Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jun 1945

Vol. 97 No. 16

Committee on Finance. - National Stud Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The National Stud Farm at Tully, County Kildare, was established in 1916 as a result of the presentation to "The Nation" (then regarded as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) by Colonel William Hall-Walker (later created Lord Wavertree) of his bloodstock for the purposes of a National Stud. The Government of the then United Kingdom purchased Lord Wavertree's interest in the Tully Estate (then approximately 900 acres, part freehold and part tenant right) for the sum of £47,625. The purchase was a condition of the gift of the bloodstock to the nation.

Shortly after the establishment of the Government of Saorstát Eireann a claim resting on Article 11 of the Constitution of 1922 for the possession of the Stud Farm was made to the British Government but the latter would not recognise the claim, on the grounds that the Stud was a gift to the United Kingdom and under the deed of gift could not be alienated. In the course of discussions which took place from time to time it would appear to have been agreed that at least the land and buildings belonged to the Saorstát but no agreement could be reached as regards the movable assets, including bloodstock.

The matter remained in abeyance until 1935 when the Government decided that the Department of Finance should prepare a claim for presentation to the British Government on the basis that the land and buildings of the Stud Farm were the property of the Saorstát and that the Saorstát had, in addition, a right to a share of the movable assets of the farm as at the 6th December, 1921, and of the net profits earned since that date. In addition a claim was to be made for user in lieu of rent of the land and buildings. Following presentation of the claim a discussion took place between representatives of the two Governments in London in November, 1935, at which it was agreed that the negotiations should be continued by correspondence.

No further progress was, however, made until 1943, when it was finally agreed as follows:—(1) that the Government of the United Kingdom would, on 31st December, 1943, hand over possession of the Tully land and buildings; (2) that the Irish Government would take over at an agreed valuation as on 31st December, 1943, the farm equipment and farm livestock and dead stock (the bloodstock was transferred to England), and (3) that the Government of the United Kingdom would pay the Irish Government an agreed sum for user in lieu of rent of the Tully premises as from 6th December, 1922, to 31st December, 1943.

The transfer was duly carried out and the Irish Government took over possession of the National Stud Farm on 1st January, 1944. At the end of March, 1944, the British Government paid to the Irish Government a sum of £28,260 9s. 3d. in respect of user in lieu of rent, less a set off of £6,960 9s. 3d. in respect of the value of live and dead stock taken over at the transfer, making a net payment of £21,300.

The staff at Tully, according to particulars supplied to us before the taking over on the 1st January, 1944, consisted of:—1 stud groom, 1 assistant groom, 8 stud hands, 1 farm manager, 1 assistant steward, 1 carpenter, 1 herd, 1 milkman, 14 farm hands, 1 gardener, 1 garden hand, 1 secretary (part-time), 1 clerk.

Did the Minister say the staff was taken over?

No; I have just indicated the staff that was there according to the particulars given to us before the taking over. Of these the employment of the following, who had reached 65 years of age, was terminated by the British authorities before the taking over:—One stud hand, one farm manager, two farm hands, one clerk. One stud hand did not accept the offer of re-employment and the stud groom obtained employment elsewhere.

Were those discharges made when we took them over?

At the time of taking over. The services of the secretary, part-time, and the assistant steward were subsequently terminated as these men were no longer required, and one of the stud hands died. The remainder were taken over.

Perhaps I should mention that the Government here, in respect of any farms they are running, such as agricultural colleges, pay a gratuity to the men on retirement, that is, a man working for wages gets a gratuity, and the British Government did the same with their men, with a few exceptions.

Your gratuity is a week's pay for each year of service?

I could not say definitely what it amounts to. I think it varies somewhat, but perhaps what the Deputy says is right. Of the staff mentioned, the British authorities have arranged to pay gratuities to the following: 1 assistant groom, 5 stud hands, 1 carpenter, 1 herd, 1 milkman, 11 farm hands and 1 gardener. A gratuity is also being paid to the stud groom, who did not take employment elsewhere. The matter of gratuities to one of the farm hands and the garden hand, and to the dependents of the stud hand who died, is at present under discussion between us and the British authorities.

When the British authorities paid the gratuity, the staff, I take it, were still retained in the service; in other words, they paid the accumulated gratuities?

Yes. If a man had given 20 years' service, he got his gratuity for that period, and presumably will get it for the other 20 years' period when he has completed it. We have no information as to the gratuities, if any, paid to the stud hand, farm manager, two farm hands and the clerk who were not taken over and the stud hand who did not accept the offer of re-employment. I know that this is not easy to follow, but if any Deputy is interested enough to read it later, he will see that everybody is accounted for, so far as gratuities are concerned.

Could the Minister say when the British paid the gratuities?

At a recent stage in most cases. Since the Department came into possession of the property, the following additional appointments have been made: one farm manager, one farm foreman and one garden hand, the former garden hand being transferred to the agricultural staff. A few casual workers have been employed as well. The total of the present staff, not including casuals, is 26, and the weekly wage bill about £70.

In the Bill, no provision has been inserted for the transfer of the existing staff to the National Stud Company. It is felt that it would be unfair to the company to compel them by statute to take over the staff. The intention is, when the "transfer date" under the Bill approaches, to give the staff notice of the termination of their employment under the Department and to arrange with the company, subject, of course, to the company's consent, for the taking over on the transfer date of all the existing staff, or of such of them as the company are willing to take over. In the memorandum of association of the company provision will be made enabling the company to draw up a scheme of pensions and retirement gratuities for their staff, and it will be open to the company to provide in that connection that allowances may be made for service at the National Stud Farm under the Department, or for service there under the British in the case of any employee taken over by the company who may not have been awarded a gratuity by the British authorities. That completes what I have to say about the staff.

The National Stud Farm at present comprises (according to the Valuation Office figures, which are subject to revision) about 871 statute acres consisting of—a portion containing about 174 acres, held in fee simple, subject to payment of a Land Commission annuity of £53 18s. 6d. per annum; another portion containing about 23 statute acres held in fee simple absolute ; and portions containing about 674 statute acres held on judicial tenancy from the landlord, Colonel Richard Michael Aylmer, subject to payment to him of a rent of £813 6s. 8d. per annum. There are 15 dwelling houses on the farm, of which the principal is Tully House. Close to Tully House are the Japanese Gardens, which are a show-place for visitors.

One part of the Stud Farm, comprising a small holding, house, out-offices and land, of 7 statute acres, is separately rated in the name of the occupier Thomas Fulham, a former employee of the stud, who pays the Department a rent of £4 10s. per annum. Formerly he rented this holding from the British Government, but without any written agreement.

Since 1st January, 1944, when it was taken over from the British, the National Stud Farm has been run by the Department of Agriculture as an ordinary farm under a farm manager, pending arrangements for the later use of the farm for stud purposes. About 150 acres are under tillage. A good deal of useful work has been and is being done to put into repair the buildings, horse-boxes, fences, etc. which were in a dilapidated condition when the farm was taken over from the British.

It was decided by the Government, at a meeting on 4th January, 1944, that the Farm will be used for the purposes of running a national stud. It was not considered that the management of a stud would be work that could appropriately be undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, and accordingly the Government approved of a proposal for the preparation of legislation which will enable a public limited liability company to be set up to which possession of the Stud Farm at Tully will be transferred, and which will be financed by the State for the purpose of running a national stud. It is also proposed that the company will in addition carry out special schemes for the improvement of thoroughbred horse breeding.

The Department of Agriculture has in operation schemes for the improvement of horses required for farm and draught purposes, and also for the improvement of hunters and other light horses. The breeding of thoroughbred horses has, heretofore, been regarded as a matter for private enterprise, and no scheme has been in operation for assisting breeders of this class of horse. I am satisfied that there is no necessity for a State-owned stud farm so far as the Department's existing schemes for the development of horse breeding are concerned. Although the schemes for the improvement of hunters and other light horses are based largely on the use of thoroughbred sires, it has been found more economical and satisfactory to select and purchase such animals after they have finished their racing careers, than to breed them especially for the purpose of the schemes. Horses raised at an establishment like the National Stud would be too costly and highly-bred for ordinary use, in the sense that sires equally useful for hunter-breeding, but not belonging to the very best lines of blood, can be acquired at a much lower cost.

A State stud farm could, however, be made the medium of valuable assistance and encouragement for the development of the thoroughbred-breeding industry. The establishment of such a stud farm would ensure that the services of the best-class sires would be available to small breeders at reasonable fees and would, accordingly, be of distinct advantage to the thoroughbred-breeding industry generally. The big fees charged for the services of high-class sires, most of which are standing outside this country, render it impossible for the small breeders to mate their mares with such stallions and, as a result, numbers of good mares which, if suitably mated, would produce high-class stock, are covered by mediocre sires and their progeny are often inferior animals which entail a loss to the breeders and to the country. Failure to produce adequate numbers of good-class colts and fillies to meet the demands of buyers would, in due time, occasion a serious depreciation in our horse export trade. These are the main reasons in favour of the maintenance of the Tully property as a high-class stud farm.

It has been suggested that this end could be attained by leasing the property to a breeder, or syndicate of breeders, who would undertake to maintain it as a high-class stud. This proposal is open to the objection that the stud would be run for the personal profit of the individual, or individuals, concerned, and small breeders in particular would derive little or no benefit from its operations. It is, of course, desirable that the stud should be run for the benefit of the horse-breeding industry in general. If the property is to be utilised for the purpose for which it was designed and equipped, namely, as a stud farm for breeding high-class thoroughbred horses, it would appear desirable to maintain it as a State-controlled stud farm.

As regards the management of the stud, it may be mentioned that under the British Government it was run by a Director responsible to the Ministry of Agriculture, London. I considered, however, that the management of the stud farm is not work appropriate to a State Department, and felt that the best results would be obtained by placing the stud under the management of a non-profit earning company, working within the framework of a general policy laid down by the Minister for Agriculture. The policy would include the keeping of a number of high-class thoroughbred stallions for the use of small breeders in particular and at fees somewhat lower than would be charged in ordinary commercial circumstances. A limited number of high-class brood mares would also be kept and their progeny disposed of or utilised for further breeding in the stud as may be decided from time to time. Visiting mares would have to be kept at the stud for about six months each year. I might mention that we can hardly hope, of course, to have the number of stallions and brood mares we would like to have for some years. It will take a long time to get the high-class stock we would like to have there, but it is hoped to make a commencement before the end of this year.

On what scale?

It depends on the material available.

In addition to maintaining a stud at Tully, it is also proposed that the company will be authorised by Section 30 of the Bill to put into operation special schemes for the improvement of thoroughbred horse breeding and to receive subsidies from the State towards defraying the expenses of operation of such schemes, e.g.: (i) a scheme to stand stallions at centres other than Tully if essential for the convenience of breeders of thoroughbreds; (ii) a scheme for location of high-class stallions on sale at reduced prices; (iii) a scheme for the leasing of stallions to suitable breeders; (iv) a scheme to provide an advisory service for breeders in regard to the mating of their thoroughbred mares; (v) any other suitable and desirable scheme for the same general purpose. It is impossible at present to give any accurate idea as to probable extent of the company's normal annual expenditure and receipts.

The general framework of the proposed Bill will be somewhat similar to that of existing Acts under which other statutory companies have been set up in recent years, e.g., the Industrial Alcohol Act, 1938, the Sugar Manufacturing Act, 1933, etc. The Bill is a very simple one, although it may appear, at first sight, to be rather long.

The salient features of the Bill are as follows:—(1) Provision for enabling the Minister for Agriculture to procure the formation and registration under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1924, of a company to be known as the Irish National Stud Company, Limited, whose principal objects will be to take leases and/or licences of Tully Stud Farm and to carry on the business of stud farming; (2) to vest in the Minister for Agriculture the State's estate or interest in the National Stud Farm and to empower him to grant leases or licences of the Stud Farm or any part of it; (3) to make arrangements for the financing of the company, including the following chief provisions:—

1. That the company will have an authorised share capital of £250,000 divided into £1 shares, all sums paid from time to time in subscription for shares to be advanced by the Minister for Finance out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof; all shares issued to be held by or in trust for the Minister for Finance, to whom also will be paid all bonus or dividend on the shares.

2. That the company will in addition have power, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, to borrow sums from its bankers but so that the bank borrowings outstanding at any one time shall not exceed £100,000 or the amount of the authorised share capital unissued, whichever is the less.

3. That, subject to the approval of the Minister for Agriculture after consultation with the Minister for Finance, the company may apply for capital purposes the moneys in the company's stock replacement fund.

4. That, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture will have power to grant subsidies to the company, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, towards defraying the expenses of special schemes for the improvement of thoroughbred horse breeding.

(4) To provide for the fixing by the Minister for Finance of a "transfer date", on which the chattels at the National Stud Farm will become the property of the Irish National Stud Company, the company to pay for such chattels by issuing to the Minister for Finance duly paid up shares equal in nominal value to the value of the chattels as certified by that Minister; (5) To provide that the company shall annually furnish a balance sheet, profit and loss account and a report, for submission to the Oireachtas.

Why is the Minister taking power to lease part of the property?

The property first comes into the possession of the Minister for Agriculture, and he then leases or licenses it to the company. It is intended that it will be licensed immediately, but I have already mentioned that a small piece of it was already rented and that part may not immediately be handed over to the company.

It is not considered necessary to provide in the Bill for the company's right to accept donations or bequests of bloodstock from private persons, or to accept gifts, grants or loans from the board to be established under the Racing Board and Racecourses Act, 1945, but it is intended to insert a suitable provision about this matter in the memorandum of association of the company, so that the new company will be open to receive any gifts made to them.

Would the Minister mind repeating that portion of his statement about inserting in the articles of association of the company's provision with regard to gratuities and pensions? I do not think that that is in Section 13.

It was thought that it was not necessary or even appropriate to be inserted in the Bill, but it will be provided for in the articles of association. The intention is to give the company power to draw up a pensions and gratuity scheme for its employees, and it is also the intention to empower the company not only to cover their own term of occupation, but to date this back to the 1st January, 1944, because, otherwise, there would be an interval between that time and the date on which they come into office, during which there could be no scheme for gratuity.

I want to say that the provision of a national stud is a very valuable provision for an important branch of our primary industry, the bloodstock industry, and I want to put on record our protest at bringing in such an important Bill as this at the end of the Parliamentary session. I look upon this as a very important Bill, and I am afraid that it is also a controversial Bill. For that reason, I wish to give my personal experience of this matter to the House. I happen to represent the constituency where the Curragh is situated. Now, the Bill was only circulated last week, and as a result, I got no opportunity of consulting the people who would be keenly interested in this matter of the provision of a national stud, and when we take into consideration the time that the national stud was in our hands and the time that has been occupied in the drafting of this Bill, I consider that it is not fair to the members of this House, or to the people interested in this matter, to bring in the Bill at this stage and try to rush it through the House.

I do not know whether there is any particular reason for hurrying the Bill through, but I should like the Minister to adjourn it until the autumn session, so as to give us an opportunity of considering it fully. I think that a national stud, controlled by a body of nationally-minded men, should improve the bloodstock industry here, and should enhance the name of the Irish horse abroad. I also think that, in view of the bloodstock position in Europe at the moment, the time is now opportune for us to concentrate on horse-breeding here, and on the establishment of a national stud. I think a national stud should aim at producing only the best class from the best class. That would react greatly to the benefit of Irish breeders.

I need not stress the conditions required for the rearing of young stock and for the production of the finest bloodstock in the world. As a matter of fact, I have no hesitation in saying that it is quite within our capacity here to lead the world in the production of bloodstock. Now that the time is opportune, our aim should be to lay the necessary plans to ensure that, so that we will be able to take a commanding lead in the world in the near future in the production of bloodstock. I want to stress what the Minister has said, that the backbone of the industry here is the farmer, the small farmer. He is an expert, and no country in the world has as many small breeders, with that instinctive knowledge and love of the horse, as we have. It is that love and knowledge which qualify them to produce animals that command the highest prices at the Dublin and Doncaster sales. It has been a marvellous achievement on their part. They have made a reputation for themselves and the country in breeding animals from mares of low price that have commanded the highest prices at Doncaster. That is something that we can be proud of. Our breeders have achieved that over and over again.

The Minister has already pointed out that, at the moment, there are no special schemes to help our bloodstock breeders. We are relying almost entirely on individual effort. The first aim of the national stud should be the provision of high-class sires. I agree with the Minister that they should be available to selected mares at comparatively low fees, at least half the fees that would have to be paid in the open market. Of course, there is the question of how those mares are to be selected and of stocking up the stud with mares for breeding purposes. In view of the high prices which our bloodstock are making at the moment, we will have to be prepared for a considerable outlay on the provision of sires. So far as the provision of brood mares is concerned, I would advise caution.

I would suggest that we should not launch out on any scheme which would involve the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. Some of the finest studs in the world have been built up from low-priced mares, and with extraordinarily good results. The real success of any national stud can be measured on the brood-mare side. If the production side is a paying proposition, and in my opinion it ought to be, that, I think, will be the real test as to whether the stud is a success or otherwise. The Minister said, in respect of the schemes to which he referred, that the purpose is to help the small breeder. I am in agreement with the suggestions that he made as to the provisions that will be necessary in that respect, and that, we all hope, are going to prove advantageous to this important branch of our main industry.

The proposal in the Bill to set up a nominal company for the management of the stud is one that we on this side are vigorously opposed to. The proposal, I know, is in line with the Government's policy to set up nominal companies of this sort and give them responsibility for looking after State interests. I think that policy has been abused, and that putting it into effect rarely suited the purpose for which it was intended. It may have been suitable for handling such problems in our economic life as the Electricity Supply Board, the sugar company and bodies of that sort, but there is no analogy between them and an undertaking of this sort. The House should insist that this property will be vested in the Minister so that he will be responsible to the House for the administration of the national stud, particularly when we bear in mind that there is in question the selection of mares and the leasing of young fillies for racing that will eventually come back to the stud for breeding purposes. There is also the danger of patronage and preferential treatment. For these reasons the administration of the national stud should be open to discussion in this House. Deputies should be in a position at any time to question the administration, operation and the policy pursued by the national stud. All these are matters on which one could change his mind as a result of experience gained. We may have ideas to-day about the running of the national stud, and in two or three years' time we may find, from experience, that it would be desirable to change the policy in operation. If the operation of this measure is handed over to a nominal company it will mean that criticism by Deputies will be stifled. People keenly interested in the national stud will, in that situation, have no medium by which they can express their views, either by way of criticism or suggestion, except perhaps by writing a letter to a member of the board.

The proposal in this Bill is, I think, the worst example we have had of the policy of the Government in handing over State undertakings to the control of a nominal company. The principle involved has been vigorously condemned by two commissions set up by the Government, the latest being the Vocational Education Commission. Bearing in mind the condemnation of that principle contained in the report of that commission, as applied to various State activities, we have here an outstanding example where the House should insist that it should not be applied in this particular case. The proposal is to appoint four or five people and to give them a salary. It is to be in the gift of the Minister to bestow the appointments on whomever he likes. Once the company is set up the members of it will have no responsibility to this House to run the stud efficiently and properly in the national interest, and will be under no obligation to submit their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. I think it is time that the House called a halt to that sort of thing. I have said that the House ought to insist that this State property should be vested in the Minister, and that his administration of it should be open for discussion and criticism, either on the Minister's Estimate or, if necessary, by way of motion.

There is no earthly reason why it should be necessary to form a company at all. Why not have a control board of three directors who would act in an honorary capacity? I do not think the members should have any salary. The farthest that I would go would be to pay their out-of-pocket expenses. I feel certain that you would get any number of men in the live-stock industry of the country, with the experience and capacity necessary to run the stud well, who would be quite willing to do so and to act in an honorary capacity.

Have that board of control, have a manager if you like, but reserve to this House control over any authority of the kind. I think a national stud should prove a tremendous asset and a very great advantage to an important branch of agriculture. The opportunity is there. The blood stock industry, generally, in Europe is at a particularly low ebb at present, and we find ourselves in very favourable circumstances to exploit out position in that respect to the fullest. But the House should not stand for this sort of proposal. No matter what side Deputies sit on, if this measure is put into operation, then that is the end of the right and the privilege of any Deputy to ask a question regarding policy. No matter how anxious a Deputy to may be about a proposal of this kind, is it desirable —when we are given an opportunity to encourage a great industry, one of which all Irish people feel proud, because the name of the Irish horse is renowned throughout the world—that we should make a mess of it by having a nominal company, and handing over to three, four or five directors, the direction and selection of mares?

What class of people are to benefit? Is it to be the big shots or small breeders? The small farmers are the experts. It was they made a name for Irish horses. Are they to benefit? Can we trust a body set up in this way to act honestly and fairly? I think we would not be doing our duty, or fulfilling our responsibilities as Deputies, if we accepted the proposals in this measure. At the end of this Parliamentary Session I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the Bill. There is no urgency about it. If the Bill were withdrawn it could be dealt with in the Autumn when there will be time to consider it. I represent the Curragh area in this House and within the last few days I had not an opportunity of speaking to individuals who would be interested in it. I was particularly anxious to do so. For that reason I do not think it is fair to the House to rush the Bill now. I am in violent disagreement with the Minister's proposals, particularly with the rotten example of the type of company that the Government are in the habit of setting up to deal with State activities. I emphasise that we are in strong opposition to these proposals and will oppose every section. I do not think that is desirable, if it can be avoided.

I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the Bill now and give time for discussion of it before the autumn session, when the Minister will possibly have consulted people in a position to give him wise advice. I should like him to do that. If he insists on pushing the measure through the House now we feel it to be our duty to oppose it to the best of our ability.

The establishment of a national stud is not only the concern of the Government Party, but the concern of every Party in this House and of the community at large, because the welfare of that stud concerns the people as a whole. The methods to be employed in the establishment on sound lines of a national stud ought not to be the subject of keen Party controversy. In a matter of this kind there ought to be time to discuss the proposals by all Parties, as to how best a national stud could be established. I profoundly regret the method of control which the Minister proposes to establish over the national stud. I know nothing in this method of establishing a semi-public and semiprivate company that induces us to look upon that method as something worthy of any terrific admiration. As Deputy Hughes rightly stated, in respect to the establishment of a national stud, this is a device which I do not think ought to have been resorted to. What we are doing here is setting up a national stud. The Minister has the property, he is empowered to lease it, to get £250,000 in shares, and he is presumed to put up £100,000 for the establishment of a company which will be empowered to borrow. Virtually the Minister will have no control over the company when it is established, and the House will have no control over it any more than it has effective control over any establishment in Kildare Street or O'Connell Street. We know that the effect of setting up the company, which will have not less than three and not more than five directors, will be that the day to day contacts will be in the hands of the directors, and that once the board is set up the sole responsibility for the direction and guidance of the national stud will be in the hands of these three or five directors.

In this country love of Irish horses and admiration for their prowess are in the blood of the people, so that there is more than ordinary interest taken in the doings of our national stud and in the welfare of our blood stock. The Minister can feel sure that the House would always take a vigilant interest in the welfare of the national stud, and in the blood-stock industry generally. That, in itself, is a reason why the Minister should not throw away control to an independent board of this character, which will be empowered under the Bill to control the destinies of the national stud to be established at Tully. I would prefer if the Minister for Agriculture had regarded himself as director-in-chief in his Ministerial capacity of the national stud at Tully, with the assistance of a board of directors, paid or honorary, to assist in the day to day work, directing policy in the buying of blood stock, and generally implementing whatever policy was considered best by the Minister and by this House, for the future of the blood-stock industry. Instead of keeping day to day control in his own hands, as well as the power to act as director-in-chief of the establishment, with the right to be guided and advised by directors with whom he would be in intimate contact, the Minister is giving control to some private directors over whom neither he nor this House will have control. I think that it is a fatal mistake on the part of the Minister, and I do not feel at all happy at a situation in which five persons may get control over our national stud, with no responsibility to this House or to the taxpayers who put up the money and with very little responsibility, so far as this Bill is concerned, to the Minister as regards the detailed affairs of the stud. In a matter of this kind, the Minister might well have taken the House into his confidence and sought some guidance from the different Parties as to the method of control of the Tully Stud in the future. At all events, the control of the stud by the Minister, with the assistance of competent assessors, should have been resorted to in the first instance. Only if it were shown that that method of control proved, by experience, to be unsatisfactory, should we have resorted to the device of setting up what is, in effect, a privately-directed company, functioning on State capital and State credit, with no real responsibility to those who provide the capital and the credit. I think that the Minister has been unwise in launching himself into this commitment without giving the other method of control a trial.

Even now, I urge him not to persist in this method of control but to give the other type a trial, at least until such time as we can be satisfied that it has imperfections which are not present in the method of control envisaged by him in this Bill. The Minister will find, on examination, that the method by which he would act as director-in-chief to this undertaking would give better results to the blood-stock industry, greater confidence to the small breeders and a greater sense of assurance to the taxpayer that the Tully Stud was being operated for genuine national purposes and that private and proprietary interests were completely eschewed in its ownership and direction. While I agree with what Deputy Hughes has said as regards control, I do not agree with him that we should be slow in stocking the stud——

With mares only.

While the Minister could postpone the operation of this Bill until such time as he has had an opportunity of considering a different type of control, there is nothing to prevent him from getting, by means of a supplementary estimate, funds for the purpose of buying the first-class bloodstock available at present. We have to bear in mind that, in England, the racing stables are at a low ebb. The position in continental countries is very much worse. The moment it is possible to resume normal trading relations and the moment the restriction on currency exchange is lifted to any degree, you will find that the lid is off and the stable door is open, and a number of our best horses will find a market in Europe at tempting prices. Many of these animals would be valuable in the restocking of the national stud, and it would be a great pity if these animals were permitted to be sold elsewhere while the national stud is denuded of practically any stock of value and must be eagerly looking forward to an opportunity to acquire good stock. I am wholeheartedly in sympathy with the idea of somebody buying on behalf of the State the valuable bloodstock to be had to-day but which, whether in the realm of sires or brood mares, will not be available in 12 months. It is necessary to buy these animals quickly so as to get the cream of the market.

That need not prevent the Minister from altering the method of control envisaged in this Bill. We have an unrivalled opportunity of building up a magnificent national stud. Alone of the horse-loving countries, perhaps, we have kept our bloodstock intact and have been able to shelter it and nurture it in circumstances that were open to no other country during the past five or six years. We have the cream of the bloodstock of the world and we ought to take an opportunity of utilising it for the benefit of our own national stud. I believe that a national stud, with the record of the Irish horse for stamina and prowess, is capable of writing our name large throughout the world and, before the bloodstock here is exported, we should buy the best from our own people so that at the earliest opportunity we can build a fully-matured national stud which will radiate the name of Ireland for quality throughout the world and which will be capable of giving us in the post-war years—perhaps the distant post-war years—a market for our bloodstock such as we never had before.

The Minister made reference to the staffing position at Tully. I should like to appeal to him to recognise that there is a human factor in a national stud and that we are not dealing with animals all the time. On the Racecourse Bill, I said that the strange thing about racing was that the folk who make it possible—the lads who gallop and train the horses and who put up with the rigours of stable life— get the worst end of the stick in the racing industry, generally. They do not arrive in motor cars at the racecourses. They do not make large bets in the inner ring. They never own racehorses. They walk out to the racecourses, and walk home with the hopes of the morning unfulfilled and, generally, they get a bad deal so far as the racing industry is concerned. Here, we are dealing with a national stud, and I appeal to the Minister to remember the human element in this matter. The Tully Stud has been established for a number of years and quite a considerable staff was employed there. When the British Administration handed over, some of the staff went off and were paid gratuities by the British Government. The gratuity was about £2 for each year of service. Some of the staff were taken over by this Administration and continued in the service. Judging by what the Minister said, some of those who continued also got gratuities—that is, the gratuity due to them on the basis of so much for each year of service. They are now continuing in our employment in the expectation that, when they ultimately pass out of the service, they will get a gratuity, as well, from whatever body controls the stud at that time.

I gathered from the Minister that there was to be no obligation on the new company to take over the existing staff at Tully, that the service of the staff was to be terminated prior to the formal handing over to the new company and that the new company were to be in such a position that they could take over the old staff if they liked but were not to be obliged to do so if they did not like. Many of these men have been there for 25 years or longer. They are not now in the prime of life. The gratuity which they will get will, at best, be a niggardly amount, having regard to the basis on which it is computed and to their age. It is improbable that, having spent 25 years on a stud farm, they will be able easily to get employment elsewhere. We are to set up this company with a capital of £250,000 and authority to borrow another £100,000. We ought to say to this new company, or whatever body is to control the undertaking, that they have got to take over the staff under the existing terms and conditions, or if, for good reasons—and they should be very good reasons— they do not find it possible to retain their services, then they ought to treat them decently and generously.

It seems to me nothing short of indifference, if I may put it that way, that we say to a private company of this character: "We are going to give notice to the men between 50 and 60 years of age before you take over. You can take them over if you wish but you are not bound to take them over if you do not like." I put it to the Minister that these employees are deserving of better treatment. I have seen old sires and old brood mares trecking around Tully Stud for many years without ever bringing in a halfpenny to that stud. In the old days the British Government let them treck around the place without ever earning a penny for the institution. They had the time of their lives but, strangely enough, when they died, because of the method of keeping the accounts of the stud, it was regarded as having incurred the loss of a certain amount of money by the death of these old sires or brood mares. In fact, many of them brought in no income at all.

They were really a liability on the place but they were planked in the balance sheet as representing a certain amount of money because that was the sum for which they were purchased. When they died their death was regarded as a loss but the funds were much better off, in fact, as a result of their death. When you treat old sires and brood mares in that generous fashion surely it ought to be possible to get fair consideration for men who have been there for 25 years or longer, men whose whole economic lot is cast in that particular area, men who have given the best of their lives to the service of the stud.

I think it would be most unfair, and an ironic commentary on our sense of values, if we were to contemplate a situation in which old employees of the State would be given notice to take their chance of getting employment from the new private company whereas we are concerned so much with the welfare of the bloodstock industry, which, whatever, its importance, should not take precedence over the human considerations that apply in this case. Many pieces of legislation that have passed through this House have compelled amalgamating companies to take over existing staffs. For instance, the National Health Insurance Society was compelled to take over every employee of every private society whether it liked it or not. Córas Iompair Eireann was compelled to take over the existing employees of Great Southern Railways whether it liked it or not. Surely, in a case of this kind, where the State owns the land, where the State is going to provide capital, the State should not be unwilling to assume responsibilities which it has compelled private companies to assume in other spheres of activity. I put it to the Minister whatever method of control he is going to have over this stud, he should insist that the employees will be handed over on terms not less favourable than those under which they have been employed in the past. If, for any reason, the new company finds it necessary to dispense with their services—and the reasons, as I said before, should be substantial—before their services are dispensed with, the employees should get fair treatment after their long years of service in the employment of the Tully Stud.

I put it to the Minister that, at all events, he should insist upon automatic transfer, otherwise these unfortunate people will have no bargaining power with the new company. They live in that particular area, they have had close associations with the stud; that is where their economic destiny is cast. If they are not taken on by the new company they will find it difficult to get employment elsewhere in the locality. The Minister should protect these employees from the possibility that they may be relegated by the new company to the unemployment market. I conclude by appealing to the Minister not to let them down, because it would be an unfortunate method of expressing the gratitude of the nation to men who have served the national stud for the last quarter of a century.

I wish to add my voice to the protest which has been made against the scheme embodied in this Bill for the future administration of the national stud farm. A considerable number of years ago, when I occupied an official position in this State, it became my duty to consider the position of the stud farm. It would be quite wrong for me now to make any reference to the considerations which influenced me, or the advice which I tendered in that capacity. I merely mention it to indicate that I am speaking with a recollection of 14 or 15 years of the history of the Tully Stud Farm. I have the clearest possible recollection that in pre-Treaty days the Tully Stud was a national trust and I believe it was administered as such by a Department of the British Government. At all events, the outstanding feature of the trust in pre-Treaty days was that it was a national public trust and it was not administered on the basis of a private concern.

The proposal in this Bill is to set up a private company under the Companies Acts, not to administer a public trust, not to carry out functions on behalf of the Government in relation to that trust, but to carry on a private business. The only indication which is given in this Bill as to the purpose for which this company is being formed is that in the clause which provides that the memorandum of association, which defines the objects for which the company is to be created and defines its powers and duties, shall set out that the objects of the company shall be so stated as to enable the company as one of its principal, if not its principal objects, to carry on the business of a stud farm. So that the effect of these proposals in the Bill is to convert what was a national trust into a private business. That is a principle to which this House should not subscribe. It is clear on the face of this Bill itself that the Tully Stud Farm is a national concern. The lands which were used for the purposes of the Tully stud in the old pre-Treaty days are now referred to in the Bill as lands belonging to the State. The name of the farm, the National Stud, again emphasises and underlines the national aspect and the public character of this concern.

The whole basis of the claim of this country to get from the British Government the Tully stud, the farm and all its assets, was the fact that it was State property and, as such, that this State, as the successor to the British Government, was entitled to that property. It should have passed under Article 11 of the old Constitution of 1922 as land belonging to the State. That was the basis of our right to claim this farm. By this Bill we are now turning that national trust into a private business and on whose behalf is that business to be run? A business of this kind, with nominees of the Minister, with no control over its concerns by this House, can be managed in such a way as to be run on dishonest lines for the benefit of certain individuals and not for the benefit of the country.

Reference has been made here to the Electricity Supply Board and to the method by which the electricity undertaking is carried on. There is no analogy between the proposals in this Bill and the scheme embodied in the Electricity Supply Acts. This is a Bill —again I emphasise it, because it requires to be stated and re-stated—to create a company to carry on a private business. The principal object is to carry on the business of a stud farm. The whole object of the Tully stud was to carry on a public trust for the benefit of the bloodstock industry in this country, which was one of our greatest national assets. This national asset is now going to be turned into a private business. On whose behalf and for whose benefit? The Electricity Supply Board was set up in order that there should be a company of the public utility type carrying on, for the benefit of electricity consumers, the business of producing, generating and distributing electricity. This is not a Bill for that purpose. This is a Bill for carrying on a business. Had the proposal been to create a board of trustees or a corporate body to carry on the public trust, on behalf of the public, of the Tully Stud Farm and the National Stud Farm then at least we could have discussed calmly whether or not that was a proper method of carrying on the concern. At least it would have preserved the whole basis of the Tully Stud, that it was a public trust, a national trust. This converts a national trust into a private business and there is no analogy between the Electricity Supply Board and this company. The members of the Electricity Supply Board are appointed on a certain basis by the Minister and, even although the whole scheme of the Electricity Supply Acts was to remove a concern which was in the nature of a public utility from day to day criticism of the Dáil and to enable it to be carried on as a public utility concern for the benefit of electricity consumers, nevertheless, there is far greater touch between this House and the Electricity Supply Board than there can between this House and this company that it is proposed to set up under this Bill.

There is no provision, so far as I can see, in this Bill for accounting to this House. There is no provision by which this House can find out how the business is being conducted. There is no provision for questioning the persons the Minister appoints. There is nothing like what occurs between this House and the Electricity Supply Board in which case the accounts are presented annually to the Minister and, through the Minister, to this House. There is nothing of that kind here. A purely private business is to conduct what was and ought to be a national trust for the improvement of the bloodstock industry for the benefit of the country nationally.

I entirely agree with the case that has been put forward by Deputy Hughes and Deputy Norton against this Bill. The proposals are merely another instance of the policy of the Government in farming out governmental activities to private concerns. It is another method by which they can spread their tentacles of patronage right into the business community and grip the business community into their political power. I protest against the proposals in this Bill on that basis but I protest against the Bill chiefly because of the fact that it is creating a private company to carry out a private business, in the place of what was a national trust, carried on nationally and under Government auspices.

I should like to reiterate what Deputy Hughes and Deputy Norton have said as to the wisdom of bringing in this measure at this late stage in the session, with very little notice to Deputies and with very little opportunity of getting in touch with people who might give them additional information. As representing a part of the country in which the breeding of thoroughbred stock is an industry, I should have welcomed an opportunity of discussing the Bill with people who are concerned. I have not had such an opportunity as matters stand. I think the Minister would have been well advised to postpone the Bill to the Autumn session. We have waited a long time, since the Tully Stud Farm came into the possession of the Government, for the introduction of this measure and a few months' postponement would not have adversely affected the eventual conduct of the stud. On the contrary, probably two months' consideration of the matter and an opportunity of discussing it with the people concerned would have been beneficial.

I am also in agreement with Deputy Hughes and Deputy Norton in their view of the particular method that the Minister proposes to adopt in this Bill, namely, to introduce a private company to take charge of the thoroughbred industry so far as the national stud is concerned. I believe that every Deputy who takes an interest in the matter of thoroughbred stock breeding is ipso facto a representative of the small breeder. Very few of us concerned with this matter represent the rich and more extensive breeder. Our interest is mainly in the small thoroughbred stock breeder. We believe that his interests will be best served by giving a chance to those who represent him in this House to discuss openly and annually the conduct of the national stud. That will not be possible if the proposals in the Bill are carried out.

If one studies the history of thoroughbred stock-breeding in this country one finds that the success that has been brought about in horse breeding is mainly due to the small breeder. I am glad that the Minister, in his references to his policy in regard to the national stud, referred to the small breeder and said that he hoped the interests of the small breeder would be of paramount consideration by whoever controls the stud. We want to be assured that the interests of the small breeder will be paramount and that is, probably, the main reason why we insist that the control of the national stud should not be given into the hands of what is tantamount to a private company. Ninety per cent. of the great racehorses that have been bred in this country have come from the small breeder. There have been certain notable exceptions of Derby winners and other horses produced by the more extensive and richer studs but, in the main, the industry has been kept going by the small breeder, not always as a financial success.

Love of horses is inherent in the Irish countryman. Possibly in no other country is there such a genius for acquiring and mating horses as there is here. It is almost miraculous that some of the breeders in this country have produced the stock that they have produced with the limited facilities available to them. The practice of the small breeder has been somewhat like this: The small farmer interested in stock acquires a thoroughbred brood mare. He cannot afford to expend a tremendous amount of money, but he does the best he can. His natural ability as a judge of horseflesh and as a student of pedigree probably enables him to get good value for his money. He mates his mare. With his limited capital and opportunities he cannot afford to go to the best sire, so he probably mates his mare with a fairly cheap thoroughbred sire somewhere in the country. The resultant progeny is sold at a moderate figure. Eventually perhaps the progeny turns out successful on the racecourse. What happens then is that the fee of the sire is immediately raised 100 or 200 per cent., and passes out of reach of that particular breeder. He is compelled to fall back again, and mate his mare with some other cheap sire. In fact, up to this the small breeder has been an advertising agent for the large sire owners.

As I said, my interest in this Bill is from the point of view of the small breeder. Many of them have gone out of the business, but love of horses is so inherent in the Irish countryman that many others have taken their places, so the small breeders have continued and will continue in this country whether it is a paying proposition or not. The first duty of Deputies in this House is the protection of those small breeders. It is our duty to ensure, so far as we can, that the national stud will be run for their benefit. If it cannot be run for the benefit of the small breeders, it would be better perhaps if it were not run at all, because the rich and more extensive breeders have plenty of opportunities and capital to provide for themselves. Deputy Costello referred to the stud as a national trust. It is a national trust. It was operated by the British Government as a national trust, but I venture to hope that we will operate that national trust on a somewhat different basis from that adopted by the British Government.

I believe that the British Government assumed it was a national trust for Britain, and not for the benefit of the small breeder in this country, because as far as I know before the national stud came into our possession the fees were so excessive that they were not at all within the reach of the small breeder. I hope that in future it will be operated on different lines, that it will be under the control of the Minister, and that we can come here annually, or at more frequent intervals by Motion if necessary, to demand from the Minister an explanation of the conditions under which the stud is being run. We do not expect the Minister to operate it himself. He can have a director, or two directors and a manager, or devise some other system by which the stud can be run in such way that he will have control and that the House will eventually have a say in the matter.

I should like to see the national stud operated on these lines: that it would acquire a number of sires—the number of course would be in proportion to the amount of money they intend to expend—of the highest possible calibre; sires which probably could not be got outside the studs of the millionaire type of breeder that some of us could name; that at least 70 per cent. of the services of those sires would be available to the small breeder; 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. might be reserved for the State, and high fees might be extracted from the rich breeders to enable it to be a paying concern. I should like to see the stud so run that the services of sires would be available to the small breeder at a very much lower figure than that at which it would be possible for him to get horses of the same type anywhere else. Everybody, of course, could not get them, and the mares would have to be selected in some way. The stud could of course specify that the mares should be of very exceptional breeding and performances, with a view to setting up a line of stock such as they have in some of the very rich studs. The progeny should be disposed of so that a great proportion of the fillies reared in the stud would pass to the small breeders, either by a system of part payment or a lien on the progeny, or some other method.

Looking back on the history of the small breeder, whether producers of steeplechasers or of flat racers, we find that far and away the greatest number of the best horses produced came from the small breeder. If you look down the handicap list of great winners in the last 50 years, you will find that Cloghran, Hunter's Pride, Little Leader and several others came from small breeders. The Grand National winners, as far back as Salamander, The Lamb, Jerry M, Troytown, Reynoldstown, Workman, and others, came from small breeders who got no State aid. It was to their credit that they carried on. Most of them never made any money. They carried on through the love of horses and horse-racing which is inherent in almost every Irishman. If we are going to spend £250,000 or more on the advancement of live-stock breeding in this country, then unless we expend it to the advantage of this class of breeder it would be better if it were not expended at all.

Anything else I have to say will be said on the Committee Stage of this Bill. I will conclude by protesting against the proposal to pass the control of this stud to some private company, with practically no control over its operations by the members of this House. I hope the Minister will reconsider that portion of his policy. If he does, I venture to say that he will have the support of the general body of the House.

Like other speakers, I am very disappointed that we had so little notice of this Bill. We had no time to get the general opinion of the public on it. I should have liked to have had an opportunity of consulting people who have a knowledge of horse-breeding, people who knew what the Tully stud meant, and who had a very practical idea of how it was run. In that way we would have been in a position to put up suggestions which, I am sure, would be of help to the Minister. However, I suppose we must just take it as we find it, but, having waited for so many years for this Bill, it was rather a disappointment to have it rushed in so suddenly without giving us any time to look at it.

Therefore, I think it is a pity that the Minister could not have waited for a couple of months until the autumn session. Like the other Deputies who have spoken, I must say that I am extremely disappointed after so many years to find, now that we have got this stud, that no longer can we say it is a national stud which is to be run for the benefit of the Irish people, for the benefit of the small owners and the large owners; that we are handing it over to a few hand-picked people perhaps to run for their own ends. That is really what it amounts to. People to whom I have been speaking to-day and yesterday are very perturbed. They feel that the whole thing has been completely misunderstood so far as the Government are concerned. I wish to make it quite clear that I am sure the Minister did not intend this to be the case, but that is how it appears to me and the general public.

I am sure the Minister thought he was doing the best thing. I suggest that he should now reconsider the matter and take it on himself to be the man responsible for the running of the stud through a manager and some directors, because we in this House should have a right to ask questions about the running of the stud, to make suggestions with regard to it or bring up any supposed scandal that might be talked about throughout the country. I think it is only fair and just, when it is the people's money that will be used for the running of this stud, that the people's representatives should have a chance of asking how the stud is being run. I appeal to the Minister before it is too late to take on the responsibility himself and, as I said, to have a manager and a few directors.

On that point, I am sure that the Minister realises how very important it is to get proper people to take on these various duties, because we want experienced people; not people who perhaps may have read about horse-breeding, but people who understand it and who have a thorough expert and practical knowledge of horse-breeding. That is what we want, not simply that they are able to talk about pedigrees without understanding the points of a horse and how to mate a horse properly with a brood mare of suitable pedigree. We want to have that made quite clear before we set out on this very big venture of spending £250,000 of public money. I therefore ask the Minister to be very particular about the people he will select, to select them carefully and to see that they are people who have a wide and general knowledge of horse-breeding.

We all know that, in the old days, when Colonel Hall Walker, later Lord Wavertree, made a gift of this stud, he had high ideals about the running of it for the nation. We are now setting out on a new venture, and we are supposed to be running it as a national stud, too. We should understand that it is for the nation, for the benefit of the small breeder, as well as the big breeder. We should keep that fact in mind when we are selecting these men, either the manager or the directors. We should keep that definitely in view, because it is well known to the people of the County Kildare that when Lord Wavertree handed over this farm it was his intention to have it run for the benefit of the people of this country. We should have no misunderstanding about that, even if it was lost sight of and the small breeder did not get the benefit he should have got. We should not lose sight of that fact. We should keep before us that we want to benefit the small breeder, who is really the foundation of the horse-breeding industry here. There is quite a lot to be done about it. I am sure the Minister has his own ideas about it.

We must get the very best stock, no matter what the price may be. We must have the best sires and the best brood mares, which I may say are not so easy to find as some people seem to imagine. They are not easy to get at present, and the price is tremendously high. Even if we were only to have a few, it is much better to have a few good ones, and start well, than to have a lot which would not be up to the mark. As well as having these very high-class thoroughbred sires, I suggest that something should be done towards having good sires which will produce 'chasers. In this country we had a great name for 'chasers in the old days. Now, for some reason or another, they are running out. Those we have are getting old. Farmers who formerly had one or two have got out of them. The farmer who always had a good 'chaser of the staying type cannot afford to keep one now, as he is not getting very much encouragement. I feel that we should have some of these sires in the national stud whose services would be given at a reasonable rate so as to encourage the breeding of 'chasers of the staying kind in this country. There is a good market for the 'chaser now, and there will be in the future, as we know they are very keen in England; and we should set the headline and have these sires available, as well as those of the high-class thoroughbred type.

In mentioning the lease of fillies and the sale of colts, I would point out to the Minister that much as we want to see the stud filly, we do not want to see the national stud going into opposition with the small breeder and small owner at the Ballsbridge sales, for instance. The stud should be satisfied to lease them out, and should not enter into competition. In other words, we should not have the best from the stud, where they have the best care and where no expense is counted, going into competition with the small man from the country who may have one of the same breed at Ballsbridge. There should be some rule to avoid that competition. I think that is not an unreasonable request. It would be a different thing if it went over to Doncaster Sales, as they have gone before and always will go, but they should not be put up here, where we would have sales and buyers in from the other side. There should not be competition from a stud run with the people's money through State funds.

Deputy Norton mentioned the employees. I am sure that when it has been pointed out to the Minister that so many of these people have lived all their lives in these surroundings, with life-long connections with Tully and the National Stud, the Minister will be able to realise what a terrible hardship it would be if these people were left at the mercy of the new board. I make the appeal that they be kept on, at least until they prove unsatisfactory to the new board.

There is another thing which is not actually connected with the stud, but which, with your permission, A Chinn Chomhairle, I would like to speak of; and as the Minister has mentioned it in passing, I suppose I may. It is about the Japanese Gardens there, which, as everyone knows, are world famous. They are on the same lands as the Tully stud, and I would ask that, if possible, they be kept up as they were formerly. They were a show-ground for visitors in the past. I hope that that matter will be given special attention. There were some beautiful trees there from many parts of the world, some of them many hundreds of years of age, and it is really something to be proud of to have that garden. I would ask the Minister to have it inserted in the Bill that these be kept up as they were formerly. Finally, I regret that we have not had much more time to examine the provisions of this Bill, and to consult our friends in the country about it.

I want to join with other Deputies here in opposing the character of this Bill. I agree entirely with the principle of establishing and maintaining a national stud in this country. I believe that with our history of successful breeding of blood-stock both by private breeders and by the national stud, as it was known in the past, it is up to us to maintain that leading position in the world. Not alone that, but we should facilitate in every way possible private breeders and particularly small breeders to continue their work and we should assist them in securing the best type of bloodstock at prices within their command.

The character of this Bill is one to which I cannot subscribe and one on which Deputies and people outside have recently commented. A most striking condemnation of its character is contained in the Vocational Commission Report. That commission was set up by the Government, but what particular cognisance the Government has taken of its findings, I am unable to say. I followed with some interest certain publicity given to the differences of opinion existing between Ministers and the chairman of the commission. Like others, I have not been able to follow the finish of that controversy, if it has finished, and if it continued we were not given an opportunity of reading it in the papers. Irrespective of the attention which that received from the Government, it is a matter of some significance that a body of this kind, set up by the Government —who selected the personnel for, I presume, reasons known to themselves —should have reported in such an adverse fashion on a company of this nature. I propose to read the commission's observations on this matter, at page 430, paragraph 683 of their report:

"Another method of operating State enterprise has come into Government favour in recent years: it is by means of a nominal company registered under the Companies Acts."

Then the commission continues, at the end of that page:

"This method of administration is clearly fraught with great dangers to the prestige and integrity of democratic government. It offers a wide field for the exercise of political patronage of a very costly and undesirable type, for not merely may large salaries be given to persons as a reward for political services, but large sums of money for capital and working expenses may be placed at their disposal without adequate safeguards. It could provide an unscrupulous government with a means of making a large number of persons dependent on it for salaries and wages and of obtaining electioneering support by promoting enterprises or industries in certain localities without due regard to economic factors."

No words that any Deputy in this House could use could condemn more strongly or more clearly than that the type of company that we now propose to continue. It may be that the companies which were set up here prior to the establishment of the Commission on Vocational Organisation, or at any rate prior to the introduction of this report, were set up in ignorance; but the Government has seen the report and has had an opportunity of reading it and of realising the dangers the commission points out. I, for one, am in entire agreement with the commission in their findings on this matter. I think it is wholly undersirable that this Parliament should abrogate its right of control, which is one of the most sacred principles of Parliamentary institutions, over the expenditure of public money. Whatever type of board may be set up, and bad as some of the other Bills in this regard have been, this one seems to me to reach the limit. In Section 13, the Bill says:

"(1) The articles of association of the Company shall be in such form consistent with this Act as shall be approved of by the Minister for Agriculture after consultation with the Minister for Finance.

(2) The following provisions shall apply in respect of the articles of association of the company, that is to say—

(a) the said articles shall provide that the number of directors (including the chairman) shall not be less than three or more than five;

(b) the said articles shall provide that the qualification for a director of the company shall be the holding of at least one share of the company;

(c) the said articles shall provide that the chairman and all the other directors of the company shall always be appointed by, and may be removed from office by, the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture;"

The very type of board which this commission has found to be fraught with great dangers to democratic government, which gives first-class opportunities to political patronage, is the type of board envisaged in this section. Further, the section says:

"(e) the said articles shall provide that no person shall be nominated as auditor of the company without the approval of the Minister for Finance given after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture."

Here, again, the auditor appointed must be appointed because he suits the Government. While it may be quite reasonable to expect that the Government would appoint an auditor qualified, in the ordinary interpretation of that word, there is no guarantee that the auditor will have proper training or proper knowledge or that he will be in any way beholden to this House, or that the findings of his accounting will be laid on the Table of the House and so put at the disposal of Deputies.

As a matter of interest, it may be well to read another paragraph out of the report, paragraph 685:

"Up to the present the directors of nominal companies have not been appointed on any standard pattern or principle. The boards of directors are composed in whole or in part of one or more of the following categories: (i) civil servants, (ii) persons without special technical or vocational knowledge, and (iii) persons with special technical or business knowledge and skill.

The practice of appointing civil servants as salaried directors of Government companies is open to several objections and should be discontinued. In the first place, their position as civil servants is a whole-time position and should not permit the withdrawal of their time and energy from official duties; secondly, civil servants should not be exposed to the accusation that in drafting legislation they create remunerative positions for themselves. Furthermore, they should be completely judicial and unbiased in administering the affairs of their department, and it would be certainly very difficult for them to be so, if they have actually or prospectively a financial interest in enterprises which are subject to them in their official capacity.

There would appear to be little justification for appointing persons without special technical or business ability. The practice of making appointments on the ground of rank or political affiliation is most questionable and is open to many of the abuses concerned with interlocking directorships and the utilisation of political personages for company promotion."

I am sure many Deputies are aware of the system which company promoters seem to have adopted in having subsidiary companies and having the share-capital held by a subsidiary company which, in fact, has the same personnel of directors as those who held the share capital of the parent company.

Companies of this nature are able in many ways to prevent the Revenue authorities from ascertaining their actual earnings or anything relating to their activities. In that way what are known as fictitious companies are promoted and the directors or shareholders are able to avoid taxation, to avoid coming under the full weight of taxation which the original or parent company would normally bear. This commission points out the grave dangers which are inherent in that type of fictitious company. Under this Bill it is proposed to continue that type of fictitious company, appointments to the board of which will be largely because of political patronage, if not because of political patronage; there is no indication that it will be because of special technical knowledge, practical experience in administering a stud, any particular business association, management of stud farms or bloodstock breeding for sale.

There is no mention in this Bill of any activities, beyond that the company shall promote a stud. There is nothing to prevent the board of the company leasing racehorses among themselves or their friends, engaging in competition with private owners, or indulging in all sorts of subterfuges to prevent the public, whose property this stud is, from ascertaining their true activities. There is no safeguard which in the normal way would be given to the public in relation to their money, no method of control over the board, unless it be that it will hold office at the whim and pleasure of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture, who will appoint the board, after consultation.

However objectionable this may have been in the past, however unknowingly members of the House may have subscribed to companies of this nature, there is no excuse or justification for its continuance, now that we have the report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation. After very careful consideration, the commission brought in a lengthy report. They made reference to this particular type of company. I have no doubt the members of the commission were fully and accurately informed and did not arrive at their conclusions without the most careful consideration. In the face of that report, I see no justification whatever for supporting this Bill.

In connection with the provisions of the Bill, the Minister told us very little about what stock it is proposed to acquire. As Deputy Hughes and other Deputies have pointed out, the acquisition of suitable high-class blood-stock is a costly business at the present time. Any studs that were established here within recent years must have cost their promoters far larger sums than they would have cost several years ago. The suitability of the type of animal in a stud of this nature may not always depend on paying the highest price. It is reasonable to assume that animals will on the average be fairly costly.

I cannot understand the delay in bringing forward this Bill, considering that we have had the stud for at least one and a half years. Now that the Bill has been introduced, I think it is unreasonable to rush it. It has been introduced in a week in which there were various distractions and Deputies have been unable to consult the various interests concerned in this industry. They have not been able properly to ascertain the opinion of bloodstock breeders or inquire into the desirability of purchasing stock. Naturally, Deputies are anxious to come into the House fully armed with the most accurate information on the subject of bloodstock breeding. This stud is unique in so far as it is the property of the people, and the interests concerned in establishing and maintaining a stud of this nature are very diverse. Not merely are blood-stock breeders interested, but there are also other stud owners greatly concerned; indeed, everyone connected with racing, and particularly the people living in the county in which the stud is situated, people in various walks of life, have a direct interest in it and it is only fair that the interests of all those people should be taken into consideration. I suggest that we should have been afforded a reasonable time in which to consult various people before we are called upon to debate this matter.

The Minister gave very little information as to what the functions of the State are likely to be. I was glad to hear him state that the main interests so far as he was concerned would be that of the small breeder; that he regarded, and rightly so, the small breeder as the backbone of the industry. That being so, it is not out of place if I dwell for a moment on the difficulties which small breeders have had in procuring suitable sires and mares. For a number of years, more especially since the emergency, high-class sires have been scarce. There has been a decline in racing, both here and across the water. For that reason there has been a reduction in the number of racehorse owners and trainers of racing horses. The number of horses in training may not have declined very much—it is difficult at the moment to give any definite figures. Formerly, when we had a large number of valuable races each year—and there certainly was one high-class race at each meeting—it was easy to estimate at the end of the year the number of suitable horses which small or large breeders could purchase.

There are three classes of sires, the first class, such as Derby or Cup winners, the second class and the third class, and, according to the weight of his pocket, a prospective purchaser purchased a first class, a second class, or a third class animal. Since the war started small breeders have found stud fees rising. In addition to that, the first class sires are mainly owned by large breeders, and it is only natural that large breeders who have a first class sire will give preference in nominations to other high class breeders who, in turn, will secure for them the services of valuable animals from their studs. In that way the small breeder is crowded out. He is pushed aside, not only from the financial point of view, because many small breeders are prepared to make financial sacrifices if they can procure the services of a good sire, but also from the point of view that the large owner is anxious to facilitate the persons who are anxious to assist him. The position then is that the small breeder is often dependent on second class sires.

As a result of all this, a number of small breeders have considered the desirability of purchasing a sire and keeping him in joint ownership, establishing some form of association in which they will have first claim on the services of the sire. There are certain objections to that kind of ownership. First of all, these men may not all live near each other and that means that whoever is responsible for keeping the sire has to bear, among other things, the cost of maintenance, and on small stud farms it is difficult for a man to have all the facilities requisite for maintaining a horse of this character. These people are often put to considerable expense bringing the horse around the country because they may not have sufficient land to meet the requirements of visiting mares.

I think the small breeders deserve the greatest consideration from this House. This is the first opportunity we will have of assisting these people. While the Department has here and there through the country certain thoroughbred horses, which are placed at the disposal of small breeders, these horses are mainly for the breeding of hunters. Small breeders want a thoroughbred that will breed a fast horse and, unless the fee is within the reach of the small breeder, he will not be able to avail of the services of such an animal. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, July 4th, 1945.
Top
Share