Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1975 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1972 - 1973

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 17 Aibreán, 1975.

Thursday, 17th April, 1975.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY de VALERA in the chair.

Mr. M. Jacob (thar ceann an Ard-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 47—SOCIAL WELFARE.

Mr. F. A. Hynes called and examined.

583. Chairman.—Paragraph 90 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Overpayments of Social Assistance and Social Insurance Benefits

Sums recovered in respect of overpayments of social assistance charged in prior year’s accounts were:—£34,598 in cash credited to appropriations in aid and £24,823 withheld from current entitlements. Overpayments amounting to £8,872 were treated as irrecoverable. Assistance overpayments not disposed of at 31 March 1973 amounted to £153,456 as compared with £128,094 at 31 March 1972. Overpayments of benefits from the Social Insurance Fund outstanding at 31 March 1973 were of the order of £241,000 as compared with £181,000 at 31 March 1972. Sums recovered during the year amounted to £36,831. One hundred and seventeen individuals were prosecuted for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain assistance or benefits. Convictions were secured in one hundred and five cases.”

Mr. Jacob.—Overpayments of social assistance and social insurance benefits outstanding at 31st March 1973 totalled £394,000. This falls to be viewed in the context of assistance and benefits paid in the year amounting to £141 million approximately.

584. Chairman.—This is largely a matter for information. You were able by deductions to recover certain overpayments?

—Yes. Some of them are irrevocably gone.

The pattern is consistent. In the context of total expenditure, bearing in mind the nature of the expenditure, it is inevitable that you have the same problems?

—We have the same problems as we had last year.

585. It is inevitable. Does the new legislation make things more difficult for you?

—It complicates the old legislation.

The only question that is relevant to this vote is—we are dealing with the Appropriation Accounts for 1972-73—the changing of the rates from the time when they occur. Does the changing of the rates from the time whenever it occurs, which is done by statute, as for instance has recently been done, cause a good deal of administrative disorganisation?

—Not significant. We prepare in advance as far as we can. It sometimes causes confusion but it does not make that much difference.

586. May I ask this question? Stamps have been very rapidly changing in the last few years. Again this is a feature of recent years: I do not think this pattern has been seen in earlier years. Even within a year, the stamp is being changed. How does this affect you on the checking of those stamps? The risk of either under or over stamping must be great.

—There is that problem. It is more a problem for the post office and for the Stamping Branch than it is for us. We simply say we want the stamps changed; the Stamping Branch must print the stamps.

I did not mean that. What I meant is, an employer stamps a card: there are dates notified by advertisement or otherwise as to the change in rate and the stamp changes; the result is that, unlike what used to happen, there can be cards in which some part of the year has one stamp and the other part another stamp. Is that not so?

—This goes on all the time.

587. This seems to involve some Department in a rather extensive job of checking. Before, it merely involved the flicking open of a card to see if it was full and this could be seen at a glance. Now it is possible that you must spend two weeks checking or somebody may overstamp. Naturally this should affect accounting. Is there a problem?

—Not a major one. We are used to that problem, also the different colour of the stamp quickly identifies whether it is the proper stamp. Then we check the date. There is no problem really for the Department; we are quite accustomed to it. In the past year we had three changes of stamp; we changed it last July; we had to change it again in January to provide for the health contribution and we had to change again from the beginning of April to provide for the increased rates of benefit from that date.

It is not so to speak a major problem?

—No, the staff are used to it and the new stamps are a different colour. Sometimes some employer puts on the wrong stamp but that is picked up and we go back for the difference.

You manage to pick it up?

—Yes.

588. How many cards must you give out?

—About 800,000 a year.

The important thing about what the Comptroller and Auditor General said is in relation to the total? That is the important comparison.

—Yes.

589. Deputy Moore.—There is one question which I hope is relevant and it is that someone gets a case which is delayed for some weeks and he has only one chance. He applied five weeks ago for payment and has received nothing; the forms were sent in last week. Could we ensure that the money can come through quick enough from Social Welfare? It is only one case and I know there are thousands of cases.

—It is very hard to answer a question like that off the cuff. There are many reasons why it might be delayed but if the Deputy could give us the name and number we could look it up quickly. There are a number of reasons: the person might have given the wrong number or not sufficient information about dependants and so on. This is one of the most common causes, the failure to fill in information about dependants.

In these days of inflation, five weeks’ delay can affect a person a great deal.

—One of the problems we are faced with is getting out sickness benefit payments very quickly; that can sometimes be the reason for error—the staff in the branch are always under pressure and this can lead to mistakes.

590. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead F— Investment Return—what moneys are invested?

—These are the old insurance funds and the funds of the former National Health Insurance Society which were taken over when that Society was absorbed into the Department in 1950. The moneys are invested in Government securities and are managed by the Department of Finance. The face value at present is £12½ million but it is not used. The Department of Finance from time to time sells securities and buy new ones. The interest from the securities, referred to here, is an appropriation made to the Social Insurance Fund. The investment income plus the contribution income from employers and employees is used to pay benefit and the Exchequer meets whatever is the deficit. The other investments are the buildings—Aras Mhic Dhiarmada—it was built out of the Fund and the Fund is paid rent for the use of part of Aras Mhic Dhiarmada. That is another contribution to the Social Insurance Fund.

591. Chairman.—On subhead I—Unemployment Assistance—there was marginally less money spent than was provided for, is that not so?

—That is so.

592. Under “Losses” there is a £1,000 loss, It represents assistance paid in error. That means it is irrecoverable?

—Yes.

How does that tie in with the Comptroller and Auditor General’s note where he says that there is £8,000 irrecoverable?

—I take it that would be the cumulative debt. Any assistance paid in any year which was discovered before the close of that year as having been incorrectly paid is charged, not to the subhead, but placed in a suspense account pending the outcome of action for recovery. This would arise from non-disclosure of means, children ceasing to qualify, patients in mental hospitals or payment in excess of entitlement. The sum of £1,030 mentioned here, which during the year of account was irrecoverable, was charged to this subhead with the authority of the Department of Finance.

I asked the question merely for information.

593. Deputy H. Gibbons.—May I direct the Accounting Officer’s attention to the Book of Estimates, page 162. There is a table there showing estimated accounts included in other Estimates in connection with this service. I wonder what exactly that means? I pick out one or two of them—they are not shown separately—for example, the one for the Revenue Commissioners. Why are they not included?

—This would be payment for agency services from other Departments—the Stationery Office, for supplies of stationery; the Revenue Commissioners for printing of stamps, for Public Works, and superannuation of retired officers. Expenditure in the Department is apportioned between money proper to the insurance fund and money proper to the Exchequer. Part of the salary of every officer, and pensions, are apportioned as between what should be paid for out of the social insurance fund and paid for from the Exchequer. This is part of the apportionment of the costs there.

594. Deputy C. Murphy.—Could I ask a general question? In the case of a blind child— the child would be entitled to children’s allowances up to the age of 18 years and after that he would not qualify for a blind pension until he reached the age of 21 years—is there any interim provision to cover the intervening three years?

—We would have no such provision; it would come under the Department of Health.

Generally, would you find many people coming within that category, who would be cut off from allowances?

—The number would be relatively small. The problem has not come to our notice anyway. The Deputy is the first person I heard mentioning it.

I have information that in October children’s allowance is to be cut off from a young girl and she will not get a blind person’s pension until she is 21 years of age. An explanation is required, so that appropriate steps can be taken to help her.

—No, it does not come within our day-today operations. We have no service to cover it at the moment.

It would not cost very much to have children’s allowances carried on until such persons reached 21 years of age

—No, it would not cost very much, but it would require legislation.

Chairman.—It is one of the gaps in our legislation and the Deputy is perfectly in order in raising the matter here because it is a relatively small administrative matter. We suggest to you that you take note of it for use when future legislation is being drafted.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 37—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. M. J. Barry called and examined.

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

“Subhead C.2.—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication

Subhead C.3.—Brucellosis Eradication

The expenditure under subhead C.2.— Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication—is made up as follows:—

Receipts, amounting to £2,653,418, from the sale of cattle slaughtered under the scheme were credited to appropriations in aid.

The gross cost of the scheme from its inception in September 1954 to 31 March 1973 was £87,014,982 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £29,131,979. The net cost was, therefore £57,883,003.

The expenditure under subhead C.3.— Brucellosis Eradication—is made up as follows:—

Receipts, amounting to £1,377,893, from the sale of cattle slaughtered under the scheme were credited to appropriations in aid.

The gross cost of the scheme from its introduction in July 1966 amounted to £9,785,661 at 31 March 1973 and receipts from the disposal of cattle for slaughter were £3,451,174. The net cost was, therefore, £6,334,487.”

Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph gives details of expenditure under both schemes during the year and also gives details of the cost of the schemes from their inception up to 31st March, 1973.

596. Chairman.—Last year we had quite a discussion on brucellosis here and on its effect on humans. This is more in Deputy Gibbons’s line of country than mine. What is the present position under the scheme? How much progress has been made with the eradication? I am speaking from memory now, but there were difficulties referred to last year in implementation and some anxiety expressed by your Department that the measures were not as effective as you would wish.

—On two scores—that the programme was not being adopted as liberally as we would wish and we had some problems about outbreaks in clear areas. The second one is, I think, normal experience elsewhere. The first problem is a grave one and it is still with us. While we have virtually eradicated the disease in certain counties, and while we are eradicating under compulsion in other counties, the real reservoir of the disease is in the south of Ireland and we are not able to begin compulsory eradication in those areas yet.

Essentially the situation is as it was last year and you are still concerned about it?

—Yes. We must continue to be concerned but we are making progress. Although we are not declaring nor do we propose to declare any new counties clear in the course of this calendar year, we are making definite progress in them. The job must be finished in those counties. We are going to have bigger trouble and greater expense when we come to the dairying areas in the south of Ireland.

597. Deputy H. Gibbons.—What effect would the bringing of calves from the south to the west and other places have and what control is exercised? Are you satisfied that it is as strict as is humanly possible?

—Yes, we are completely happy on the degree of control in movements of livestock, but we can always be beaten by anybody who chooses to do so. We have propaganda and regulations of one kind or another. We have gone as far as we can reasonably go in the control of movements of livestock. When we discussed this on another occasion here, I said there was not a completely unanimous opinion that young male calves were of any great consequence in regard to spreading the disease.

598. Chairman.—Have you any information to indicate whether, quite apart from the agricultural aspect, that is the animals themselves, there is any correlation between the picture that you see in your Department in regard to this disease and the incidence of brucellosis in humans?

—Yes. We have a committee working with the Department of Health on the matter.

How do you see the picture at the moment?

—The medical side, as far as I can judge, are becoming increasingly conscious of the danger to humans from the existence of this disease in the country. It applies indirectly through the use of milk and it applies directly to farmers and veterinary people who physically handle diseased cattle. It is a problem until the disease is cleared up.

599. The point of my question really is, is it an increasing problem? I know it is a problem, but is it getting more acute or is it static?

—I do not think I am able to give you a satisfactory answer on that because it is possible that the danger which we are now conscious of was always there but we were not sufficiently aware of it.

In other words, more time is needed to resolve that picture.

—Yes.

600. Deputy H. Gibbons.—What is the position about wildlife? It is now suggested that the badger might be a source of brucellosis. I was wondering if this has been nailed yet?

—In answer to the Deputy’s question, some research or experimental work has been done in Britain. The gist of it seems to be that the badger is a carrier in a real sense. We have not done any research on this here but if it is true in England I suppose it would be equally true here. We cannot say from our experience to what extent the badger is responsible for spreading the disease here.

601. Deputy Moore.—Would you accept that it is, in fact, a carrier?

—One piece of research says yes but there will be from the other side more research which will probably contradict that. We get this from time to time.

We will not start killing the badger yet?

—I do not think we have so many to kill.

602. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Has any postmortem been done on badger carcases at all?

—I should not think so.

Chairman.—Would it be a good idea?

—I do not know the answer to the question, I cannot say just how many badgers are killed or who kills them.

603. It is a serious and important subject. The main concern of this Committee is that the funds that are voted are administered properly and I take it from the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that this is so.

Mr. Jacob.—Yes.

604. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Is there any record or suggestions of other birds or animals contributing to the spread of the disease?

—If it is accepted that other animals do carry it, then the most common one is likely to be a dog. Everyone has a dog and dogs in the countryside go roaming in other people’s land. They are likely to be the most common carriers, other than bovines.

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

“In the course of audit it was observed that a quarterly contract for the purchase of reactor cattle from the Department of Agriculture under the Bovine Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Eradication Schemes was not awarded to the firm which had submitted the highest tender. The relevant departmental file indicated that this tender was not accepted because the outturn of salvage weights of reactors slaughtered under contract by this firm during a period immediately preceding the quarter in question compared unfavourably with weight outturns in previous years from other firms and with outturns estimated by officers of the Department. It appeared from the departmental file that the estimated shortfall was 100 lbs. per animal and I asked the Accounting Officer whether an assessment of the financial loss arising from the allocation of contracts to this firm had been made. He has informed me that it would be impossible to produce a realistic estimate of the loss believed to have been sustained. He states that while the analysis, on which the shortfall was based, was useful in indicating that the Department lost money it was not possible to quantify the loss or to substantiate that such a loss was actually suffered.”

Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph is self-explanatory. I have no further comment to make.

606. Chairman.—Has the witness any comment to make on paragraph 59?

—It illustrates a continuing problem we have with some firms who are usually one step ahead of us. In this case the firm which quoted the highest price per pound was not, we discovered, returning the best price per animal, the reason being that by excessively trimming the carcase in the course of dressing it, or by some other means the outturn for the animal was not as good as it might be. We introduced a system of checking related to the previous quarter’s performance to find out what factories were, in fact, paying us more for the animals, as distinct from the prices quoted per pound. This is what the auditor has noted and commented on here.

607. Obviously you are in control of your situation and this is the type of problem that can arise. The comment I would like to make, and perhaps other members of the Committee will agree with me on this, is that Department heads and indeed executives in Departments will occasionally be up against problems where the mere form of adhering to a rule, for example taking the lowest tender, has to be modified by the realities of the situation. It is here that the mechanism between the Accounting Officer and the Comptroller and Auditor General is important, that the Auditor General draws attention to such—they are not irregularities, they are perfectly regular—problems. The Accounting Officer gives us his reasons and explanation. Everybody is safeguarded and satisfied with the operation. The Committee are satisfied with this.

Deputy H. Gibbons.—We should congratulate the Department on having such detectives. Was there more than one company concerned?

—This instance happened with one company.

Chairman.—I join with Deputy Gibbons in congratulating the Department. This is a model on how to deal with these housekeeping rules, dealing with the realism of the situation.

608. Deputy Toal.—In regard to movement of these reactor cattle from one county to another, via factories, would that not be a contributing factor in the spreading of this disease? Take the case of factories competing for the purchase of reactor cattle.

—I think I get the point. Factories offer tenders and once a tender is accepted the competition ends. We do not have factories competing any more within a county for animals. The truck collects the animals at an appointed time and place. They are taken direct to the factory. The risk of contamination between that collection point and the factory premises is very slight. The truck is disinfected afterwards. The competition starts with the offering of tenders. Tenders are offered for areas and factory A gets the exclusive right to collect all the reactors in perhaps five counties.

609. Is that system watertight? I would like to believe that factories competing for reactor cattle were not going down south and vice versa.

—This is true; but they are not competing for the individual animals. They are competing for the right to collect all the reactors in a particular area. We are talking now about the situation under compulsory eradication of brucellosis. What you may be thinking about is something that can happen where brucellosis in the south is being eradicated on a voluntary basis. Farmers are free to sell indentified reactors to factories. It is possible that factories are competing for those cattle.

610. Chairman.—Perhaps I should have taken paragraph 60 as well. Paragraph 60 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“I noted that, in the course of a departmental investigation into the shortfall in the salvage weights of reactors slaughtered by the firm referred to in the previous paragraph, it appeared to the Department’s local officers that switching of ear tags was being practised and that the Department was being paid salvage in respect of the weights of lighter animals purchased independently to which the ear tags of heavier reactors had been transferred. I accordingly inquired whether adequate procedures were in operation to ensure that irregularities in regard to the payment of compensation did not arise from the interchanging of ear tags. I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that it was known that tag switching was practised to some degree but that it was difficult to detect evidence of this and that it was not possible to ascertain who was responsible for the irregularity. I have also been informed that the practice of branding reactors at the time of valuation has been revived, that arrangements were being made for the recall and replacement of the identity cards of the whole cattle population of the country and that continuous efforts are being made to obtain a tamper-proof tag. The Accounting Officer has further stated that these are the only practicable steps that can be taken to reduce to a minimum losses arising from the interchanging of ear tags.”

Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph indicates that the Department investigated the shortfall in the salvage weights of reactors slaughtered by the firms referred to in the previous paragraph and its local officers considered that ear tag switching was being practised. The Accounting Officer has outlined the practical steps taken to reduce to a minimum losses arising from the interchanging of ear tags.

Chairman.—I think Deputy Gibbons is correct in what he said.

611. Deputy Toal.—Have the Department made any progress in securing a tamper-proof tag?

—We have made many efforts to get a better tag. The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards have been working on this for some time. We have been experimenting with some tags. We had an American tag which seemed first class but some of our staff demonstrated how readily they could open it. We had contacts with a Swiss firm but even before we had completed our trials we found that the price they proposed to charge was exorbitant.

Chairman.—I should emphasise again that it is a great protection for all three parties involved if this type of procedure is adopted. There are rules concerning lowest tender and so on. These are principles to be applied for the sake of the integrity of the service. When problems are solved in this way and the matters disclosed to the Comptroller and Auditor General this is a most satisfactory way of dealing with it. We are noting this and we will probably quote it to other Accounting Officers.

Deputy H. Gibbons.—This is a very important matter. There seems to be no way in which this information can be made available to the public. If those paragraphs could be submitted to the newspapers, which of course would not be acceptable, it would help.

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

“Departmental veterinary officers at the factories of firms which purchase reactors are responsible for checking the delivery of reactors and for verifying their salvage weights when slaughtered. In the course of audit I noted that, in the case of seven reactors delivered to the factory of the firm referred to in paragraphs 59 and 60, the Department’s officer reported that he had no record of the animals being slaughtered although the firm supplied salvage weights for their carcases. I inquired whether any further investigation was carried out in this case and whether it was established that the full amount due in respect of salvage for these reactors was received. The Accounting Officer informed me that it was not possible to carry out any further investigation in this case, that the seven animals were delivered to the factory at night and were not checked in by the Department’s staff and that payment of salvage had to be accepted at the weights recorded by the firm.”

Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph illustrates a further type of case or difficulty in which the Department found themselves. We asked the Accounting Officer to give some further information in regard to the matter. At this stage I have nothing further to add to what is reported in the paragraph.

613. Chairman.—Has the Accounting Officer anything further to say?

—Nothing of consequence. We would not attach great importance to this kind of thing. What happened here is that certain animals went through the factory without being documented adequately. In this particular year, 1972-73, we handled something over 33,000 cattle in all. With that level of general activity, the fact that a few slipped through without adequate documentation would not seem to us to be a very big issue. There was no evidence of any switching or fiddling. Sometimes there can be and there is always the possibility that if we buy heavy cattle and if these can be switched and lighter ones put in we pay for the heavy ones and get paid for the lighter ones. We can be defrauded.

In principle of course we must take the attitude that there must be 100 per cent accuracy in such matters but, just as with the Accounting Officer who was here earlier this morning, the relationship to numbers is completely understood and accepted. Any further question?

Deputy H. Gibbons.—We should emphasise that it is the same firm that is concerned.

614. Chairman.—Paragraph 62 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:—

The records of fertiliser manufacturers and importers are inspected by officers of the Department in order to verify claims for subsidy and their reports are available to me. Reference was made in paragraph 52 of the report on the accounts for 1968-69 to delays in carrying out these inspections and to an assurance given by the then Accounting Officer that the checking procedures would be brought up to date. In April 1972 a report furnished by the Organisation and Methods Section of the Department of Finance recommended the introduction of an internal audit system on a continuous basis in connection with payments of fertiliser subsidy and I inquired whether it was intended to implement this recommendation. The Accounting Officer informed me in September 1973 that the examination of the Organisation and Methods report had not yet been completed. I also drew the attention of the Accounting Officer to the fact that the inspection of records by officers of his Department was again falling into arrear. He has informed me that inspections had been delayed because of staff changes and vacancies, that the position was being recovered and that checking would be continued and intensified until inspections are brought up to date for all the firms concerned. A statement of the position at 31 July 1973, which he submitted to me, shows that the inspections had been brought up to date in the case of some firms.”

Mr. Jacob.—The Accounting Officer has since informed me that the problem of arrears should not arise again because of the introduction of a new arrangement whereby all subsidy claims will have been fully audited and certified by his staff before payment of subsidy. This arrangement appears to be working satisfactorily.

—The position now is as the Comptroller and Auditor General has stated. All arrears have been cleared up. The new system that we operate under seems to be giving general satisfaction.

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

“Subhead D.2.—Land Project

The payments made in the year under this subhead 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 north-western counties and £45 per acre elsewhere. Grants to farmers amounted to £2,698,439 in the year as compared with £3,219,259 in the previous year. The scheme was introduced in 1949 and it was originally estimated that 4.5 million acres required reclamation. Statistics available show that 2,203,000 acres had been reclaimed by 31 March 1973.”

Mr. Jacob.—This scheme has been discontinued since the 1st February, 1974 and is now incorporated in the Farm Modernisation Scheme.

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

“Subhead E.1.—An Bord Bainne (Grant-in-Aid)

An Bord Bainne was established under the Dairy Produce Marketing Act, 1961 which provided that not more than two-thirds of the losses incurred and of the subsidies paid by the Board in connection with the export of dairy products might be met by the Exchequer. The Board’s losses on the export of these products increased substantially from 1 December 1971 as a result of the restructuring of the system of Exchequer support for the dairy industry on a basis more appropriate to European Economic Community conditions. The Dairy Produce (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1973, enacted in August 1973, repealed, with retrospective effect from 1 April 1972, the two-thirds limit fixed by the Act of 1961 on the Exchequer subvention.

The charge to the subhead represents the grant-in-aid moneys paid to An Bord Bainne in respect of:—

(a) the estimated cost of subsidies on home-consumed dairy products— these subsidies were introduced as part of the restructuring mentioned above and continued to be payable up to 31 January 1973. In accordance with the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Communities subsidies on home-consumed dairy products other than butter ceased to be payable after that date. Under special arrangements, subsidy on home-consumed butter will be progressively phased out by 1978;

(b) the estimated losses on exports of dairy products to 31 January 1973— payments from State funds towards such losses are not permissible after that date under the Common Agricultural Policy;

(c) market promotion—contribution towards expenditure incurred on market promotion by An Bord Bainne.

From 1 February 1973 the Board’s marketing activities are being carried out by An Bord Bainne Co-operative Ltd., a society established by the dairy industry and registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. The Dairy Produce (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1973, provides for the transfer, on a date to be appointed by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, of the property of An Bord Bainne to An Bord Bainne Co-operative Ltd., and for the dissolution of An Bord Bainne as a statutory board. The Minister has not yet appointed this date.”

Mr. Jacob.—An Bord Bainne was recently dissolved. Its assets and liabilities were taken over by An Bord Bainne Co-operative Limited.

617. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Would the Accounting Officer make a brief statement of what difference this causes now in marketing?

—Yes, if I may. What is described here is really some practical difficulties that arose in the transfer or changeover from a system we had operated to a system we had to introduce when we joined the EEC. As far as the marketing of milk is concerned, the main difference is that our Exchequer is relieved of the cost of milk subsidies and these are applied from Brussels funds basically to two commodities; one is butter and the other is skimmed milk powder. Intervention buying of these two products is the medium through which a minimum milk price is guaranteed. Export subsidies and other aids are provided by FEOGA to assist in the marketing of other milk products such as cheese, etc. which are not eligible for intervention purchase. Bord Bainne as it now stands, with all the formalities finally completed, is no longer a semi-State organisation in any sense. It is a co-operative of the creamery co-operatives. That is the essential difference that has been made in the past couple of years. In the process of making that change, there was quite a tangled job to sort out our previous relations with Bord Bainne, to sort out bits and pieces of financial transactions and finally to wind it all up. All this has now been done. Bord Bainne is now an independent organisation, a co-operative of the other co-operatives and is financed by them. It is the principal channel through which Brussels funds are directed into the milk industry and to the producers of milk, but it no longer enjoys a statutory export monopoly for dairy products.

618. Do I understand that the money from Brussels is paid into An Bord Bainne Co-operative now rather than into the Exchequer?

—I am not sure whether it passes through the Exchequer or not. This is a technical point. The money comes to a special account in the Department of Agriculture from Brussels and we make payments to An Bord Bainne and others out of that account.

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

“In the course of audit I noted that subsidy was paid on dairy products other than butter sold on the home market up to 23 April 1973 although, as indicated in the previous paragraph, this subsidy should have been discontinued from 1 February 1973. In reply to my inquiry the Accounting Officer has informed me that a total of £276,119 was paid in respect of such subsidy for the period 1 February 1973 to 23 April 1973 after which date the subsidy was discontinued in accordance with a decision of the Government.”

Mr. Jacob.—Subsidy amounting to £276,000 was paid by An Bord Bainne in the first instance in respect of dairy products other than butter sold on the home market in the period 1st February to 23rd April, 1973. The Vote recouped this amount to An Bord in 1972-73 and 1973-74.

Chairman.—There is a statement here in the paragraph as follows: “…after which date the subsidy was discontinued in accordance with a decision of the Government”. It also states that a total of £276,119 was paid in respect of such subsidy for the period 1st February, 1973, to 23rd April, 1973. Does that mean less or more money was spent?

Mr. Jacob.—More money was spent. Our inquiry was directed to obtain information on the continuance of the payment after 1st February.

620. Chairman.—The question is, which I am not clear about from this paragraph, were there any moneys spent in excess of what I might call statutory authority, using that word in a very loose way? Has the Accounting Officer anything to add?

—No, I do not think so. The net point here is that formal Government decisions were needed to make certain changes and there was a Government dissolution and an election at that time. We had to wait until the new Government made a decision in April and this is what is being referred to here.

621. Paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.3.—Skim Milk Allowance, etc.

The charge to the subhead includes skim milk allowance amounting to £2,054,863 which was introduced as part of the restructuring of the system of Exchequer support referred to in paragraph 64 and was paid from the vote up to 31 January 1973. From 1 February 1973 this allowance is payable from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (F.E.O.G.A.).

The departmental procedures for the processing of claims submitted by the creameries for skim milk allowance provide for the making of provisional payments pending the checking of the creameries’ records by departmental dairy produce inspectors. In the course of audit I observed that this checking had fallen into arrears and I asked for an explanation of the delay. I was informed by the Accounting Officer that the delay was almost entirely due to staffing difficulties in the dairy produce inspectorate. I was also informed that the completion of outstanding checks was proceeding and was being expedited.”

Mr. Jacob.—The delay in the checking of creameries’ records in relation to claims for skim milk allowances has been eliminated.

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

“The allowance referred to in the previous paragraph is payable as a subsidy on skim milk returned by creameries to milk suppliers but is not payable on skim milk used in the manufacture of skim powder. I noted in the course of audit that in June 1972 a dairy produce inspector drew the Department’s attention to a creamery at which there were not adequate safeguards to ensure that subsidised skim milk was not being channelled into a milk powder or processing plant. He also reported that at this creamery buttermilk was being mixed with skim milk being returned to milk suppliers, that, as a result, the creamery had extra skim milk for disposal to a processing factory and that this in effect meant that skim milk allowance was being paid on buttermilk. In reply to my inquiry as to the steps taken to ensure that subsidy had not been overpaid in this case the Accounting Officer recently informed me that an investigation disclosed that in fact buttermilk had not been mixed with skim milk at this creamery but that buttermilk unmixed with any other substance had been returned to suppliers and had been described in the subsidy claims as skim milk returned to suppliers. He stated that this practice had commenced in February 1972 and that, apart from the period from November 1972 to February 1973, inclusive, it had continued up to and including July 1973 and had applied to virtually all of the skim milk claimed to have been returned by the creamery to its suppliers in that period.

He further stated that on a thorough and detailed examination of the creamery records it had been calculated that overpayments of Exchequer subsidy amounted to £11,443. This sum has been recovered and further overpayments in this case amounting to £6,051 which relate to the period from March 1973 to July 1973 and which were made from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (F.E.O.G.A.) have also been recovered.

The Accounting Officer added that the practice of returning buttermilk to suppliers in place of skim milk at this creamery arose following the introduction of continuous buttermaking which produces buttermilk suitable for use as an animal food. In view of the irregular payment of subsidies brought to light by the investigation in this case I inquired recently whether similar investigations had been carried out at other creameries.”

Mr. Jacob.—The position in regard to overpayments has been brought under control and all overpayments have been recovered.

Chairman.—That is a very satisfactory situation. There is no comment on that, Mr. Barry—have you anything to say?

—It is again part of what I referred to earlier as the obligation which we had at that time to change an existing system in conformity with the Brussels system and it gave rise to some practical problems which we managed to solve later.

623. Paragraph 68 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“I also noted in the course of audit that in August 1972 dairy produce inspectors were directed to carry out inspections at processing factories and other premises to ensure that subsidised skim milk was not being used in the manufacture of skim powder. I sought information on the extent of the inspections carried out and on the results obtained. I was informed that the direction to the inspectors indicated that any irregularities found should be reported and that, as reports were not required except where irregularities were found, there was no record available of the number and extent of the investigations and checks made. The Accounting Officer added that no irregularity had been reported.”

Mr. Jacob.—The instructions to inspectors required them to report irregularities. The absence of reports has been accepted by the Department as an indication that irregularities did not occur.

Chairman.—This is essentially a matter of how well you feel you have your inspecting system under control. Is that not so?

—Yes—that is what it amounted to.

624. Paragraph 69 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.5.—Loans to Beef Export Industry

A temporary scheme was introduced with Government approval in March 1972 to provide interest-free loans to factories in the carcase meat industry which was experiencing financial difficulties. The amount of a loan made to a factory was based on a rate of up to .833p per lb. on its exports of carcase beef and loans amounting to £906,792 were issued in the year under review. The scheme provided that loans would be repaid by deductions from carcase beef export subsidy (subhead E.4) when such subsidy became payable at a rate exceeding 1.25p per lb. This minimum was not reached at any time between the commencement of the loan scheme and December 1972 when the subsidy scheme was discontinued. The procedure by which it was intended to recover the loans could not therefore be implemented and I inquired whether alternative arrangements have been made for their recovery. The Accounting Officer has informed me that no such arrangements have been made but that the Department of Finance will be consulted in the matter when a firm figure of the total amount to be recovered has been determined.”

Mr. Jacob.—I understand that the Department have consulted the Department of Finance in this matter but I am not aware of the outcome.

625. Deputy Toal.—In relation to these loans, I understood at the outset that they would be repaid in full.

—The intention at the outset was that these loans would be repaid when the British were paying deficiency payments or subsidies up to a certain level, because the previous arrangement was that since the 1966 agreement with the British we had been keeping step by step with them on subsidy payments. The British changed their system and dropped their deficiency payment system completely before any more deficiency payments up to the level we had been expecting were paid. The circumstances under which the loan was to be repaid did not therefore arise and on that score we are still, as the Comptroller and Auditor General has commented, in discussion with the Department of Finance as to how this matter is to be finalised.

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

“The temporary scheme for loans to the beef export industry referred to in the previous paragraph was originally intended to end in July 1972 but was later extended to October 1972. When a further extension to 31 January 1973 was proposed, the Government directed that an examination of the financial accounts of the firms engaged in the industry be carried out. Accounts, submitted by a representative selection of seven firms to whom approximately 80 per cent. of the loans issued had been made, were examined in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and in the Department of Finance. According to the relevant file in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries this examination appeared to show that, in the then trading circumstances, one firm could have broken even and two firms could have operated profitably without the loans. Following this examination it was decided in November 1972 that the loan scheme should be terminated.”

Mr. Jacob.—The examination of the firms’ accounts showed that some of them could have operated without the loans. As a result the scheme was discontinued.

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

“Subhead E.6.—Bacon and Pork Exports

The charge to the subhead, £4,065,000, represents payments on account to the Pigs and Bacon Commission in connection with the operation of a scheme of support prices for exports of bacon and pork up to 31 January 1973. This scheme was terminated as from 1 February 1973 in compliance with the requirements of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Communities. The balance due to the Commission up to 31 January 1973 will be paid when the amount is determined.”

Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph is for information. The financial position between the Vote and the Commission has been finalised.

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

“Subhead F.1.—Interest Subsidy Scheme for Livestock

Provision was made by supplementary estimate for the payment of a contribution towards interest charges on loans made at reduced rates of interest by the Agricultural Credit Corporation or the banks to farmers with small or medium-sized farms to enable them to purchase livestock for breeding purposes. The Department agreed to pay an interest subsidy of 4 per cent. on these loans and the charge to the subhead, £4,921, represents the total of such subsidy payments made to the Corporation and to a commercial bank in the year under review.”

Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph is for information. This scheme terminated on 31st January, 1974, on the introduction of the Farm Modernisation Scheme.

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

“Subhead I.1.—Córas Beostoic agus Feola—Grant-in-Aid for General Expenses

Reference was made in previous reports to Córas Beostoic and Feola Teoranta whose primary object is to undertake promotional work for the development of exports of livestock, carcase meat and meat products. A sum of £470,000 provided under this subhead was issued to the company in the year under review as a grant-in-aid for general expenses.

Córas Beostoic agus Feola Teoranta is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1963 as a company limited by guarantee not having a share capital and, in accordance with its Articles of Association, I have been appointed its auditor. Certain queries raised on the audit of the accounts of the company for the year ended 31 March 1972 remain outstanding and the signed accounts for that year and for the year ended 31 March 1973 have not been submitted to me for certification at the date of this report. As the company is financed out of voted moneys I consider that I should draw attention to the unsatisfactory position in regard to accounts.”

Mr. Jacob.—The accounts of the company for the years ended 31st March, 1972, and 1973 have been submitted and certified since the date of this report.

630. Chairman.—We reported on this in the Committee’s last report. Have you any further comments to make?

—Yes, on my last appearance before this Committee there was an unsatisfactory situation in regard to the accounts. Subsequent to that a number of changes took place. The board of Córas Beostoic agus Feola was reorganised as a new board under a new chairman and to some extent, a new staff. We have got the accounts now, I think, in a position that the Comptroller and Auditor General is happy with. I think that there is little more to be said.

The Comptroller and Auditor General is satisfied?

Mr. Jacob.—Yes. We still have an account outstanding for the year ended March, 1974, but my information is that that should be disposed of within the next few weeks.

Chairman.—You are satisfied that you have that under control?

—Yes, we have.

631. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Is it correct that the meat processors are not making full use of Córas Beostoic agus Feola?

—Yes, this is correct. The meat processors, unlike the milk processors, are extremely individualistic. We have had difficulty over the years in trying to bring them together either to market together or to do other things together. We still have these difficulties.

632. Deputy Toal.—Would it be in order to ask how many meat processors in the country are publicly owned companies and how many of them are privately owned? Could we have that information?

—I could give you a rough guess. If by publicly owned you mean co-operatives, there are two very large co-operatives who have roughly half the processing capacity between them. All the other companies so far as I know are privately owned and one or two are subsidiaries of British companies. The rest are privately owned companies. In all I think there would be somewhere between 30 and 40, something like 39 companies, licensed to process for export, but they vary from extremely big ones to extremely small ones. So one could say that half the processing capacity is cooperatively owned and the other half is privately owned.

633. Do you find a distinction in your dealings with the ones that are co-operatives and the ones that are privately owned? By that I mean are you satisfied that the meat processing people are co-operating with the Department? Would you not agree that there are many abuses which some meat processors are indulging in to the detriment of the Department?

—Yes, we could be critical of their behaviour at times but then we have to try to be objective. Some of the things we want them to do are not seen by them as attractive things for them to do. But we are not in a position to hammer them over the head and say: “You must do things our way”.

634. I am just thinking of two cases that I know of. I think their profits over the last few years have mushroomed to a large extent. It is the general impression among the public that they are making gross profits and there are many abuses going on.

—This is a rather big issue. We have to admit that the meat processors made very big profits last year but, in fairness to them, we would also have to admit that they were in a situation last year where vast numbers of cattle were available and had to be sold to them and they did probably beat down the price unnecessarily or unduly. It is a matter of opinion whether they did it wrongly or whether they did it because they were shrewd businessmen.

635. Chairman—In spite of all modern developments the law of supply and demand does operate to some extent and, furthermore, there are limits to the powers in your control.

—Yes, we licence them but licensing is a matter of standards, hygiene, veterinary control, and so on. I do not think we are in a position to say to them that unless they pay a certain price for cattle we will take away their licence.

In fact it is a matter that goes outside your Department? Is it the price control business really?

—Yes, we cannot control the market price.

636. Deputy Toal.—On subhead D.2—Land Project—have the Land Project and the Farm Buildings officers combined and will there be no distinctions on the new scheme? Am I correct in this?

—You are correct. The process of integration for them is not particularly easy. What we hope to achieve is to have a single farm development service and within it will be the staffs who up to now have been concerned with land drainage and reclamation, buildings and water supplies. They will all be an integrated staff in a single service. This process of integration is a complex one and it will take some time before it is working smoothly.

637. On subhead D.8—Poultry and Eggs, is the grant not being fully utilised?

—In the main the saving here relates to the bringing in of new strains of breeding stocks to propagate here. Sometimes, as in this particular instance, we show very sizeable savings because, after the decision is made to import stock, there may be an outbreak of disease—in this case in the United States— which prevents us from actually making the importation. Normally what we do, whether it is poultry, eggs or cattle, is that we make a decision to import stock from some country and when the time comes to arrange the actual import we decide if there is a disease situation and if it is safe for us to do the job.

638. Many people in the country are very anxious to bring in new pedigree cattle but the Department are very tight about this. Why is it so difficult to get the Department moving on the importation of new breeding stock in relation to cattle?

—It is easily enough explained. In a sense, we are open to a good deal of criticism on this. We insist that if we are buying new breeding animals, say from a continental country or from the United States, we first make some assessment of their likely value to us as an addition to the national herd. Up to that point we are liberal enough but then we lay down rules and regulations for purely veterinary purposes with which the animals have to comply before they are allowed into the country. The bottlenecks are aggravated because we insist on buying unvaccinated stock anywhere in Europe. That means cattle that are not vaccinated against foot and mouth disease and, in effect, it means young cattle. Having been told that they may be imported the importers are free then to go and buy. We assemble these cattle at a convenient port. It may be Brest in the case of the French cattle or it may be a quarantine station in Vienna in the case of Austrian stock. We keep the animals there for a number of weeks, put them through a number of health tests and then bring them over. But we insist on their being put into quarantine in this country in Spike Island for a period of, perhaps, a couple of months. The capacity of Spike Island is, at most, about 160 animals and if we use Spike Island twice in the year that limits our importation in any year to about, say, about 300 cattle. The demand in recent years is for more than that but we feel that if we relax too much on our veterinary controls we may finish up with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease or some other disease that would be far more serious for us than the value of the stock that are being brought in. The short answer to your question is that we ought to have more quarantine stations here and we are right now trying to find some quick way of getting a ready-made quarantine station to enable us to double the importations this year.

639. Deputy C. Murphy.—On subhead D6, in relation to the sheep headage grants and the introduction of the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme this year, could you clarify the present position as regards the sheep headage grants?

—Leaving 1972-73 aside and coming up to date, when we operate the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme we will try to ensure that nobody loses anything in relation to this particular sheep headage payment scheme—if possible one would get more but certainly, not less. So we will be paying this kind of money or more to mountain sheep owners who already benefit from this scheme. Your second point was in relation to the EEC. The reason that there is, on our side, continued criticism of the EEC marketing situation is that until we joined the Community there was no interest in the marketing of sheep because there was only one member state, France, which had a sizeable interest either in sheep production or in lamb consumption. They made their own national rules and because there was no common organisation of the market they still maintain their own market rules and these market rules have the effect of closing the French market to us on regular occasions when the domestic price in France falls below an agreed level. Trying to sell lamb in France is a terribly unsatisfactory business for us. We have been trying for the past couple of years to introduce, or get an agreement for the introduction of, a common agricultural policy for sheep. The French are interested in holding what they have, which suits them best and the other countries are not really interested with the exception of the British. The British interest is almost the opposite of ours because they want to ensure that in any organisation of the European market for sheep their supplies from New Zealand will not be damaged. In simple terms, we are fighting a lone hand on this issue. That is what it all comes down to.

640. On a system of intervention or deficiency payments in the event of the possibility of the EEC seheme being introduced have we any particular views?

Deputy H. Gibbons took the Chair.

—We would be very flexible on the system that might be introduced if it gave us access at all times to the European market without very heavy import charges, because it is the access which is really killing us rather than the import charges. We cannot beat an import prohibition but we could stay with even a reasonably high tariff. We could live with that but we cannot live with import prohibitions.

Could I ask for a statement on that? I could not absorb all of that.

—Yes. We can spell out the pros and cons of this for the Committee in a note.*

641. Acting Chairman.—On subhead H—An Chomhairle Olla—let me ask what the outlook for the wool trade in the future is.

—I am not able to say with any confidence what way it is likely to go. In the last couple of years the market has been very unstable mainly because of Japanese insistence on buying up vast quantities of wool in reserve. Last year they refused to buy any wool. The market, because of this, fell drastically last year. This year there is a lo tof unsold Australian and New Zealand wool still in store and the international demand cannot be extremely good in my view.

642. Deputy C. Murphy.—On subhead L.1— World Food Programme (Grant-in-Aid)—I was reading an article in the newspaper on the World Food Programme account. It seems a very satisfactory way of dealing with it.

—Yes. We think highly of this programme and it has done excellent work over the years.

643. On appropriations in aid—receipts from sale of seeds, manures, etc.—I recall a television programme which indicated a shortage of seed in the world. The note states that receipts from the seed distribution scheme were higher than expected. Are you aware of any world shortage of seed?

—I think there was some question—not so much of physical shortage—but a reduction in quality because last year’s harvest in northern Europe was not up to average. I do not think it is an acute problem.

644. Acting Chairman.—With regard to the situation where animals died before they were valued, is this a very common problem and does it lead to trouble in many cases?

—It is not a very big problem but it does arise. Sometimes we are at fault and sometimes we are not. We may have a delay in agreeing on a price for an animal that has reacted to a TB test. Occasionally it happens that before we finally arrange to have the animal collected and dispatched to a factory it dies. In that case we agree on some ex gratia payment to the owner so that he is not completely out of pocket. We may also have a case where a veterinary surgeon does a test and an animal may have generalised TB and not show the usual reaction. While the animal is not technically a reactor, the veterinary surgeon may be completely satisfied he is suffering from TB and that we should have the animal picked up. In that case we would make an offer of payment and take the animal in. This is accounted for by ex gratia payments.

Arising out of that, what is the situation in the case of the beef cattle incentive scheme where the calf may die between the two inspections?

—I suppose the owner should get out and procure another calf.

645. Deputy Murphy asked earlier about the disadvantaged areas and you made the remark that the sheep farmers would not be likely to lose anything. Would the same apply to the farming community throughout all the disadvantaged areas?

—Yes. To be specific on this, the Beef Cattle Incentive Scheme, which has been operating up to now and still operates this year, will be married with the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme in those areas where the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme will apply. In operating it this year, we shall try to ensure that nobody will get less than he would have been entitled to under the Beef Cattle Incentive Scheme.

Does that a priori suggest that there is a chance that somebody might be getting less?

—Some fairly abstruse figuring we were doing earlier indicated that there might be a peculiar composition of a herd of cattle which would possibly give a man less but we want to ensure that he does not, in fact, get less. This would be entirely an exceptional case but we would want to provide for it.

646. Are there any other subsidies that may be obliterated by the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme? I take it that the Beef Cattle Incentive Scheme will be more or less obliterated?

—For those farmers who are beneficiaries under the Mountain Areas Scheme, yes.

Are there any other financial inducements or subsidies which they are being paid which are likely to go?

—I do not think there are.

647. Deputy C. Murphy.—Could I ask for a note of the townlands in Wicklow which are included in the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme and if you have a shaded map drawn up to the effect?

—I am at a little disadvantage here because I am not sure whether everything in regard to townlands has been finalised as of now.

I appreciate that.

Deputy Toal.—Can I have the same for Monaghan?

Acting Chairman.—On the Disadvantaged Areas Scheme, it is true to say that as far as the people down the country are concerned they are not settled yet? Just to send two notes to those Deputies concerning their own problems will, I think, be sufficient.

—This is why I said that I am not sure as of now just to what extent all this has been finalised.

648. Deputy Toal.—The Department impress me as not being able to cope with the work on hands. Has the overall staff position in the Department declined or is it just because of more work, more schemes coming in?

—Overall staff has increased and we are still looking for more. What has happened is that in the last couple of years in addition to changing all our old established procedures to conform with European requirements and schemes, we have taken on board a number of new European schemes, for example, the Mountain Areas Scheme and intervention in the beef market. This involves an immense amount of routine paperwork. It is true that in many areas of the Department we are struggling to keep abreast of all the new things we are trying to do.

I am glad to hear you are looking for more staff because I was under the impression that they were creating no more new posts.

—We should like to get some more staff.

VOTE 38—FISHERIES.

Mr. M. J. Barry further examined.

649. Acting Chairman.—Paragraph 74 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 £300,000 of advances made under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1952 was waived in the year under review 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. Jacob.—This paragraph refers to the write-off of moneys due to the Exchequer in respect of repayable advances.

Acting Chairman.—I think this is an annual problem of the Accounting Officer?

—Yes. It usually recurs every few years when a decision is made to write off moneys that cannot be recovered otherwise. It is an accounting transaction. The money passes out of the Exchequer and back into the Exchequer to keep the books in order. It used to include arrears of loans to fishermen but it arises here because, for instance, in the time taken to build a boat there is loss of interest since Bord Iascaigh Mhara are getting money at one time of the year and do not sell the boat until many months later.

They will not sell the boat for many months later?

—Because of the time it takes to build them.

650. On subhead C1—Sea Fisheries Development, what does it cover?

—There are a number of matters. There is the provision for scientific investigations. There is provision for operating exploratory fishing vessels and there are contributions to international organisations. There are also training schemes for fishermen.

651. Deputy C. Murphy.—On subhead C.4— Miscellaneous Marine Schemes—where is the fishery school located?

—In Greencastle, County Donegal.

652. Deputy Toal.—On subhead F—The Inland Fisheries Trust Incorporated—is the Inland Fisheries Trust a body independent of the Department?

—Not really independent because, contrary to what was expected when the Inland Fisheries Trust were originally set up, the funds for the trust do not come so much from the fishermen as from the State. It works closely with the Fisheries Division. The main bulk of its expenditure is through a grant-in-aid from the Fisheries Division.

653. Approximately how many of a staff would be on the inland fishery service?

—Off the cuff I am not able to say but I think it is relatively small. I do not think it would exceed 24 to 30 headquarters staff or about 150 in all, including field staff.

654. When the Inland Fisheries Trust make a recommendation about certain waters, can they implement that?

—If it meant acquisition of rights or change of title, they themselves cannot do it. They have to work through the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries—Fisheries Division. If, for example, it were a question of buying out an existing owner or acquiring a declared title, I do not think the Inland Fisheries Trust could do so; but I am not certain.

655. Acting Chairman.—On the Salmon Research Trust, is there any overlapping or duplication between those three subheads E, F, and G?

—No, there is not because the Salmon Research Trust is a job which we do jointly with Messrs. Guinness and is concerned only with research into salmon. The Inland Fisheries Trust is almost exclusively concerned with developing trout waters and trout fishing and also coarse fishing and sea angling. The Salmon Research Trust is an extremely limited operation. We put up £5,000 and Guinness put up roughly an equivalent sum. The research is carried on in just one place in County Mayo.

In Newport?

—Yes.

656. Deputy C. Murphy.—On No. 2 of the Appropriations-in-Aid—fines and forfeitures in respect of fishery offences—was it that the catches were good that year or that the judges around the country were a little more strict? You realised more, did you?

—Let us just say it was a combination of both.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee deliberated.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix 14.