Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1976 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1973 - 1974

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 12 Feabhra, 1976.

Thursday, 12th February, 1976.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY de VALERA in the chair.

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

VOTE 15—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. D. Quigley called and examined.

519. Chairman.—On subhead B.— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there was a small over-expenditure. What is the nature of the travelling expenses that would be covered by this Vote?

—Servicing either law cases abroad or providing legal advisers on behalf of the Department or the Government at legal meetings and for the drafting of conventions.

520. On subhead D—Fees to Counsel— the estimation is extraordinarily close. How do you manage it in a case like that?

—Largely luck. We are never quite sure whether some very big case will come up.

That is why I asked.

Deputy Moore.—That is a very honest answer.

521. Chairman.—It was a surprisingly close estimate. On subhead E—General Law Expenses—the note reads: “Expenditure varies according to the number and nature of the cases coming before the courts and consequently is difficult to estimate.” This indeed can be understood, but it is a very substantial sum. What items would you generally group under this heading?

—Expenses of witnesses and jurymen.

This would be for proceedings in which the State is represented, including prosecutions?

—And costs awarded against the State. We do not always win.

522. On subhead F—Defence of Public Servants—the amount was less than granted. Apparently the public servants were on their best behaviour. Apart from that, it is a very small sum and I take it there are bound to be cases where it is necessary to defend public servants from allegations and such matters?

—That is correct.

What amazes me is the smallness of the amount.

—It does not often arise. They seem to behave within the law and so on.

523. One can have unjustified complaints. Would you get costs in a case like that?

—Yes.

Do you have cases where some action is taken against a public servant, and that action fails simply because it is not well founded, and would the costs then be awarded to the State?

—There can be actions against the State, and the costs would depend on the result but that does not refer to the kind of case coming under this subhead. For example, I remember a sergeant who was sued because he had been stopping a cyclist with no lights after a very big robbery. The cyclist charged at him. The sergeant tried to stop the cyclist, who then fell off the bicycle. He sued the sergeant for the damages he suffered. He did not succeed, and the costs were awarded to the sergeant but could not be recovered.

You had to pay the sergeant’s costs?

—Yes.

That was the point I wanted to bring out.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 37—AGRICULTURE.

Mr. M. J. Barry called and examined.

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

“Collection of Monetary Compensatory Amounts

Under EEC Regulations, Monetary Compensatory Amounts are collected by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on exports of agricultural produce from Ireland. Amounts collected on exports to other Member States are credited directly to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (FEOGA) whereas amounts collected on exports to non-member states are regarded as ‘Own Resources’ of the Communities which would normally be made available to finance the Communities’ budget. As Ireland’s contributions to the budget during the transitional period ending in 1978 is calculated on a percentage basis and is not related to the level of ‘Own Resources’ collected, Monetary Compensatory Amounts on exports to non-member states fall to be paid into the Central Fund during this period.

A test examination of Monetary Compensatory Amounts collectable by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries was carried out with generally satisfactory results.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. It refers to the collection of monetary compensatory amounts and to the manner of their disposal.

Chairman.—The important part of the paragraph reads:

A test examination of Monetary Compensatory Amounts collectable by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries was carried out with generally satisfactory results.

525. Paragraph 42 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“In the course of the test examination I observed that delays had occurred in the collection of amounts due from exporters and I communicated with the Accounting Officer in the matter. He has informed me that staff problems contributed in some measure to the delays in collecting these moneys and also that difficulties which arose in determining the exact Common Customs Tariff heading of one product caused additional delay in establishing the amounts due. He added that the moneys listed in my query as outstanding had since been collected.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph refers to delays in the collection of monetary compensatory amounts due in the early stages of the scheme. Collection is now effected generally by deduction from amounts payable to exporters in respect of export refunds and intervention payments.

526. Chairman.—What is your difficulty in that area?

—The difficulty arose mainly from the fact that this was a new system originating in arrangements made in Brussels. It took some time to accommodate ourselves to it and set up the necessary machinery to make these collections. We have, to some extent, been able to sort out the difficulty but not in all areas. We still have some problems in relation to collecting these monetary compensatory amounts.

In what areas do the problems lie?

—The problems we are referring to here have been cleared up. At a later date changes in the relationship between our green £ as against the British green £, gave rise to another set of monetary compensatory amounts, and it is in this area that we still have problems.

You anticipate in your next accounts that this will be in order?

—It will be our second next.

527. Is there a very big amount of money involved?

—At present, there might be as much as £5 or £6 million involved, in the process of collection.

That means the State would be in arrears in collecting £5 or £6 million?

—Yes.

528. So, it is, in effect, a loan from the taxpayer. I am not attributing any blame, or I hope lacking in understanding of your difficulties, but as things are working out, there are £5 or £6 million outstanding, and, therefore, the State is out of pocket for that amount. However, the State will ultimately collect it?

—Yes. We would aim ultimately to collect it.

That is, in the nett the same thing as if a free loan of that order was given to this sector. Is that a fair argument?

—Yes. They will have these funds without interest for the time being.

We appreciate that sometimes, if a matter of this nature is pressed too far, instead of helping you with the problem of collection it could hinder it. So, unless you have anything further to add or any Deputy has any question to ask, I will not press the matter.

529. Deputy Tunney—Would the present problems have any bearing on staff problems in your Department? I notice the paragraph refers to staff problems.

—No, not entirely, although staff considerations always come into it. In this area, where we are introducing arrangements which are fairly complex, it is not easy to get the kind of staff who will be immediately competent to carry out all the duties required, because new staff must be trained in this type of work. Therefore, while we were introducing ourselves to the complexities of these Brussels procedures we had continuous staff problems, partly in numbers but also in the matter of experienced people required to do what needed to be done.

530. I thought your present problems arose possibly more through the lack of preparedness on the part of somebody to co-operate with your staff?

—It is not so much a lack of cooperation; although in this area close cooperation is required between our staff and customs staff, because these charges are related to the export of commodities. That co-operation is forthcoming and is working very smoothly but it takes some time to get going.

I was referring to the exporter rather than to the staff.

—Yes, to the exporter.

Chairman.—Nobody wants to make difficulties.

—As we went along, we were creating difficulties for ourselves. We were able to overcome those by introducing a system under which the amounts payable were actually paid before or at the date of export, and we have been working this system since October last year.

531. Deputy Griffin.—Could it not be regarded as a new concept, and these would be the teething difficulties which would be eventually sorted out?

—I expect they will be eventually sorted out but it takes some time to get a new system working.

532.—Chairman.—You have a problem somewhat analogous to the Revenue Commissioners in collecting tax under new arrangements. The Revenue Commissioners have the problem, with new legislation and new organisation, of collecting tax. The burden in any tax year in arrear of collection is serious from a budgetary point of view. Your problem here is somewhat analogous. The £5 or £6 million outstanding represent State revenue which cannot be collected when it should be, and this leaves a nett effect similar to uncollected tax.

—Yes, it is much the same.

All the committee can say here is that, in everybody’s interest, the matter be cleared up as quickly as possible and I know you are trying to do that.

—Yes, we are trying to do that.

533. Paragraph 43 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead B.1—University Colleges

The approval of the Minister for Finance was obtained in February, 1972 for the purchase of equipment to the value of £413,000 for a processing unit to be housed in a new building to be erected for the Dairy Science Faculty of University College, Cork. Payments totalling £341,000 towards the cost of this equipment were made from this Vote to the college in the three years ended 31 March, 1974. As the erection of the new building had not commenced by August 1974, I asked for details of the items purchased, their cost, location and current utilisation. The Accounting Officer has sent me a statement received from the college authorities showing that the total cost of the equipment ordered to September 1974 was £390,925. Items costing £282,833 had been delivered, items costing £218,952 were held in store in a number of locations and the balance was in use. The Accounting Officer stated that all the equipment was insured by the college.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph relates to the purchase of equipment for the proposed new dairy science building in University College, Cork. There has been delay in the erection of the building, which has resulted in a large proportion of the equipment purchased being held in store. The paragraph sets out the position as at September, 1974.

534. Chairman.—Is this a question of building schedules or of deciding whether to go on with the building?

—You may recollect that when we discussed this last year I explained that after University College, Cork had made their decision to build a new dairy science faculty on a particular site, they decided—for good reasons as it happened—to look again at the whole arrangement of the buildings in University College, Cork. In the process, the site for the dairy science building was changed, some new land had to be acquired and all this took time. Before this happened they—the dairy science faculty—had decided with our approval to order some custom-built machinery and plant for their new dairy science building and laboratory. This was eventually delivered and put into store. In the meantime, the new planning for the college went ahead. All that process has been gone through and University College, Cork, yesterday or today, are signing a contract for their new dairy science faculty. This was a rather tortuous chapter but it is now finished.

535. In other words, it is a problem of building schedules; you had purchased equipment in advance?

—Yes. The equipment purchased is the equipment that will go into the new building.

I note that it is properly insured by the college. Is that equipment paid for?

—It is paid for.

536. Provided that depreciation does not vitiate the argument, you probably saved a considerable amount of money by buying in advance.

—Some money will be saved because this is custom-built equipment specially for them and if they were ordering it now it would cost a lot more.

537. Paragraph 44 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead B.7—Research and Testing

Regulations made in July, 1973 under the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930 and the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935, provided that the fees payable by fresh meat exporters and bacon curers for veterinary examination of carcases would be reduced, with effect from 1 January, 1969, to the level which applied up to 30 June, 1963. The purpose of these regulations was to terminate, as from 1 January, 1969, the additional fees which were payable by the meat trade for research purposes from 1 July, 1963. Additional fees collected from 1 January, 1969, amounting to £32,029, were refunded to the trade from the subhead.

Additional fees collected up to 31 December, 1968 amounted to £91,732 and were appropriated in aid of the Vote in previous years. An agreement made between the Department, An Foras Talúntais and the meat trade provides that this sum will be made available towards meat research projects to be carried out by An Foras Talúntais. In addition a contribution on a £1 for £1 basis up to an annual maximum of £25,000 will be made by the Department for this purpose. The total charge to the subhead in the year under review in respect of such projects was £22,389.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. It refers to additional fees which were formerly levied on the meat trade for research purposes and which were credited to the Vote. Research projects are now financed out of the amount so collected with an equal contribution by the Department. A further payment of £32,036 was made from the Vote in the period ended 31 December, 1974 towards the cost of such projects.

Chairman.—Has the Comptroller and Auditor General any further comments?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—No, it was a tidying up.

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

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

Reference was made in paragraph 64 of my previous report to the establishment of An Bord Bainne Co-operative Ltd., to carry on, with effect from 1 February, 1973, the marketing activities of An Bord Bainne, the statutory board established under the Dairy Produce Marketing Act, 1961. 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 the co-operative and for the dissolution of the statutory board. The Minister has not yet appointed this date. In the year under review a grant-in-aid of £250,000 was made to An Bord Bainne to cover estimated losses to 31 January, 1973 and will fall to be accounted for in the accounts of An Bord.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—At the date of this report, 31 December, 1974, An Bord Bainne, the former statutory board, had not been dissolved. By orders made on 30 January, 1975 and 26 March, 1975, the Minister transferred the property of An Bord to the co-operative on 31 January, 1975, and formally dissolved the statutory board on 28 March, 1975. I have completed the audit of the final accounts of the statutory board. The accounts of the co-operative are not audited by my officers.

Chairman.—The audit has been satisfactory?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Yes.

539. Chairman.—This is one of these adjustments which is bound to cause administrative adjustment, if not upset, in the Department, would you agree?

—Yes.

They cause problems?

—We have about three cases similar to this where we have been trying to disentangle the previous organisation of semi-State bodies. In this case, to convert one into a co-operative. In other cases we were just terminating the bodies, as in the case of the grain board. When we come to the final accounting there is a good deal of clearing up to be done. This represents efforts to finalise accounts to everybody’s satisfaction.

540. You also have to comply with EEC requirements, I presume, in some of these things?

—It is basically an EEC requirement that obliges us to make the change. In this case the procedure was to convert An Bord Bainne, which was a semi-State organisation, into a co-operative in which the State does not have a financial stake nor the Board a monopoly export position.

541. Deputy C. Murphy.—You mentioned An Bord Grain winding up and being converted to a co-op and I should like to know if there would have been much money involved in redundancies of staff when An Bord Grain would have been terminated or, in the case of An Bord Bainne, being transferred on a co-op basis?

—In the case of An Bord Bainne there would very likely be none because the people will continue their employment. In the case of An Bord Grain there will have been some redundancies and some compensation but I am not able to say off the cuff how much. It will be in next year’s accounts. An Bord Grain has been wound up and the final accounts have been cleared.

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

“Subhead E.3—Subsidies on Milk and Dairy Produce

The charge to the subhead is made up as follows:

Reference was made in paragraph 64 of my previous report to the special arrangement under which the subsidy on home-consumed butter would be progressively phased out following Ireland’s accession to the EEC. This subsidy was discontinued from 9 December, 1974.

In an effort to encourage butter consumption and to limit an expected increase in stocks Member States were authorised by the Commission of the EEC to pay a special consumer subsidy with effect from 14 May 1973 of up to £46.94 per ton, half of which would be borne by FEOGA and the other half by Member State funds. The charge to the subhead includes £631,749 being the portion of the special subsidy payments which fell to be met from voted moneys in the year under review.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information only. I have no further comment to make.

Deputy Tunney.—In that regard the figure given for island butter subsidy is £800 and £42,000 for other schemes. Could I have an example of one of the other schemes?

—Off the cuff I cannot say what other schemes were involved here but I would be happy to send a note to the Deputy explaining what other schemes made up this £42,000.

That is satisfactory.

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

“The administrative arrangements for the payment of the subsidies provide for the sale of butter by creameries at reduced prices to wholesalers and retail outlets, the subsidies on such sales to be claimed by the creameries from the Department. They also provide that sales by one creamery to another should be made at the unsubsidised price. In the course of audit I noted that a subsidy claim by a creamery included butter sold at the subsidised price to another creamery which also claimed and was paid the subsidies in respect of the same butter. This resulted in a duplicate payment of £4,015 of which £3,506 was charged to the Vote and £509 to FEOGA. In reply to my inquiry the Accounting Officer informed me that when the duplication was discovered the Department issued a circular letter to all creameries drawing their attention to the correct procedure to be followed in making claims. He added that, in addition, specific inquiries had been made to determine whether similar duplicate payments had occurred in other cases and that one further case had been brought to light involving a duplicate payment of £4,131 of which £3,500 was charged to the Vote and the balance to FEOGA. I am informed that both overpayments were duly recovered.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to two cases in which overpayment of butter subsidy occurred. As indicated, the Department issued instructions to creameries regarding the correct procedures for making subsidy claims and I understand that these procedures are being followed.

Chairman.—How did this arise?

—It arose because, inadvertently as far as we are concerned, one creamery sold butter to another creamery. The theory of it was that the subsidies would be paid to creameries selling butter to wholesalers. This transaction between two companies was something we had not bargained for. It left each in a position to make a demand for a subsidy. Duplicate payments were made in two instances but we caught up with them and the matter was sorted out.

544. Was that a perfectly lawful payment in the sense that, in the way the Orders and administration were, that could happen —you cannot always foresee every possibility—or was it a pure mistake? If a creamery received a subsidy in regard to a sale to another creamery that clearly was not intended by the administrative arrangements and whatever Orders were governing it. That can happen in one of two ways. Either it can happen with perfect formal legality and authority through the form of the administrative instructions or Orders, not foreseeing that such a thing could happen; or it can be basically ultra vires the instructions existing. In which category would this mistake have occurred?

—I should say it occurred because there may have been between those creameries some tradition or practice of one helping out another with supplies of butter and they went on doing what they had been normally doing. When we originally drew up our regulations for this subsidy we had not bargained for this.

The regulations allowed them to do this and they took advantage of the regulations?

—They continued doing what they normally did.

It is impossible to foresee everything but it is important that when these things happen they are quickly traced, and you are taking precautions?

—This has been regularised.

545. Was this initially discovered by yourselves or was it the Comptroller and Auditor General who drew your attention to it?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This was a departmental discovery.

Chairman.—That is excellent. That was a good thing to hear, but even if it was the Comptroller and Auditor General only who discovered it that is the Comptroller and Auditor General’s function and this is where everyone has to co-operate. There is no reflection on the Department in finding it that way and that was the point I wished to make. Is this satisfactory?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Yes.

546. Deputy Griffin.—Was the supplying creamery in both cases at a loss then? Had it supplied it to a wholesaler or retail business it would have got the subsidy?

—What happened was that each got the subsidy on the same quantity of butter. There was a duplicate payment.

The receiving creamery also received it?

—Yes, this is what we had to catch up with.

Chairman.—If I might presume to offer a comment with all the paragraphs we have dealt with it is a very satisfactory thing to find the matter so much under your control. There are a number of paragraphs and there has been nothing seriously amiss disclosed. It is a difficult area.

547. On subhead A.2—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—expenditure was less than anticipated. It is very difficult with present currency and inflationary trends in your case to make close estimates there, I should imagine?

—Yes, particularly when, in the course of the financial year, the allowances for travel may be raised. It happened during this financial year.

548. Deputy Tunney.—On subhead B.5— An Foras Talúntais—is there within your Department a section which attempts to correlate what happens in An Foras and the other agencies within the Department for which you would be responsible in respect of research and education generally?

—The Department usually has one or two staff members on the council of An Foras and through them it keeps itself familiar with overall policy. Within the overall policy there are liaison committees of the Department staff and An Foras staff who meet and discuss specific areas of activity. By and large we do not get into the areas in which they are actively engaged, nor do they take on work which we are doing. By mutual agreement and liaison activity this situation is maintained.

Chairman.—Before we leave that I should like to congratulate you on the efficiency and, at the same time, economy in the presentation of An Foras Talúntais reports. There is no extravagant expenditure here and they are excellently produced. They are intelligible and they are an example for others.

Deputy Tunney.—That is in respect of certain agencies and, indeed, certain people. When things are not going too well one might be inclined to put on a good show but we do not have to do it here.

Chairman.—In commercial life it is often a very good pointer to the bankruptcy court. The point is that within Mr. Barry’s jurisdiction that report is an excellent example of what one should be.

549. Deputy Griffin.—On subhead B.7— Research and Testing—in relation to the quarantine station, has that expenditure been used up since or have you increased or enlarged the facilities in Spike Island?

—We had plans to increase the size of the quarantine station on Spike Island but we did not proceed with them because last year there was a significant downturn in the value of animals bred from these imported animals and interest in importing declined very considerably. The need to extend the facilities at Spike Island had, more or less, diminished. We would guess, although without any great assurance, that the numbers to be imported in future are likely to stay relatively low. A function of the demand for these continental cattle is the expectation of high prices for their progeny abroad, especially in America. As I have said, the demand declined very considerably last year.

550. Is that not in the short-term? Hopefully, in the long-term, the demand will come again. It has been alleged that complaints have been received that we did not have sufficient facilities at Spike Island when the price of cattle was good and there was a demand for that type of animal.

—This criticism was perfectly valid at the beginning of last year but we looked at this situation, and, exceptionally, we were able to agree that a temporary ad hoc quarantine could be arranged in the RDS in Ballsbridge to clear the backlog of demand. Every applicant in our books was then invited to say what he wanted to do now. When all the renewed applications were added up they did not exceed the capacity at Spike Island. We had no need to provide any exceptional arrangements last year because the demand had diminished.

551. Are your plans still live for further expansion?

—If the need arises.

Would it not be better to have the facilities there to be able to cater for them, rather than have to wait for the need?

—This is really a matter of judgment, and I believe that in this area anybody’s judgment can turn out to be wrong. To extend the facilities at Spike Island is expensive because everything required for building has to be transported out there. To provide extra labour on Spike Island is expensive because people do not like working on an isolated island. Therefore, we are not very keen to spend a lot of money in extending the facilities there until we have a stronger assurance that they would be needed. If, exceptionally, a demand did arise, we think now from the enquiries we made and the arrangements we had provisionally made with the Royal Dublin Society, that we might get cattle into Ballsbridge at a time of the year when the premises would not be otherwise used and that would get us over any temporary difficulty that might arise. We have not done this but we think we could use the facilities if the occasion demanded.

552. Deputy C. Murphy.—Have we spent any money investing in quarantine stations in any other country?

—Quarantine stations elsewhere are available to us.

I thought there were regulations whereby if we were going to import animals they would have to remain in quarantine abroad before they came here?

—Yes, this is quite true. Those quarantines in Brest, Vienna, Hamburg or wherever we might be using them, are maintained and supervised by the official veterinary authorities of those countries. We would not regard it as being any of our business to provide official quarantine abroad. We demand it as a service from the people from whom we buy.

553. At no cost to us?

—Everything is costly. Bringing in these cattle is extremely costly.

But their maintenance during their quarantine is no charge to us?

—It is a charge to the importer, as the maintenance of Spike Island is a charge to the importer.

But not a direct charge to these accounts?

—Not a direct charge in the sense your colleague was describing it as a capital charge of creating the facilities. If you were importing cattle from somewhere in Europe, you would be eventually paying all the bills.

554. Is there a subsidy from the Department towards this?

—No, we try to make this service break even. There is some element of subsidy because we have not worked it out to such a fine point that all the investment in Spike Island is parcelled out over every single animal that comes through Spike Island. There is some element of subsidy in it, but, for the most part, the importers of these cattle pay all the charges, including veterinary charges.

555. Deputy Griffin.—We should continue enlarging our quarantine facilities at Spike Island, phased over a number of years to anticipate any improvement or extra demand in years to come for these facilities. This is a personal point of view.

—It is a legitimate point of view that we should get ahead on this.

Chairman.—I am sure Mr. Barry will take note of the Deputy’s opinion on this. Strictly speaking, it is beyond our immediate competence.

556. Deputy C. Murphy.—On subhead B.9—Scholarships and Training—do you have many applications for the apprentice scheme? Were the number of applications down or did the applicants not come up to the standard?

—The number of applications was down. I am not quite clear from my note whether this is the whole answer.

Is there not the demand at the moment?

—It is going fairly well in some areas but in other areas we have found that fathers or boys are not always willing to leave the normal daily routine to get involved with these courses.

557. Would the amounts of the awards be considered a suitable attraction or are they kept current with present day values?

—I think they are kept reasonably up-to-date with changes in costs.

What are the awards at the moment? Maybe at a later stage you will let me know?

—I would like to give a more comprehensive note on the general situation.

I know a young man in Wicklow who came out fairly well this year.

—We could set out in a note just how the system works and what the variations in demand are and so on.

Chairman.—This is the second time this morning where the Accounting Officer has kindly offered to get notes for Deputies. I think we must distinguish here the notes the Committee as such require. I do not think there is anything in this note that we want. We do appreciate that you would give the Deputies the information they have asked for, but I do not think they are necessary for incorporation in the Committee’s proceedings as they are not actually accounting matters. The Deputies will be very much obliged if you would co-operate by giving Deputy Murphy the note you offered.

—I would be only too happy to do it. The chances are that this is already available, but I do not have the details at the moment.

558. Deputy Tunney.—I am not very familiar with these farm training centres. Would the fact that the number of people who were interested was so appreciably less than anticipated, lead to the under-employment of any resources at the farm centres?

—Not really, because the provision of the farm training centres is primarily a matter for the county committees of agriculture, and the pace at which they are built and manned is determined by the county committes. They are able to assess what the likely demand is and where a centre might be a successs.

559. Deputy Griffin.—It is a pity that moneys provided in the Vote were not utilised. Did the Department go back to the county committees of agriculture and advise them of this lack and say they could possibly make an extra effort to ensure that there would be these apprentices?

—It is not quite like this. This is an on-going operation. The county committees are not really being deprived of money, because if they did not decide in this particular year to go ahead, the possibility is they decided to do so in the following year. In January, 1976, we had proposals for the erection of 58 of these centres. Twenty-five have been provided already and six more are in course of construction. Some county committees do not get on with it as quickly as others. While the scheme is in operation they are not really losing out. You might say the young lads in the county are losing something but this is for the committees to decide.

560. Deputy Tunney.—On subhead B.15— Errigal Co-Operative Society Limited: Grant-in-Aid for General Expenses—it is news to me that a grant-in-aid had to be earned. Are there conditions attaching to this grant-in-aid?

—Yes. This scheme goes back some years.

A grant-in-aid and a loan for some co-operative development were placed at the disposal of the people of the area. The schemes are now beginning to fizzle out. There are some loans outstanding and to be collected, but the earlier needs have now more or less disappeared.

561. Deputy C. Murphy.—On subhead B.17—Federation of Irish Bee-keepers’ Association: Grants-in-Aid for General Expenses—I read that there seemed to be a big increase in the number of people going in for bee husbandry, and that the demand for honey is growing. This might be a possibility for the export market. How would the situation under a larger grant-in-aid be approached?

—There is an Irish Bee-keepers’ Association. If they came to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and made a case, they would certainly be heard.

There is a very big market potential for Irish honey.

562. Chairman.—Are insecticides, such as DDT, banned now?

—They must have an effect.

Are they banned?

—Some are banned.

563. Deputy Griffin.—On subhead C.1— Improvement of Livestock—why were the expected purchases of stock cattle, sheep and pigs not made?

—This usually arises for either of two reasons. Either the quality of the stock is not right, or the demand might be somewhat less than had been assumed when the estimate was made.

Would this be in foreign markets, like the introduction of foreign cattle?

—No, frequently this is referring to animals purchased by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries itself, not by individual importers who might go to Europe for cattle.

I appreciate that.

—These would be pigs, sheep, stallions, purchased mainly at home or in the United Kingdom.

564. Chairman.—On subhead C.2—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication—is that in a satisfactory position?

—In accounting terms, yes.

But in practical terms, are we getting value for this financial expenditure?

—I would say no. This is the reason why we are trying to persuade the veterinary profession that we ought to introduce some new methods.

In other words, the disease is continuing?

—The incidence of the disease is not going down as quickly as it should.

565. On subhead C.3—Brucellosis Eradication—is the position the same? You had a particular problem you expanded on last year in regard to brucellosis control. Has there been any change?

—Brucellosis eradication is proceeding fairly steadily, but it is going to take some years and an enormous amount of money to clear up brucellosis finally, because we have got to go into the areas where the incidence is highest—the southern dairying counties. We have been moving from north to south. Six counties are clear, seven are under compulsory eradication and there are 13 of the more badly infected counties still to be done. There is some preliminary work being done in those southern counties. It would be extremely helpful if farmers would take a more serious interest in the preliminary measures.

Deputy Griffin.—I come from South Tipperary and very little progress has been made in brucellosis eradication there.

—Unless in your area the farmers and the co-ops between them can make this pre-eradication scheme work. It is a voluntary business and if they do not choose to do it they cannot be obliged to do it.

566. On subhead D.2—Land Project— how does it compare with the development farmers or progressive farmers scheme? Is not a lot of this work handled through the EEC?

—There were two schemes running separately—the Land Project, concerned with drainage or reclamation of land, and the farm buildings and water supplies scheme which was connected with the improvement of farm buildings and the provision of water. These two schemes have been amalgamated and they are all within the umbrella of the farm modernisation scheme. The procedures are somewhat different but the net effect is much the same—it provides facilities for farmers who want to improve either land or buildings.

Is the old system of grants completely finished?

—No, because all the applications that were on hand under the two schemes will be honoured if the farmers who made the applications finish the job by September of this year. This is the period within which they must decide whether they will complete the work approved under the original applications or whether they move in under the new scheme.

Deputy C. Murphy.—Is that a capital service?

—Yes.

And the farm building and water supply scheme would be part capital?

—It is all capital.

567. Chairman.—On subhead D.11.— Miscellaneous Schemes — miscellaneous schemes are set out in the Estimate. This is something that is slightly different to the problem we had before. Perhaps I had better explain for Mr. Barry’s benefit what we are at. Some Departments have lumped what the Committee have considered and will probably comment on, too big a sum under the heading “Miscellaneous” without adequate explanation. Other Departments, particularly the Revenue Commissioners, have itemised very particularly. Now we have another method of doing it in which you do not itemise the Appropriation Account but it is completely itemised in the Estimates. That situation is quite satisfactory. I should like to make the point that in which ever account it occurs it is important that sizeable items under the heading “Miscellaneous” should be broken down to give us information as to where the money is going. In this case we have ample information in the Estimates.

—It is set out in detail there.

568. On subhead E.2—Promotion of Sales of Dairy Produce Abroad—this is a round figure and it seems to be in the nature of a grant-in-aid. It is such a round figure, and there is no more than granted nor less than granted?

—£75,000?

Yes.

—This was a payment to An Bord Bainne. While An Bord Bainne was still a semi-State body it was getting this annual allocation to promote sales of dairy produce.

In general, it was more in the nature of a grant-in-aid?

—It was.

And all this has been adjusted?

—And this has been very considerably reduced.

569. Deputy Tunney.—On subhead E.6.— Bacon and Pork Exports—I noticed there was an original token Estimate of £10. At some later stage there was a supplementary Estimate of £25,000. It was not possible before the introduction of a supplementary Estimate to anticipate that there would not be any expenditure?

—No. The original estimate was put in to keep the situation open. This was at a time when we were winding up accounts and sorting out accounts. The Department had claims against the Pigs and Bacon Commission, and the Pigs and Bacon Commission had claims against the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and eventually all these claims had to be sorted out because the Pigs and Bacon Commission was being reshaped.

570. Chairman.—On subhead E.7— Cereals—were there any difficulties that caused the delay in completing the accounts or was it normal?

—It was a normal business but there were some small accounts that gave rise to a lot of difficulties and delays. The matter has since been cleared up finally.

571. Deputy Tunney.—There is one item I wish to raise, which is only a sentimental matter with me, but I thought at some stage you presented the Gaeltacht Glasshouse Scheme to the Department of the Gaeltacht?

—The Deputy’s recollection might be right and I am sure oftentimes we were anxious to do that. I am not sure if we have actually done it. The chick scheme, I believe, has been abandoned. In some of these schemes the administration costs were approaching the value of the schemes themselves and we were trying to wind them up.

572. Deputy C. Murphy.—I should like a general comment from Mr. Barry on wool and the prospects for wool for this year. Have the prices become steady again?

—Until two or three weeks ago I would have been very optimistic because everything seemed set right but last week there was a fall in prices both in Bradford, England, and in Australia. My guess is that it is only a temporary business and that the market will be steady throughout the year. Stocks are being run down particularly Japanese stocks, and it only requires more accelerated economic activity to generate international trade.

573. Could we have a few words on the World Food Programme? What is involved? Is this where we ship out the canned food?

—The World Food Programme is a joint agency of the United Nations and the Food and Agricultural Organisation. Countries pledge themselves to supply cash and goods for development in third countries. We usually supply either milk products or canned meat. We make a pledge for two years at a time. We send the goods out by agreement with the Executive of the World Food Programme to areas where they are needed. This is not an emergency relief programme; it is a programme for development.

VOTE 38—FISHERIES.

Mr. M. J. Barry further examined.

574. Deputy Griffin.—On subhead C.1.— Sea Fisheries Development—on the sentence in the note: “Fewer boys than expected participated in the training course for fishermen”, have you any comments? Was it a result of boys not coming forward?

—It was mainly a result of their not coming forward. Until we got the permanent school in Donegal under way, there was always some doubt about the training courses in temporary premises. The numbers in recent years have been fairly steady. We expect a continuation of the steady demand for these courses and participation in them. They are now accepted all round as a basic requirement for anyone who wants to be a professional fisherman.

You are satisfied with present arrangements?

—Yes, we think they have gone well.

575. Chairman.—On subhead C.4— Fishery Harbour Centres Fund: Grants under Fishery Harbour Centres Act, 1968 —why was the provision not required?

—The Department had not taken over the major fishery harbours and accepted responsibility for them. There were enough funds available for the running expenses.

576. On subhead E—Inland Fisheries Development—on pollution generally as it affects inland fisheries, is this problem becoming more aggravated with modern industrial development and environmental problems, or it is under control?

—I do not think anybody would be optimistic enough to feel that it is under control, because pollution is developing for so many different reasons. The most simple forms with which we are acquainted are farm slurry, town sewerage and so on. Those are ordinary forms of pollution but there are many other kinds. I do not think anybody would feel particularly happy about pollution and say that we have the means or the ability to control it completely.

577. May I put it this way. You have a dual view of this. On the Vote we have just left—Agriculture—there is the problem of agricultural activity, and a considerable amount of pollution where inland fishery is concerned comes from agricultural activity. Is there a conflict then in interests between your two Departments?

—Not really; in fact, it is a help to have them close because they can get together and see what they can do about pollution. Farm pollution, we think, is manageable if the right precautions are taken. For example, if somebody wishes to make silage by a river bank he can cause enormous pollution. If we refuse to give him a grant to make silage, except on a site we are completely happy with, then we can help the fishery end.

You are alive to the necessity for doing this?

—We do this, but damage can happen by lakes or slow flowing rivers. Intensive livestock keeping can cause immense pollution unless adequate precautions are taken.

You think it is a positive advantage to have the two Departments linked from this point of view?

—It is a help because they are on the same wavelength and they do co-operate.

578. On Exchequer Extra Receipts, which exploratory fishing vessel was sold?

—A year or two ago an exploratory fishing vessel went on fire and was badly damaged. Eventually it was sold off for £8,000 or £10,000.

What was its name?

—Cú na Mara.

She had a bad reputation for performance in a seaway.

—She was a dry land exploratory fishing vessel.

Is it true that it was a question of mating an engine and a vessel?

—There is a lot of history attached to that but she is buried as far as we are concerned.

579. Deputy C. Murphy.—I note difficulties tend to arise between harbour development for industrial purposes and fishing rights in certain areas, such as Arklow. Do you have any difficulties in this matter where there is some form of harbour plan under way? And do the fishermen feel they are being left out although it is an industry with potential?

—Those problems can arise where there is multiple use of a harbour. In the case of the major fishery harbours which are tailor-built for fishermen, Dunmore East, Castletownbere and Killybegs, there is no problem. In the case of places like Galway, Howth and Arklow there are problems. It is not easy to reconcile the conflicting interests between the commercial users and the fishermen. These problems exist.

580. Deputy Griffin.—Do you have any views on the proposed 12-mile fishery limits? Would you consider going, like the Icelanders, for a larger limit?

—What the International Law of the Sea Conference envisages is a 200-mile limit and that extends to purposes other than fishing, for example, mineral exploration. Within this limit individual countries like Ireland, and Britain, must decide to whom rights should be given because certain countries have rights around our coast. Under a convention signed in London in 1964, for example, a number of European countries have rights to fish between 12 and six miles off our shores. Having a 200-mile limit does not remove these rights and they may have to be negotiated. In this connection, Britain and Ireland have a coastline which is worth exploiting but many EEC continental countries have coastlines which are already exhausted. Therefore, there will be a conflict of interest in regard to fishery limits even within the EEC.

Chairman.—This is a complicated policy matter?

—Yes.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.