payments are made in instalments, and an instalment was certainly paid in the month in which the factory closed down but before the notification was received.

957. Deputy P. J. Burke.—You did not know it was closing?—No.

958. Deputy Healy.—It would seem the Department did give the grant as early as 1960 and paid grants up to 1968 and that the last instalment was paid in the same month as the factory closed down. Would it not seem that the Department should not commit itself completely in 1968 without inspecting the factory and seeing how the concern was going before paying the instalment? I feel that if the Department’s officers or those who were giving the money had inspected the premises in January, 1968, they would surely have had some inkling that things were not going well and that the factory was going to close down?— I think a certificate in respect of the work done was always obtained before each instalment was paid. I admit it sounds remarkable but I can easily understand how it happened that one of our men was down there and inspected the new work and passed it and knew nothing about the closure.

959. I am not blaming anyone but I want us to learn from this so that it will not happen again. I can understand how closely guarded a secret the closure would be and how busy the factory might seem but at the same time we should learn from our experience and avoid this happening again?—If the scheme were not being terminated now, as it is being at the end of this financial year, I would not hesitate to suggest that we should have such a condition in future. I should like to put it this way: I think it is rather regrettable that we did not have such a condition in the past. The fortunate thing is that, because of the possibility of transferring some of the equipment and of the possibility of this new beef and lamb firm using the rest, it is not nugatory in the strict sense but it could have been otherwise. We are lucky.

960. Deputy P. J. Burke.—It must have been a very closely guarded secret?—As I think the Deputy’s colleague mentioned it caused a sensation in Cork.

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

“Subhead K.19.—Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission

55. To assist producers during a period when bacon factories were closed a temporary arrangement for the support of export prices of live pigs was introduced during the year. £18,000, representing subsidies of £4 to £5 per head, which had been paid through the agency of the Pigs and Bacon Commission, was recouped from this subhead.”

962. Have you anything to add, Mr Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. It refers to the method adopted to deal with an emergency situation which developed in the pig industry as a result of a strike in bacon factories in October and November, 1967.

963. Chairman.—Paragraph 56 reads as follows:

“Subhead K.20.—Losses on Disposal of Wheat, etc.

56. Provision was made by way of supplementary estimate for the payment to An Bord Gráin of £440,000 towards its estimated loss on the disposal as animal feed of approximately 27,000 tons of wheat of the 1967 crop which was originally classified as potentially millable but subsequently declared to be unmillable. To offset the cost of meeting this loss a customs duty of £3 per ton was imposed by the Government on wheat imported on or after 20 February 1968.”

963a. There was a customs duty of £3 per ton imposed by the Government on imported wheat to offset this. How much did that customs duty bring in? Does it completely offset it?

Mr. Nagle.—The customs duty is still in force. I think the full amount should be collected within a few months. Our estimate is that up to early February it had yielded about £338,000 and I think probably after a few months, maybe another four or five months, we should reach the target figure.

964. Can the Accounting Officer tell us if there are any further deficits to be met of a similar nature in the following year? In other words, is this £3 a ton import duty likely to continue?—I do not think so As soon as we have collected the £440,000 the duty will be taken off. Nothing happened in 1968 which would necessitate a similar duty being imposed because the amount of millable wheat in the 1968 crop was greatly in excess of our requirements.

965. May I ask what progress we have made in the production of a type of wheat here which is suitable to our climate?—The main development in recent years, as you are aware was the introduction of the variety Quern which was bred mainly by the cereal experts in our own Department. I understand that last year it accounted for something like 50 per cent or more of the total. It has proved to be a very good yielder and to have good millable and baking qualities. It does not mature earlier than the Atle variety, which was previously the popular variety. If it were possible to combine with the present good quality an earlier maturing characteristic I think we would then have a real winner. The difficulty is, I am informed by the experts, that while you could breed for early maturing there is also the difficulty of ensuring good millable qualities. When you concentrate on one virtue you can create a vice in another direction. This kind of work is going on all the time in cereals research. The Quern variety is very successful.

966. Deputy P. J. Burke.—It does not ripen until later?—It does not ripen any earlier than the Atle variety.

From the ripening point of view is it equal to the Atle variety?—I think it is about equal. Its millable qualities are good and it is quite a high yielder. Last year was phenomenal as the wheat yield was around 36 cwts to the acre.

967. Chairman.—Paragraph 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.21.—Beef, Mutton and Lamb Export Guarantee Schemes

57. Subsidy, at varying rates related to those payable under the United Kingdom fatstock guarantee payments scheme, is paid on carcase beef, mutton and lamb exported to the British market. The present scheme was introduced in July 1966 and replaced a temporary beef exports payments scheme which had operated from February 1965 until June 1966. The cost to 31 March 1968 of supporting export prices was £8,183,977, comprising £188,550 under the temporary scheme, £1,810,984 in the period 1 July 1966 to 31 March 1967 and £6,184,443 in the year under review.

The Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, which came into operation on 1 July 1966, provided for the extension of the United Kingdom fatstock guarantee payments scheme to limited quantities of Irish carcase beef, mutton and lamb imported into the United Kingdom. Under the terms of this Agreement £944,779 was received from the Government of the United Kingdom in respect of the year 1966-67 and £900,000 for 1967-68.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph outlines the arrangements under which exports of carcase beef, mutton and lamb were supported in the year under review and also gives a synopsis of earlier arrangements for supporting export prices. £900,000 referred to in the paragraph represents a payment on account by the Government of the United Kingdom in respect of exports in the year 1967-68. A further £600,000 has since been received and I understand that the total amount due in respect of the year 1967-68 will be approximately £1.7 millions.

969. The subsidy for nine months of 1966-67 was £1.8 million and in 1967-68 it became £6 million. Is that due to increased exports?

Mr. Nagle.—Yes. There was a very steep increase in our exports of carcase beef to Britain since the introduction of the scheme and therefore the cost to our own Exchequer as well as to the British Exchequer has increased correspondingly.

Deputy Healy.—We are subsidising the export of beef and lamb?—Yes.

970. Chairman.—Paragraph 58 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.24.—Grants for Glasshouse Industry

58. This scheme of grants emerged from the recommendations of a survey team established by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to examine the glasshouse industry and to formulate measures of adaptation to the conditions likely to be met with in international trade. The grants are to encourage the expansion and modernisation of existing units in the industry and to assist in the establishment of new nurseries of modern design. The scheme is intended to operate for five years and the rates of grant are 33⅓ per cent of the approved cost of erection and replacement of equipment and 40 per cent of the cost of heating installation. In the year under review 259 proposals estimated to cost £442,600 had been approved, of which 96 amounting to £156,868 were paid by 31 March 1968.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. The scheme of grants was introduced in March 1967, and is to continue for a period of five years from that date.

972. Am I right in my understanding of it that we have two glasshouse schemes in operation, one confined to the Gaeltacht and the national scheme, which is countrywide?

Mr. Nagle.—Yes, I think that is the position. The scheme to which reference was made here was introduced in 1967 on the basis of the recommendation of a survey team on the glasshouse industry. Incidentally it is being availed of to a considerably greater extent than we had expected.

973. Will this national scheme be integrated with the Gaeltacht Scheme or is it intended to continue them separately?—This new scheme of course is intended for rather big units. There is a minimum acreage requirement attached to the approval of a grant in this case. For example, new nurseries must cover at least half an acre, which of course is very big for this kind of a job, but in the case of the extension of an existing glasshouse nursery the original nursery plus the extension should amount to more than a quarter of an acre. New nursery acreage must be at least half an acre. Of course, some of the Gaeltacht glasshouses would be on a much smaller scale than that.

974. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Are you pleased with the way the Gaeltacht glasshouses are doing at the moment?—On the whole, yes. There have been some ups and downs in some areas but in other areas it has been quite satisfactory. The people in the scheme are, on the whole, keeping in production and are contributing to the export trade which has developed in recent years. Part of that at least is I think attributable to the Gaeltacht glasshouses, particularly in the north west.

Deputy Healy.—We are all glad that the Accounting Officer says the scheme is being availed of. Any development of this kind is desirable.

975.—Deputy P. J. Burke.—I suppose you have a large number of applications for grants still under review?—There are quite a large number still coming in. In 1967-68 £157,000 was paid out to 96 applicants.

976. Chairman.—Is there any risk to a scheme like this in the event of our entering the Common Market?—The main reason for the scheme originally being introduced was the expectation that we would have to face competitive conditions within a comparatively short period either through becoming a member of the Common Market—which now looks more remote—or through some other such arrangement. It was really intended to enable producers to stand up to free trade conditions that the scheme was introduced. We were of course thinking of the possibility of British competition. The British have a similar scheme of grants. They do not guarantee prices for the produce but they have given rather generous grants on the capital side and we did not want to be left behind here.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—It was really essential to have modernised glasshouses, properly heated.

977. Deputy Treacy.—What in the main would be grown in the glasshouses?—Mainly tomatoes. That would be by far the most important product.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—They grow flowers also?—If they want to grow other things such as early flowers that would certainly be approved also and I suppose cucumbers.

Deputy Healy.—I was rather surprised to learn from Dutch visitors to Cork recently that in spite of the fact that one would expect them to produce tulips to the best possible advantage in Holland it seems that we were able to have them at least two or three weeks before the Dutch. There could be something in this if we could exploit it.

978. Chairman.—Paragraph 59 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead L.1.—Diseases of Animals Act, 1966

59. Provision was made by supplementary estimate under this subhead for expenditure arising out of special precautions necessitated by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Great Britain. The expenditure amounting to £134,628 was made up as follows:—

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. The expenditure was of an emergency nature. A further provision of £106,000 has been made by Supplementary Estimate in the year 1968-69.

980. Deputy Healy.—I must congratulate the Department on the successful prevention of the spreading of foot and mouth disease. I think we all appreciate what that meant.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—I should also like to be associated with that. It was a wonderful piece of work.

Deputy Treacy.—It was a very commendable achievement.

Mr. Nagle.—On behalf of the Department may I say that I very much appreciate these kind remarks.

981. Chairman.—Paragraph 60 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead N.1.—Milk Production Allowances, Marketing of Dairy Produce, etc.

60. 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.

The creamery milk price allowance was increased from 6d. to 7d. per gallon as from 1 May 1967 and the special allowance for high quality creamery milk was increased from 1d. to 2d. per gallon as from 1 April 1967. I understand that 66 per cent of milk supplies to creameries qualified for the special allowance. The consumer levy of 28s. 0d. per cwt. on butter sold on the home market yielded £967,392 in the year 1967-68, and this amount was retained by An Bord Bainne, the grant payable by the Department being adjusted accordingly.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph itemises the cost of State support for the dairying industry. The increase of £5.5 millions over the 1966-67 figure is accounted for by an increase of £4 million in milk price allowance and an increase of £1.5 million in special quality bonus payments. The grading of milk for the purpose of the high quality special allowance is based on a system of sampling four times monthly at the receiving points.

983. Could the Accounting Officer say what is the average price per gallon paid for milk at our creameries and our total milk production?

Mr. Nagle.—The average price, I think, allowing for the value of skim and so on, would be between 2/- and 2/6d. As regards the actual mathematical average I should like to send a note subsequently to the Committee, but it would be of the order of the figure of 2/4d. or 2/5d. I should like to get the arithmetically correct figure for your records and I can send this along.* Production of creamery milk has been increasing very rapidly indeed. We had three successive record years in 1966, 1967 and 1968. In 1968 the creamery milk production was in the region of 520 million gallons which was about 10 per cent higher than the output in 1967 which, if I recollect correctly, was itself about 10 per cent above 1966.

984. Deputy Healy.—This tremendous increase in the levels must be causing a certain amount of embarrassment in marketing? It seems that the incentives to increase the quality of milk are succeeding and that the quality of milk is going up considerably?—That is true. The 66 per cent of supplies that qualified for the special allowance that is mentioned here has gone up since then. I think it is now well over 70 per cent.

Chairman.—That has been a tremendous benefit. Everybody in rural Ireland realises the tremendous scramble there is for water supplies so that they can avail themselves of the milk bonus.

985. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Under subhead C.1.—Seed Testing, Propagation and Certification, etc.—are you pleased with the advance made in this direction?—On the whole I think we are. I already made a few remarks about wheat varieties. I think there has been good progress in the case of barley varieties also. These are turning out very well.

986. On subhead CC.3—World Food Programme—what countries were given the grant-in-aid here?—There are quite a number of countries such as Pakistan, Colombia, Peru, Jordan, India, Bolivia, Togo, Philippines, Syria, Turkey and possibly a few others but those are the main recipients of the relief.

987. Deputy Healy.—On subhead C.4.— Miscellaneous Investigations, Inquiries and Reports—I see that tests were not proceeded with here because of a shortage of staff. Has that matter been rectified? Have we recruited extra staff?—I must look into that. I do not know the answer but I will send you the information subsequently.*

988. Chairman.—On subhead C.6—Contribution to Irish Meat Association—what has happened here?—Some years ago the Meat Association came to us and asked us to increase the amount of the levy which is paid by factories on animals slaughtered for export. This money is used partly to offset the cost of veterinary examination. They asked us to increase the levy and to ear-mark the proceeds of the increase in the levy for the purpose of meat research. That has been done over a number of years and in the expectation that the money we have received would be paid out in this particular year we provided £70,000 which I think represented what had been collected up to that time. The proposed meat research unit did not materialise. The meat industry, I understand, had discussions with An Foras Talúntais about the matter. Those did not reach any final conclusion nor indeed have they yet reached any final conclusion. The amount of this fund is increasing all the time. We would hope that some arrangement would be come to which would be acceptable to the meat industry, for which research is very important, and to An Foras Talúntais as well as to our own Department. Until there is, so to speak, a meeting of minds on this it does not look as if anything definite will be done.

989. Does this body propose to set up a research laboratory of their own?—The original idea was to involve An Foras Talúntais in meat research. That is certainly quite all right as far as we are concerned. I rather understand the industry may have had some different views subsequently in the sense that they considered undertaking the research independently. On the other hand we do not want to have too many research bodies functioning in this country. We would hope eventually that there would be some measure of agreement with the research institute which would enable this meat research unit to be set up. As the meat trade are contributing quite a lot to this it would be reasonable that they would have some fairly extensive degree of control over the type of research, and I am sure that would be acceptable to An Foras Talúntais.

990. Deputy Healy.—On subhead D.9.— Additional Grants to University Colleges— I see in the explanatory notes that the work on the expansion of the Dairy Science Faculty at University College, Cork, did not reach the stage expected. Is that only a deferred payment that can come up for payment later?—Yes. This is a definite commitment by the Government for about £500,000 to be paid for the development of the Dairy Science Faculty. It is paid out according as the money is spent.

991. Chairman.—Why are there three subheads here? Why is it necessary to have subheads D.7.—University College, Dublin; Faculty of General Agriculture, D.8.— University College, Cork; Faculty of Dairy Science, and D.9.—Additional Grants to University Colleges?—I rather think D.7 and D.8 refer to statutory grants which are provided for in various Acts of the Oireachtas whereas D. 9 which deals with additional grants, has not a statutory basis. Those grants are over and above the statutory grants. That is the only reason I can think of. I think the Dublin grant would be under a different Act from the Cork grant, which is for Dairy Science.

Mr. Suttle.—The two of them are under one Act. You can see this in the Estimate.

Mr. Nagle.—In that event subheads D.7 and D.8 are intended to give information about what goes on in Dublin and in Cork.

992. Deputy Healy.—On subhead E.3— Temporary Schemes for the Growing of Horticultural, etc. Crops in the Athlone and other Areas—I see there was a saving on salaries due to staff vacancies. Could I find out from the Accounting Officer how is the staff position in his Department at the present time?

Mr. Nagle.—Do you mean the staff generally?

Yes, in your Department. I see under many subheads that there is a shortage of staff at the present time and I want to know what is the position generally?—We did of course for a number of years have quite a serious shortage on the veterinary side and on the veterinary research side but those vacancies are gradually being filled although we still have quite a number. Would the Deputy like a note?

Yes, I would.—I will send that note with pleasure. I think the position is still a bit difficult but not so difficult as it was.*

993. Chairman.—On subhead F.—Grants to County Committees of Agriculture—How are those grants allocated? What percentage does each county council put up and what percentage do the Department put up?— Apart from what we call the 12 Western counties, the Department puts up the grants on a 50/50 basis. In the case of the 12 Western counties, that is Cavan, Clare, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Longford, Mayo, Monaghan, Roscommon, Sligo and part of West Cork, the Department pays 75 per cent of the cost of the advisers. It was found quite a number of years ago that in the Western areas, where the need for advisers would be more acute than in any other part of the country, there were fewer advisers, relatively, than in any other part. The idea was to remedy that by increasing the grant to 75 per cent. I think it has been reasonably successful in doing that.

994. Chairman.—On subhead G—Special Agricultural, etc., Schemes—this covers a heterogenous collection of schemes and the expenditure seems to have been less than voted by £47,000?

995. Deputy Burke.—Could the Accounting Officer tell us how the Special Agricultural Schemes fared in each county?—These are really in the old Congested Districts, all these schemes in the West, and also I think in Monaghan and Cavan. The shortfall in the expenditure arose mainly from a fall in the cost of the seed distribution scheme under which seed is supplied to people in the Congested Districts at about 75 per cent of full cost. The scheme has not been so popular in recent years for some reason.

996. Are they not availing of it?—Some of them seem to be more inclined just to go ahead and buy seed themselves without filling up forms and not bothering to take the somewhat cheaper terms available under this seed distribution scheme. Of course, very often merchants offer attractive credit terms to their local customers and arrange delivery and so on.

They may wait until the harvest to collect?—Yes, that is the kind of cycle.

997. Chairman.—On subhead K.3—Payments to the Agricultural Credit Corporation Limited, in respect of loans—on what type of loans does the Department make this payment to the ACC?—I think there are certain loans schemes operated by the Corporation at a rate of interest which is lower than the normal one and we pay the difference. For example there was a temporary scheme which was introduced in 1966 to help farmers replace dairy cows lost as a result of bad weather. The maximum loan was £1,000. The farmer paid interest at 2½ per cent only but the Department pays the other three per cent to the ACC. Similarly, there was a small scheme which was introduced in 1966, to enable farmers who had lost sheep in the Comeragh mountains to replace them. No interest was paid by the farmers in this case but interest at 6½ per cent was paid through the Department to the Corporation.

998. In other words, you are paying the interest on the loan?—Yes, or the difference between it and the commercial rate. Included in the subhead also would be a certain write-off of loans, but most of it is accounted for by a subvention of interest. In fact over £10,000 of the £14,000 is accounted for by these interest subventions.

999. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On subhead K.8—Land Project—I suppose you have quite a number of applications under this subhead still to be dealt with?—Yes. In fact it tends to increase all the time. Jobs are being done rather more quickly with the aid of modern machinery.

1000. Chairman.—On subhead K.19—Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission—I suppose this is a price support to exports?—Yes.

1001. Deputy Burke.—On subhead M.6— Grain Storage (Loans) Act, 1951—is that not availed of?—No. The scheme was practically in abeyance for some years but this token provision was maintained in case it became necessary to re-activate it. It has been re-activated this year, in fact.

1002. Chairman.—In regard to item 15 of the Appropriations in Aid—Repayment by the Cooperative Fruit Growers’ Society, Ltd., Dungarvan in respect of the principal portion of loan instalments paid to the Agricultural Credit Corporation on behalf of the Society—are those people expected to repay some of the loans?—Yes, under existing arrangements they are still expected to make some payment. As you know, while there has been a considerable amount of write off here, allowing for interest the Society has paid back, including interest, not very far short of what they received. They have quite an amount of difficulty in particular years in meeting those loan obligations, one of the reasons I think being that most of the society’s finance was provided by way of loan capital. Of course, to that there is attached the burden not only of interest but of repaying the capital over a stated period of years. I am afraid it may be necessary to extend some further facilities to it. The figures I have here indicate that the total of loans to the Society amounted to about £115,000 The Society paid to the Agricultural Credit Corporation to date about £84,000. The Department, on behalf of the Society, paid the Corporation £54,000. I think that is roughly the present position. We have written off £46,000.

1003. What I was trying to get at was if there was a possibility of this concern becoming solvent. What are the prospects of this?—I would not like to be too dogmatic on this subject. Efforts have been made to help them by assigning a horticultural expert to the Dungarvan area to advise the apple growers there, to give any necessary technical help and so on. Meetings are regularly held with the committee of the society. I think the society is doing its best but I would not like to venture any forecast other than one of hope that the position will improve.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—This was not a very good year because fruit was too plentiful. As a matter of fact we have orchards in County Dublin where they never had so many apples and it was virtually impossible to sell them.

1004. Chairman.—As regards item 16 of the Appropriations in Aid—Recoupment from American Grant Counterpart Special Account in respect of grants for pasteurisation of separated milk—I notice there has been a falling off here. Why is this?—The American money was available but the expenditure to which it relates did not prove as high as was expected.

1005. The account in relation to Warble Fly Eradication is on page 106. Could I ask the Accounting Officer how this eradication has gone on?—It has gone very well. It was felt last year that so much progress had been made with the national scheme that it would probably only be necessary for the future, instead of having a universal dressing campaign, to require farmers to report cases of infestation and if they did that before a certain date those cattle would be dressed free. If they did not do so they would have to pay for it and they would also be liable to prosecution. Some people felt there should be a universal dressing operation last year but our veterinary experts felt it was not really necessary because all that was left were certain pockets of infestation. If instead of free universal dressing of cattle, which undoubtedly was formerly necessary in a very large area where there was infestation by warble fly, we had this other scheme, it would be much more suitable at this stage. I admit that warble fly can suddenly appear in dramatic numbers again. The response to the limited scheme last year was quite good. Farmers cooperated and notified us of any cases where there was an incidence of this.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—I visited a hide factory in Gorey in 1961 or 1962 and it was terrible to see the number of holes in the hides caused by warble fly where cattle had not been treated.

1006. Chairman.—We have three Accounts, one from the Pigs and Bacon Commission,* one from An Foras Talúntais† and one from the Dairy Disposal Company.‡

1007. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Has the Comptroller and Auditor General any comment to make?

Mr. Suttle.—If I had any comment to make I would have made it under the paragraphs. I audit all those accounts. The re-organisation of the Dairy Disposal Company took place during the year and it has now become a holding company. The balance sheet has been re-drafted to comply with the Companies Act, 1963.

VOTE 38—FISHERIES.

Mr. J. C. Nagle further examined.

1008. Chairman.—On subhead E—Inland Fisheries Development—what has been the progress with the rainbow trout project?—I do not think that the Inland Fisheries Trust concerned itself especially with rainbow trout. It is more concerned with brown trout and tourist angling but perhaps it may arise on another subhead.

1009. Deputy P. J. Burke.—If the Accounting Officer has not got the information here perhaps he could send us a note?

Chairman.—Under subhead E in the Book of Estimates, it mentions “constructions of rainbow trout pools, £500?—My information is that there is a scheme for establishing demonstration fish farm units to produce rainbow trout and it provides that the cost of construction of the unit and the operational costs in the first year will be borne by the Department in the first instance and repaid by the operator over 20 years with interest. There are three such units at the moment. One is in the Glen of Aherlow, another at Athenry and the third at Mullingar. Apparently, circumstances have altered and adversely affected the economics of the somewhat isolated fish farm and we have received authority to write off the balances due by these demonstration fish farmers on condition, where possible, that one quarter of the amount is paid by them.

1010. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Is the explanation that it was not economic?—Apparently, it did not prove economic and there is no great future for these smaller isolated units.

1011. I suppose the possibilities would be brighter in the case of a larger unit?—Yes, there are a couple of large-scale units, one in Avoca and the other in Dingle, that are surviving. A third which was well known, ran into some difficulties some years ago and ceased operating. That was the one at Waterville.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—There was a lot of local controversy about that and special considerations operated there.

1012. On subhead G—the Salmon Research Trust of Ireland Incorporated—have you succeeded in tracing the source of salmon disease?—It still remains rather a puzzle. There is a very representative committee which includes, I think, all people interested in any aspect of salmon fisheries, the universities, fishing people themselves and a unit of the Veterinary Research Laboratory, engaged in research on the disease with the collaboration of UCD and UCC.

1013. I suppose the disease has not yet been identified as regards its source?—The feeling is that it is caused by a virus but they will not declare that beyond yea or nay yet. Apparently, it is caused by a virus which produces a condition of nephritis. How the disease occurs and where it comes from is still rather a mystery.

1014. Is it found that the salmon have the disease when they are coming into the river from the sea?—Yes, and there is a theory that the physical symptoms do not show up until they get into fresh water even though they have the disease.

1015. It was suggested that it was due to river pollution but I think that has been eliminated?—The scientific people would not accept any such theory. While a great deal of work has been done we have not yet solved the problem and even if the cause was fully identified there would remain the problem of how to deal with it.

1016. I suppose you have had international consultations on this matter?— Yes, we have had some well known experts in on this. We had a well known Danish expert and two American professors, one from the East and one from the West coast of the US. They merely confirmed what our own experts thought, that it was probably a virus disease.

1017. Had they difficulties in their own rivers?—Yes, they had very similar conditions. This disease existed here as far as we can see in the late 19th century, about 1880, and there are records of this. Then it gradually faded away and remained a mystery. I am not an expert on the matter and this is my own guess, that the disease will clear up gradually again and perhaps we will be just as wise then as we were before.

Chairman.—Thank you very much, Mr. Nagle.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 33—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Mr. J. White called and examined.

1018. Chairman.—There was a question raised last year about fire precautions. Has that been dealt with to your satisfaction?— We have a full fire precaution system in operation. We have a burglar alarm and a fire alarm based on smoke detectors. We are under the control of the military. I think everything is under control.

You are easier in your mind in that regard now?—Yes.

1019. Deputy P. J. Burke.—What would be the value of all the property in the Gallery?—The contents of the Gallery which is what I am responsible for would be hard to estimate. It is extremely difficult to attempt to estimate the value of it.

I am not putting you on a spot?—The point I want to make is if you were to sell the contents of the National Gallery on the open market you would get a much lower value than if you sold a few paintings at a time. I think you could estimate the value at about £50 million.

1020. Chairman.—How is the new extension going?—The restaurant is a complete success. It is full at lunchtime every day and if you are not there for one o’clock you have to wait a long time for a table.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—You have a restaurant there?—Yes. We have an outside caterer. It is let by the Board of Works and this caterer gives us 10 per cent of the profits at the end of the year but we have not reached a full year yet.

1021. Chairman.—Have you purchased any new pictures during the year?—We purchased one picture which became the subject of controversy about which you may have read in the public press and also a large number of Irish paintings because we feel it is very important for us to preserve as many examples as we can of Irish art during the past.

1022. Have you a catalogue yet?—This is a very involved job. We have done quite an amount of research and we have a record but to publish a catalogue with full details of all our pictures is a slow process calling for the collaboration of experts from many countries.

1023. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Have you any applications for the loan of pictures?—The number of applications for the loan of pictures is conditioned to a great extent on the Minister for Finance’s agreement to the proposal that he should give an indemnity to local authorities against loss or damage.

1024. Have we the loan of pictures from any other country?—I do not think there are any pictures from other countries. We may have a few pictures deposited by various local bodies such as the Corporation, public buildings and some from the Castle. In general, what does not belong to the Gallery is something which is left as a matter of convenience.

Has the attendance increased?—It has increased in a dramatic way.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.

Mr. K. M. Fowler called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1 p.m.

* See Appendix 35.

* See Appendix 36.

* See Appendix 37.

* See Appendix 38.

* See Appendix 38.

* See Appendix 39.

† See Appendix 40.

‡ See Appendix 41.