Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1973 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1970 - 1971

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 25 Deireadh Fómhair, 1973.

Thursday, 25th October, 1973.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 37—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. M. J. Barry called and examined.

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

“Subhead B.1.—University Colleges

Reference was made in my previous reports and in the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts dated 12th November 1970 to the purchase and development of lands and premises at Celbridge, Co. Kildare, by University College, Dublin for the use of the Faculty of General Agriculture. The University authorities were permitted to dispose of property at Glasnevin, on lease from the State, and to use the proceeds of the sale for the development at Celbridge. Expenditure on the purchase and development of lands and premises at Celbridge amounted to £571,000 approximately by 31st December 1970. Towards this outlay the College had received up to 31st March 1971 sums amounting to £465,000, comprising £336,000 being part proceeds of the £442,000 from the sale of the Glasnevin property and grant contributions of £48,000 and £81,000 from this vote in 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The subject matter of this paragraph i.e., the purchase and development of the lands and premises of the Lyons Estate, Celbridge, for the use of the Faculty of General Agriculture, University College Dublin, has been dealt with at length in the recent reports of my predecessor and in the Committee’s reports dated 12th November 1970 and 28th June, 1973. In its latest report the Committee asked to be informed of the outcome of the appraisal by the FAO mission of UCD’s plans generally for the development of its Faculty of Agriculture and especially in relation to the development of the Lyons Estate. The Minister for Finance has now told the Committee that he was informed that no decision as yet had been taken on the appraisal by the FAO of the plans referred to and that the project was presently also being examined by the World Bank which had been asked to provide funds for the development. The Minister has promised to inform the Committee of the outcome.

432. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I should like to know the position about the university buildings in Celbridge. There have been allegations in the past about them.

—We think the position is satisfactory. The land was purchased because we were aware some years back of the position and a building programme was embarked on. There was an agreement reached as to the kind of development there would be of the Lyons estate. This programme of development is going ahead but the parallel development of a headquarters for the faculty in Belfield has not been finalised. Progress is being made with the development of a small area at Leixlip as a horticultural centre.

433. There were allegations about the building?

—There were allegations that money was being spent wastefully on certain buildings and it is correct that in one case at least there were difficulties but the ultimate cost of that particular building is not high. That is all past history and the programme has been agreed between UCD, the Department of Finance and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. There is a generally agreed programme of development and expenditure to assist it.

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

“An area of land of approximately 100 acres at Leixlip, was purchased by the University authorities in 1969-70 for use by the Horticulture Department of the Faculty of General Agriculture and a grant of £70,782 was made to them in that year to meet the purchase price, fees and other incidental costs. In the year under review a further grant of £4,000 was made for development works.

A glasshouse unit for use by the Horticulture Department and other Departments of the Faculty of General Agriculture and estimated to cost £106,000 has been erected at Thornfield, Belfield and grants totalling £21,946, including £15,000 in the year under review, have been made from this Vote towards its cost.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph deals with payments made to University College, Dublin, in respect of the outlay on the purchase of land and on development works at Leixlip and on the erection of a glasshouse unit at Thornfield for the Faculty of General Agriculture, in particular for the Horticulture Department of the Faculty.

435. Chairman.—Paragraph 61 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead C.2.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication

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

Receipts amounting to £2,110,851 from the sale of cattle slaughtered under the scheme were credited to appropriations in aid in the year.

The gross cost of the scheme from its inception in September 1954 to 31st March 1971 was £74,140,745 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £24,365,864. The net cost was, therefore, £49,774,881.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. I understand that the number of reactors collected during the year was 38,829 and that the average compensation paid was £89, the average salvage £55, leaving the average loss per reactor £34.

436. Chairman.—Paragraph 62 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead C.3.—Brucellosis Eradication

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

Receipts amounting to £455,179 from the sale of cattle slaughtered under the scheme were credited to appropriations in aid in the year.

The gross cost of the scheme from its introduction in 1964-65 to 31st March 1971 was £2,991,193 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £826,556. The net cost was, therefore, £2,164,637.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph gives the breakdown of expenditure on brucellosis eradication during the year under the main heads as well as the cost of the scheme since its introduction. I understand that the number of reactors collected during the year was 10,034 and that the average compensation paid was £95, the average salvage was £53, leaving the average loss per reactor £42.

437. Chairman.—Paragraph 63 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“In the year under review, additional office accommodation at Navan and Roscommon was required as a matter of urgency to enable the planned extension of the Brucellosis Eradication scheme to be carried out. The cost of the erection of offices would normally fall to be met from Vote 8—Public Works and Buildings but as provision had not been made in that vote for these offices, the Department of Finance agreed that the cost be met from savings on the above subhead and a supplementary estimate on this vote was taken to regularise the matter. In view of the urgency, tendering for the erection of prefabricated buildings was confined to a suitable firm. The Office of Public Works arranged and supervised the contract, which was completed by September 1970. The total cost of the project was estimated at £43,000, approximately, and this amount was advanced from the subhead to the vote for Public Works and Buildings. Expenditure on the buildings and on furnishings by 31st March 1971 amounted to £38,473.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to the charging of an amount of £43,000 to this Vote in respect of expenditure by the Office of Public Works on the erection of additional office accommodation required for the Department of Agriculture. This accommodation was required as a matter of urgency to enable the planned extension of the brucellosis eradication scheme to be carried, out. This expenditure would usually be met from Vote 8.—Public Works and Buildings but no provision had been made for it in that Vote for 1970-71. Because of the urgency of the matter, the Department of Finance sanctioned this departure from the normal practice. The matter was brought to the notice of Dáil Éireann by having the necessary provision made in a Supplementary Estimate taken for the Vote for Agriculture. Because of the urgency, the Department of Finance also agreed that tendering might be confined to one selected firm.

438. Chairman.—Paragraph 64 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.1.—Lime and Fertilisers

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

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. The charge to the subhead is some £197,000 less than the previous year. Subsidy on delivery of limestone fell some £115,000 and subsidy on phosphatic fertilisers fell some £90,000 whereas the subsidy on potassic fertilisers increased by £8,000 approximately.

439. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.2.—Land Project

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

An occupier of land who completes an approved scheme of reclamation work on his holding to the satisfaction of the Department is entitled to a grant amounting to two-thirds (in Gaeltacht and certain pilot areas, three-quarters) of the estimated cost subject to a maximum of £50 per statute acre in western and northwestern counties and £45 per acre elsewhere. Grants to farmers amounted to £2,699,502 in the year as compared with £2,877,828 in the previous year.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph gives the usual breakdown of the land project expenditure for the year. Compared with 1969-70, expenditure in the year decreased by £125,000 approximately. This was due mainly to a fall in the total grants paid and in expenditure on lime and fertilisers supplied under the scheme, partly offset by increases under other heads.

440. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Would I be in order in asking the witness if it has been brought to the notice of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries that there is a scarcity of mole ploughs?

—This has come to our notice. I am not able to say off the cuff what has been done about it but if the Deputy wishes I will produce the information on this later.

441. Are there any grants for mole ploughs?

—I do not think so. The grant is for the reclamation job itself and I do not think we are giving grants towards the cost of the machinery used in this reclamation.

442. Or to the machinery owners or the farmers?

—No, we are not giving grants for this type of machinery.

443. It has been brought to my notice that in the Roscommon area there are only two mole ploughs available to cater for that county and Counties Mayo and Leitrim. Would that be an exaggeration?

—That could well be the case. The number of contractors in any county is influenced by the demand for their services and the amount of alternative work available for them. In some counties at present it is difficult for farmers to get contractors to do drainage work because contractors find it more attractive to take contracts from local authorities or building firms. It may be that there is a shortage in Roscommon.

444. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.4.—Beef Cattle Incentive Scheme

The scheme was introduced in February 1969 to encourage an expansion in the output of good quality beef cattle and provided for the payment of £12 for each qualifying cow-calf unit to owners of approved breeding herds who are not engaged in commercial milk production. During the year under review the rate of grant was increased to £21 for the first qualifying unit, £19 for the second and £16 for each subsequent unit.

The expenditure from the subhead comprises £4,834,014 grants and £2,412 miscellaneous expenses.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph gives details of the increased grants introduced under the scheme in the year under review. A supplementary estimate was taken to meet the additional expenditure.

445. Chairman.—Paragraph 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.7.—Small Farm (Incentive Bonus) Scheme

This scheme, which was introduced in May 1968, aims at encouraging farmers with small holdings to improve the level of farm income by planned development. It provides annual incentive bonuses over a period of four years to farmers who achieve approved stages of development leading to a specified final target of production. The scheme is operated by the County Committees of Agriculture on behalf of the Department.”

Mr. MacGearailt.—The sum of £274,900 was paid out in grants under this scheme in the year under review. I understand that this consisted of 3,074 first stage grants of £50 each and 1,616 second stage grants of £75 each.

446. Chairman.—Paragraph 68 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.13.—Calved Heifer Scheme

The total cost of the scheme from its introduction on 1st January 1964 to 31st March 1971 was £11,369,177, comprising £10,818,135 grants for calved heifers and £551,042 for travelling and incidental expenses. The scheme was discontinued as from 30th June 1969. Remanets of expenditure which were paid in the year under review amounted to £23,029.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This scheme, which was introduced in 1964 to achieve an expansion in the country’s breeding stock by 1970, was terminated on 30th June 1969 by Government direction.

447. Chairman.—Paragraph 69 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.1.—Dairy Produce (including Grants-in-Aid)

The expenditure is made up as follows:—

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

The creamery milk price allowance scheme, which was revised as from 1st September 1969 to provide for payments on a tier or differential basis, was again revised as from 1st September 1970 in order to give increased benefits to suppliers in respect of milk deliveries in various ranges not exceeding 30,000 gallons per annum. An increase of 0.416p (1d.) per gallon had already been granted in April 1970 in respect of deliveries of up to 1,000 gallons per supplier for each of the months April to August 1970.

The additional allowance of 0.416p (1d.) per gallon on the first 7,000 gallons per annum delivered by a creamery milk supplier, which was introduced on 1st September 1968, was increased to 0.83p (2d.) per gallon on 1st September 1969 and was again increased on 1st September 1970 to 1.25p (3d.) per gallon. These additional allowances are paid annually at the close of the milk year which ends on 31st August.

The special allowance for high quality creamery milk continued at the rate of 0.83p (2d.) per gallon. I understand that 73 per cent. of the milk supplied to creameries qualified for this allowance.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph itemises the cost of support for the dairy industry. Expenditure was about £1,870,000 less than in the previous year. The grant-in-aid to An Bord Bainne fell by £3,640,000, whereas the expenditure on milk price allowances rose by £1,710,916 over that of the previous year. Details of the increased allowances granted during the year are also included in the paragraph.

448. Chairman.—Paragraph 70 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“In paragraph 63 of my report for 1968-69 I referred to the fact that a comprehensive Organisation and Methods examination was being undertaken regarding the adequacy of departmental procedures for the processing of claims for milk price allowances. As it appeared from the Organisation and Methods report and from an audit scrutiny of departmental records that the scope of the checks carried out on creamery records for the milk price allowances and of check-tests on milk for the purposes of the special allowance was unsatisfactory, I asked the Accounting Officer for his observations on the matter. He has informed me of the difficulties in carrying out the checking procedures and has indicated that certain progress has been made with the checking of creamery records. Special efforts are being made to remedy the position as quickly as possible.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The difficulties in carrying out the checking procedures mentioned by the Accounting Officer arose in the main from the transformation of the scheme to a multitier basis and to modifications made from time to time in the multitier structure and in the rates of payment. A further complication arose out of the debarment for varying periods of some milk suppliers from participation in the scheme. In addition difficulty was experienced in the matter of recruitment and retention of suitably qualified officers. The schemes for creamery milk price allowance and special allowance for high quality creamery milk have been terminated since 1st December, 1971 and I understand that all outstanding claims under these schemes have now been checked and verified from creamery records.

449. Chairman.—Is everything in order now?

—Yes. We have completed all the checking to which reference is made but some of our difficulties during that period were due to the way milk was paid for. The system changed three or four times during a relatively short period. Originally there was a system of paying Bord Bainne for export losses and paying the ordinary creamery milk allowance and an additional quality allowance direct to the creameries. Then, there was the two-tier price system and a year later a multi-tier price system. In December, 1971, as has been mentioned, we changed to another system in anticipation of EEC membership. This frequent changing created tremendous trouble in the detailed accounting for these periods but the matter has been sorted out now reasonably well. All the checking has been done. There are some queries arising on relatively small sums of money but we hope to have these cleared up before the end of the current year.

450. Chairman.—Paragraph 71 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.2.—Beef, Mutton and Lamb Exports

The cost of supporting export prices of beef, mutton and lamb amounted to £3,850,325 in the year under review and comprised £3,767,880 in respect of exports to the United Kingdom and £82,445 in respect of exports to other countries.

Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement the provisions of the United Kingdom fatstock guarantee payments scheme are applied annually to limited quantities of Irish carcase beef, mutton and lamb imported into the United Kingdom. In accordance with this agreement sums totalling £1,137,370 were received from the United Kingdom Government during the year, being £195,887 as a final payment for the years 1966-67 to 1969-70 inclusive and £941,483 on account for 1970-71.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The total cost of supporting export prices of beef, mutton and lamb from voted moneys up to 31st March, 1971, amounted to £16,405,393 in the case of exports to the UK. Total receipts from the United Kingdom Government up to that date under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement amounted to £5,382,169. The net cost therefore amounted to £11,023,224. During 1970-71 support payments of £82,445 were also paid on exports of 1,640 tons of prime beef to countries other than the United Kingdom.

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

“Subhead E.3.—Bacon and Pork Exports

The payments of £3,090,000 to the Pigs and Bacon Commission are accounted for in the accounts of the Commission which are audited by me.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The accounts of the commission are in respect of the calendar year. The accounts for the years 1970 and 1971 have been audited by my office and have been presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Of the payments of £3,090,000 mentioned in the paragraph, £2,840,000 was applied towards the cost of support for bacon exports and £250,000 was applied towards the cost of supporting pork exports.

452. Chairman.—Paragraph 73 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.4.—Cereals

I referred in paragraph 63 of my report for 1969-70 to the loss incurred by An Bord Gráin on the disposal as animal feed of approximately 90,000 tons of wheat of the 1968 crop which was surplus to milling requirements. The loss amounted to £1,753,702 towards which £1,675,000, including £275,000 in the year under review, has been paid from this vote over the years 1968-69 to 1970-71.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph deals with the loss incurred by An Bord Gráin on the disposal of surplus millable wheat of the 1968 crop. This loss, as shown by the accounts of the board available at the date of this report, that is, 31st January, 1972, was £1,753,702. Subsequent accounts show the loss at the slightly higher figure of £1,754,336. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries contributed £1,750,000 towards this loss.

453. Chairman.—Paragraph 74 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Reference was made in previous reports to the scheme to encourage the production in certain western counties of good feeding quality oats. The total loss incurred by An Bord Gráin on the disposal of 2,300 tons of the 1969 crop acquired by An Bord amounted to £12,000 towards which it received £8,000 in the year 1969-70 and £3,923 in the year under reivew. The balance of the charge to the subhead, £4,077, was paid to An Bord towards the estimated loss on resale of 1,192 tons of the 1970 oat crop, The accounts of An Bord Gráin are audited by me.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Losses incurred by An Bord Gráin in disposing of the oat crops for 1968, 1969 and 1970 totalled £36,702. Contributions were made from voted moneys towards these losses as follows:

This left a balance of £307 due to an Bord Gráin and this amount was recouped to them from the Vote for Agriculture in the year ended 31st March, 1972.

454. Chairman.—Paragraph 75 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead I.—Córas Beostoic agus Feola

Reference was made in previous reports to Córas Beostoic agus Feola whose primary object is to undertake promotional work for the development of exports of livestock, carcase meat and meat products. A sum of £180,000 was contributed in the year from this subhead towards its expenses. The accounts of the company are audited by me.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The accounts of this company for the year ended 31st March, 1971, have been audited by my office and have been presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas. The accounts for the years ended March, 1972, and March, 1973, have not yet come to hand.

455. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Is there a fundamental difference between An Bord Bainne and Córas Beostoic agus Feola? We do not seem to have the Bord Bainne accounts before us. I understood that our entry to the EEC meant the re-organisation of An Bord Bainne. Is this true also of Córas Beostoic agus Feola?

—There are a number of points arising here. So far as the 1970-71 accounts were concerned. Bord Bainne were a semi-State organisation but now, subject to a piece of legislation yet to be finalised, they are a co-operative organisation acting independently of the State. This change came about consequent on our membership of the EEC. The need for the change arose from the fact that Bord Bainne had monopoly export powers. These had to be removed from them. Much the same situation has arisen in the case of the Pigs and Bacon Commission but a slightly different kind of solution is being found in respect of them. The short answer to the question is that Bord Bainne are now a co-operative but in the context of 1970-71 they were still a semi-State organisation.

456. Deputy Bermingham.—Am I correct in saying that An Córas Beostoic agus Feola were set up to promote carcase meat exports?

—To promote livestock and carcase meat exports.

457. It is a promotion effort and not a trade effort?

—Yes, they engage in market promotion.

The State’s contribution is only £180,000?

—Originally the contribution which maintained CBF came from a deduction from an export subsidy on meat, but with the ending of the deficiency payments in Britain on live fatstock our subsidy system ended and the contribution that maintains CBF now comes straight from the Exchequer. There is no contribution from the trade. The figure we are talking of here-£180,000—was for 1970-71 but I might add that the figure for the current year is £470,000.

458. Chairman.—Paragraph 76 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead J.—Bord na gCapall (Grant-in-Aid)

Bord na gCapall was set up on 8th February, 1971, under the Horse Industry Act, 1970 to establish a National Centre for training in equitation, to advise the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in relation to the breeding, sale and export of horses and associated activities and to perform certain other functions. A grant-in-aid of £5,000 was issued in the year under review to An Bord whose accounts will be audited by me.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—As stated in the paragraph, Bord na gCapall were set up in the year under review. The first accounts of the board which cover the period from 8th February, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, have been audited by my office and have been laid before the House.

459. Chairman.—Paragraph 77 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead L.—Aid Programmes (including Grants-in-Aid)

Provision is made under this subhead for a grant-in-aid to the World Food Programme. A total of £1,300,000 has been made available to 31st March, 1971, including £200,000 in the year under review. From these moneys £1,287,415 has been paid, comprising £369,333 in cash and £918,082 for food supplied. An account of receipts and payments in the year is appended to the appropriation account.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph gives the breakdown of the total contributions made to the World Food Programme up to 31st March 1971. The payments, £201,312, made in the year under review comprise £134,640 paid in respect of food supplied and £66,672 paid in cash to the organisation towards their expenses.

Chairman.—That completes the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General as far as this Vote is concerned. We will now proceed to the Vote itself.

460. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead B.3.— Agricultural Schools and Farms—is the number of students increasing?

—Yes, there is a demand each year on the places that are available. I think that is true equally of the private agricultural schools—by that I mean those belonging to the Orders, like the Salesians—which are State-assisted but which are run by the Orders.

461. I should like to have figures to show the number of students who go into actual agricultural production when finished as distinct from entering the educational side?

—I doubt if there are firm figures but I should think from our experience in the past that the number going directly on to farming when finished is less than half the number leaving the colleges.

462. Chairman.—On subhead B.4.—Private Agricultural Schools, etc.—there was a saving of nearly £55,000. Was that because of something to do with the number of students?

—The numbers did not come up to expectations in that year.

463. Deputy Bermingham.—I always understood that Warrenstown was one of the most forward and sought-after from the point of view of scholarships?

—Warrenstown is always full but there have been times in the past when some of the other colleges have had places which were not filled.

464. On subhead B.9.—Scholarships and Training (including Grant-in-Aid)—grants to committees of agriculture vary throughout the country, some counties getting much less than others. Does this mean that the Department do not give the same proportion of the total amount to all counties?

—The grant from the Department matches the amount of money which the county committee get from the local rates and the local rates contribution is decided on annually by the committee and the county council.

465. I understand that; but in some counties the grant from the Department may be 75 per cent of the total whereas in others it may be only 50 per cent.

—Normally the Department pay 50 per cent of the cost of the salaries of the advisory staffs; but some years back, because there was difficulty in financing in the western counties, the Department agreed to pay 75 per cent of the salaries in those counties. I think this is the difference the Deputy is referring to.

466. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Do staff in the western counties get extra salaries, more than those in the other counties?

—No. The salaries are the same for all parts but the State’s contribution is higher in what are generally called the western counties. These include some counties in the Midlands area such as Cavan, Monaghan and Leitrim. As I have said, the salaries are not any different.

467. Deputy Bermingham.—On subhead C.2. —Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication—does it not seem strange that the incidence of the disease is getting higher even though we have spent some time trying to eradicate it? Do you expect that trend to continue?

—It is not so much that the incidence is getting higher but that it is not going down quickly enough. We had hoped some years ago that by this time we would have a much lower incidence. It has proved immensely difficult as we got nearer the zero mark to get further reduction. It would not be correct to say that the incidence is going up.

468. What I want to get at is that I understood this scheme would finally eradicate the disease—that bovine TB would disappear altogether. That may not be a fair question.

—It is a fair enough question because it is the kind of thing we ought to be thinking about even as laymen. However, our answer probably would be that we would hope to get the disease to such a point where all the testing which is done annually could be done on, for instance, a three year basis, or we could devise some other means of watching out for evidence of the disease. We could, for instance, have more intensive checking of carcases in factories. However, in many other countries where the disease has been eradicated for a number of years they still have occasional outbreaks but they are manageable. We have not reached the point where we can let up on annual testing. In some parts of the country, the west and north-west, we are now in the position of testing only one half the herds in one year and the other half in the following year.

469. How does our progress compare with other countries? There is a feeling of concern when cattle in a herd which have been tested for two years in succession and have been cleared react to a test on the third year. How does this arise?

—This may be a quite normal occurrence because a test is not in any sense an innoculation or a vaccination. It is a test to find out if on that day the animal reacts. Three days, or three months later the animal could pick up the disease from contact with some other animal that might be brought into the herd from an infected herd. The disease can be acquired in many ways.

470. Does this mean that some farmers are not careful enough?

—That is right.

471. Have you not reached the stage that all our herds are under supervision with tags and everything else? All herds are covered by the same type of test and the same treatment. Have we not reached the stage that this is under control?

—In theory this is under control but in practice we have found some who will not play the game. They hide cattle and do not have them tested. Movement into or out of reactor herds is forbidden but in spite of this some owners buy and sell cattle from reactor herds some of which may have picked up infection. There are many ways by which farmers can bypass these regulations and some do.

472. It is alleged around the country that this scheme is deliberately kept going by certain interests; that it is going on longer than it should and is not making the progress it should. I am not saying that these allegations are true but they are being made.

—These allegations, which are old ones, are quite incorrect. It is correct to say that the testing of cattle produces an income for a certain class of people but it is wrong to say that nobody cares tuppence about the eradication of the disease because there is money in having the disease. Such a view is terribly wrong.

I accept that and that is why I was careful about the way I worded my question.

473. Dr. H. Gibbons.—Is there any evidence to show that animals can become infected from human beings?

—This is a veterinary question and I am not competent to answer it but I think there is some evidence to this effect.

474. I would like to put it on record that I read on an occasion that in Finland some years ago when they discovered a TB animal on a farm they X-rayed every human being on that farm. This was done because they have the animal side of this problem so well under control. They believed that when an animal became infected it must have been from a human source.

—If the incidence of the disease in cattle in this country was very much lower than it is then there might be a case for proceeding as the Deputy has suggested. We know that whatever about the possibility of transferring the disease from humans to cattle there is certainly a real possibility of transferring it from cattle to cattle because this still occurs.

475. Chairman.—On subhead C.3—Brucellosis Eradication—brucellosis is attaining epidemic proportions?

—Brucellosis is a more difficult disease to eradicate than tuberculosis. Six counties, mainly in the north and the west, are already clear. Five or six more will be clear next year or in 1975 but the real weight of the disease is in the south. It is not decreasing there and it will be a major job to eradicate the disease in south Leinster and the Munster counties.

476. Deputy Bermingham.—Are these areas where compulsory entry into the scheme is in operation?

—No. We are taking compulsory eradication in relatively small areas, something like four or five counties at a time. The furthest south we have gone is to a part of Offaly. In a general sense everything south of the line from Dublin to Limerick is outside compulsory eradication. The reason that area is outside is that we can make more rapid progress clearing the northern half of the country. The job in the south will be greater because the incidence is higher. In some parts of the southern counties the incidence is quite high.

477. Deputy Crotty.—Is there any control over people in the south selling animals that have the disease? If an animal with the disease is sold an entire herd can become infected.

—This is a practical problem. There is no formal control nor do we think that it would be workable at the present time. We are encouraging farmers in the south, through a voluntary scheme, to test their cows. The Department offer them some compensation if they agree to have the reactor animals punched and sent to the factory when the time is suitable. There is nothing to prevent a farmer from selling in the public market a reactor or infected animal. We are also having talks with the operators of the marts to encourage them to hold special sales for animals which have passed tests. However, this is going very slowly and it will continue to do so until the farmers themselves refuse to buy for their breeding stock animals which have not passed any kind of test. While the farmers are willing to take a chance on any cow at the mart that they regard to be at the right price and to bring her home there is little we can do to prevent the spread of the disease.

478. Perhaps it would be helpful if the price were increased. This might eliminate the type of incident to which the Accounting Officer has referred. In other words, if a farmer can get from the Department as good a price as he would get at the mart, he would probably be prepared to sell through the proper processes. There is not sufficient incentive to encourage him to do this at the moment.

—Yes. If we were in a position to pay, say, a little better than market prices we would probably make more progress but we must take account of another situation: farmers, especially those in the south where the incidence of this disease is fairly high, have gone through a period in recent years where they had to sell off many cows under the TB regulation and, so, had to rebuild their herds. If we take action now of the type envisaged by the Deputy, in some cases we would be clearing out as much as 40 or 50 per cent of a herd and the loss to the farmer, despite generous compensation, would be enormous. Therefore, it is not feasible in the areas worst affected to do this except on a gradual basis.

479. Perhaps, too, it would inflate the price of the cattle that were left?

—Yes.

480. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead D.4. —Beef Cattle Incentive Scheme—can the Accounting Officer say whether in view of our EEC obligations this scheme will continue?

—That is a reasonable question. There are three separate aspects to be brought together here. Under the Brussels directives on farm organisation there is one section which provides benefits to farmers who specialise in beef production. Under the mountain areas scheme which is now under examination in Brussels, there is provision also for payment on livestock and under the general examination in Brussels of aids that distort production or trade our national scheme will be examined. Somewhere along the line all three will have to be brought together and until final decisions are made in Brussels and by the Government here I am not in a position to say what will be the future of this scheme.

481. Deputy Dowling.—The Accounting Officer indicated earlier that a farmer could side-track the situation in regard to infected animals. Would such a person be able to benefit from this scheme? In other words, would his herd be checked out before benefit would be paid?

—Yes. By and large the Beef Cattle Incentive Scheme is not a southern scheme because the southern farmers are involved mainly in the business of selling milk to the creameries and the scheme is not available to any such person. It is based on a practice of inspecting stock and if they are found to be of the right quality, these bonus payments are made. The records of inspections are based on the TB files so that the scope for fiddling under this scheme would not be very great. There is a cross-check between the different sets of files for each herd.

482. Deputy H. Gibbons.—In regard to the grants under the beef bonus scheme, the Accounting Officer is aware of people who have failed to read the card which is left with them after the first inspection. Because of this they find themselves deprived of the grant later. They have either failed to read the card properly or it may have got lost in the house because it is so small. Could some arrangement be made to have a bigger card issued or could something be done to emphasise for farmers the importance of the thing?

—We can certainly look at that and see if we can improve it. The purpose of the card is this: since the benefits under the scheme are paid on cows accompanied by calves, an inspection may take place when a cow is with calf and the card invites the farmer to look for another inspection when the cow is ready to calve.

483. I think the card states “within a fixed period”?

—Unless the inspection were within a fixed period the servicing of the scheme could not be maintained. I think the Deputy’s point is that farmers do not pay enough attention to the card or that they may lose it altogether. I can visualise cases arising where a farmer will deprive himself of the grant in this way. It might be helpful if we had a bigger card.

484. It is a small card which may get lost in the house or even get lost in the post and it is very frustrating for a farmer to lose money because of pure bureaucracy.

—We will be happy to look at it to see if it can be improved administratively. Perhaps a change in the card form might be helpful.

485. Deputy Crotty.—The inspector calls for a second inspection anyhow and some farmers do not see why it is necessary to send the card. The inspector will be coming back anyway and the information will be given to him orally on the spot. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have the card printed in bigger type?

—I take the point.

VOTE 38—FISHERIES.

Mr. M. J. Barry further examined.

486. Chairman.—Paragraph 78 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“Subhead D.3.—Repayment of Advances

The liability of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to repay the Exchequer £396,077 of advances made under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952 was waived in 1969-70 under the provisions of the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1963 because certain fishermen had failed to meet their commitments to An Bord in respect of the purchase of boats and gear. The amount waived has been repaid to the Exchequer from this subhead.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph refers to a write-off of moneys due to the Exchequer by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in respect of advances received. Amounts previously written off comprise £186,000 in the 1961-62 accounts and £217,584 in 1965-66 bringing the total written off at 31st March, 1971 to £799,661. A further sum of £71,406 was written off in the 1971-72 accounts.

487. Chairman.—This is all under statutory authority?

—This is really a sort of pocket-to-pocket transaction to reconcile the accounting system. It relates to irrecoverable debts.

488. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Are fishermen finding it difficult nowadays to meet their commitments?

—My understanding is that the bad debt situation has improved a great deal. Fishermen are now earning more and are better able to meet their loan commitments.

489. Chairman.—We will now turn to the Vote itself. On the notes, there is a balance of £662 written off. Would the Accounting Officer like to comment on that? What were the circumstances?

—This fish farm failed when the owner was not able to repay the loan that had been made to him and eventually the amount had to be written off as a bad debt. I think there were two or three of these demonstration fish farms in the early days of the fish farm idea and this one went wrong.

490. It is simply a case of the failure of the farm and the debt was irrecoverable by the State?

—This particular one was a complete failure.

491. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Going completely away from the Vote, is there any tie-up between Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Slua Muiri? The point I want to make is that I think it would be an incentive to young lads to join Slua Muiri if at a certain stage they could be provided with boats for fishing. Bord Iascaigh Mhara would in that way be getting people with vast experience of the sea, of mechanics and so on.

—That is a very interesting point but I cannot answer it satisfactorily. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries provide specific training for fishermen, either the initial training for what might be called deckhands at the new school in Greencastle or the more advanced training for people anxious to become skippers. As to whether there should be a closer tie-up between that kind of training and An Slua Muiri as the Deputy has suggested I am not sure. This is something that could be looked at with advantage because there may be something positive in it. I am not sure what the situation is at the moment.

492. It strikes me that it would shortcut some of the work of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the money saved could be used otherwise. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries could give the incentive to the fishing people to join An Slua Muiri.

—We can look at that point and see if anything positive can be done. I will ascertain what the facts are.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.