On a point of order. I want to move under Standing Order No. 94 that the Bill be recommitted as I am entitled to do under that Standing Order. I think I should explain to you that I consider I have been deprived of an essential right of a Deputy in this House. The ground on which I move this is that on the conclusion of the Committee Stage of this Bill the Minister demanded that the Report Stage should be taken forthwith, thereby depriving me of the right which is given by custom and usage and which I believe is also given by Standing Orders to Deputies, to get time for the submission of amendments on the Report Stage.
Committee on Finance. - National Stud Bill, 1953—Final Stages.
There is no question before the House on which Deputies can proceed to discuss this. If the Deputy has a grievance, he has a method of bringing it before the House.
I submit that I am entitled to move under the Standing Order that the Bill be recommitted.
Will the Deputy allow me to indicate the procedure? A motion "that the Bill be received for final consideration" will come before the House and the Deputy can then move his amendment.
On a point of order. May I submit to you, Sir, that perhaps the terms of Standing Order No. 94 require clarification? It says that, on the Order of the Day to consider a Bill on Report, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill on Report unless an amendment be moved to recommit it, in which event the Deputy making that motion shall be allowed to make a short statement and another Deputy who is opposing that motion shall be allowed to make a short statement, when the Chair, in its discretion, shall put the motion or hear further representations. I think that is the Standing Order. I respectfully submit that the Deputy would be within his rights in moving under that Standing Order to recommit the Bill, and that you would hear one Deputy against that and then allow the matter to be put to a division.
The Deputy and I are not in disagreement. I will allow the motion to be moved, "that the Bill be received for final consideration," and I will allow Deputy Dunne to move his amendment.
I am in your hands, Sir. Under the terms of the Standing Order I understood that, on the House being called on by you, Sir, to proceed with the consideration of the Bill on Report, it was open to the Deputy to move that the Bill be recommitted. The Order is now made that we should consider the Bill on Report, and I submit respectfully that the Deputy has a right to move that, instead of proceeding to the consideration of the Bill on Report, we should recommit the Bill.
We are in agreement on that. There must, however, be a motion before the House before an amendment can be moved, and the motion is "that the Bill be received for final consideration."
Mr. Walsh
I move that the Bill be received for final consideration.
On a point of clarification, is the position now that the Report Stage has been passed?
No. The motion is before the House. The Deputy indicated that he wanted to move an amendment to that motion, and I accept that.
Are you, Sir, referring to my reference to the Standing Order when you mention an amendment to the motion?
There is a motion before the House that the Bill be received for final consideration. The Deputy indicates that he desires to move an amendment to that and I am allowing him to do it.
I simply want clarification. I understand that the issue on which we voted now was whether the Bill should be received for final consideration. That motion was carried and, therefore, it was ordered that we should proceed with the final consideration. I understood that when that had been carried the Deputy could move another motion.
The Standing Order would appear to say that, if you will be kind enough to look at it.
I have read it. The Standing Order says that when the motion comes before the House, that the Report Stage be taken, then a Deputy can move to recommit the Bill.
It says that when the Order has been read the House shall proceed to consider the Bill on Report unless, a Deputy shall move that it be recommitted to the Committee of the House.
That meansthat the House has to adjudicate on that.
I take it Deputy Dunne is now entitled to move that we recommit the Bill.
I am accepting that.
Having to some extent got out of the technical jungle in connection with this matter I want to revert to the origin of this dispute. The Minister might have displayed some reason in my view on this whole question and not tried to steamroll the Opposition on the matter of the purchase of Tulyar.
I move that the Bill be now recommitted for the reasons I have already outlined, the principal reason being that I have been deprived of the right given to Deputies for time for consideration in the submission of amendments on the Report Stage. The Minister has shown himself in a dictatorial frame of mind this evening. We intend to stand by our rights, rights inherent in membership of this House and we will ensure as far as we can that these rights shall be enforced in the interests of every Deputy. I do not know whether or not I am entitled to proceed at any length on this matter.
I suggest a short statement is the only extent to which a Deputy can go on a motion of this kind.
This is the only method left to me as an ordinary Deputy of protesting against this trampling upon the rights of members by the Government. I was given three minutes within which to write out amendments for the Report Stage. Is that in accord with the custom and practice of this House? Can anybody claim it is reasonable or democratic?
Question: "That the Bill be recommitted"—put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Carew, John.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Everett, James.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry)
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Madden, David J.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Sean.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Duignan, Peadar.
- Fanning, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kyne and D.J. O'Sullivan; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.
Question declared negatived.
Question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
The title of this Bill is a misnomer. This Bill should not be styled, as it is, "The National Stud Bill, 1953". Its proper title would be "The Purchase of the Racehorse Tulyar Bill, 1953". The Minister in his attitude to-night to opposition on this measure has shown the Fianna Fáil Party in their true colours. As a matter of fact it seems to me to be very strange that discussion in this House can be stifled in the fashion it was to-night. If it is permissible for a Minister to take action such as was taken to-night by the Minister for Agriculturethere is something wrong with our Standing Orders.
That would require a separate motion. It is only what is in the Bill that the Deputy can deal with.
It probably does require a separate motion. I take it I am entitled to refer to statements that have been made by representatives of the Government during the course of the Bill. One of the statements which the Minister made in the course of the debate on this Bill was that he was going to see to it that I would not be allowed to speak any more. It was for that purpose that the closure motion was moved and discussion stifled. Fianna Fáil know very well the feelings of the people of the country so far as this Bill is concerned. They do not want any more talk about it. It is too embarrassing.
Not in the least.
It is too embarrassing; that is what is wrong and that is why we have guillotines and closures. I trust I am giving my constituents value for the allowance they give me. They send me here not to keep my mouth shut on these issues. They expect me to speak my mind. That is my function.
Then you should have something new to say.
If some of the gentlemen who confine themselves to odd interruptions exercised their minds and their vocal chords a little more in regard to important matters, it might be of benefit to this House and to this country. I think I am entitled to say here at this stage, the last opportunity we will have of saying anything on this Bill, that I object to it in every phase and in every clause which is contained in the Bill. I object to the dishonesty which is stamped upon it. The Minister came in with the story, that would not deceive an infant child, that this Bill had nothing at all to do with Tulyar, the Aga Khan or anything like that. This was simply a Bill to enlarge the resources of the National Stud. He even stated to a Deputy, in reply to a question, that he did not know what the money would be usedfor, whether it was to be used for a racehorse, a greyhound or a camel. That is the Minister who claims to represent a responsible Government. Everybody knows the Minister is anxious to facilitate the wishes of his Royal Highness the Aga Khan. That is why he was in such a hurry to-night to put this measure through.
As I have said, I do not believe we have heard the whole story about this Bill. There is something in this undue haste to get this Bill through that should have been revealed to us during the course of the debate. If that is not the case, why stifle democratic discussion on a Bill of this kind? If there was not the need for this haste why should this step not have been taken by the Government who have now succeeded in holding themselves up before the country as dictatorial?
It is amazing the change that time brings about. One would never have thought that a very decent man, as was the Minister for Agriculture when he was in opposition, would turn out the tyrannous martinet he displayed himself to be to-night. I suppose it comes from environment and mixing with the wrong people. However, I do not wish to take up any more time in the House on this matter. I raised the issue originally when news was first made available that the Government were planning this purchase. In opposing this Bill at every stage I have been carrying out the wishes of 99.9 per cent. of my constituents.
In my constituency there are stud farms and many people who earn their living by the bloodstock industry, but even racehorse owners have expressed to me the view that the Government must have been insane in spending such a large sum on one horse. The industry, no matter how important it may be, as has been said on many occasions, is only secondary to many other pressing national issues. We think this Government shows a complete and utter disregard of what is happening in the country. Every month that has passed since they came into power brought greater and greater misfortune to the people, higher taxes, more unemployment and a reduction inthe purchasing power of wages. Fianna Fáil's only effort to stem that trend has been to buy a racehorse from the Aga Khan and to try to wrap the green flag around a most objectionable transaction. It is a sorry plight for Fianna Fáil. It is yet another of the milestones that mark its way to its political grave. With these few remarks, I reiterate my opposition to the proposal contained in the Bill.
I desire to support Deputy Dunne in his objection to the speed with which the Minister has steered this legislation through the House. Deputy Dunne has objected to the manner in which the Government have accelerated the passage of all stages of the Bill this evening. The Bill is described in its title as the National Stud Bill, 1953, and the last speaker has made some reference to that title. I think the proper title of the Bill would be the Aga Khan Presentation Bill, 1953. That would be a more honest title for the Bill. As a result of the passing of this Bill we are called upon to vote no less than £250,000 of the taxpayers' money to the National Stud authorities, and the main purpose is to enable these authorities to purchase this racehorse.
Deputy Briscoe was very loud in his challenges to Deputies on certain stages of this Bill to produce any letter or document they had from their constituents protesting or expressing their anger against the Bill. I say that every single Deputy, no matter what Party he belongs to, must have received a large volume of protests from the taxpayers of this country. Not alone have Deputies received letters by the score, but every citizen who approached or met a Deputy in recent months availed of the opportunity to comment on the stupidity of this Bill.
I have received a letter within the past 48 hours from a constituent, an Old I.R.A. man. He states that he is on the verge of poverty and that his five children had to emigrate. He refers to this Bill in his letter in which he states:
"I am over 60 years of age. My five sons have had to emigrate asthere was no work for them. I am in very dire poverty but instead of the Government helping me and the Old I.R.A., we find that they have room for accounts to be provided for this great stud horse. Allow me to protest. You can read this for Mr. de Valera and all the other Ministers and let them know that I and many of the Old I.R.A. are neglected while more consideration is given to a stud horse."
That letter may not be phrased in the usual Civil Service language but it is the best attempt that an honest Old I.R.A. constituent could make, to voice his protest to his local representative in connection with the expenditure of the money provided under this Bill. I am sure every Deputy has had proof in some shape or form, of the anger of taxpayers on being asked to foot a Bill for this purpose.
I have allowed the Deputy to travel a long way. The principle of the Bill has been adopted by the House on Second Reading and the only matter that is open for discussion now is what is in the Bill.
There is provision in this Bill for the expenditure of £250,000 on a horse. The Minister stated on the Second Stage of the Bill that he was not concerned with what the National Stud authorities did with this money. I think that was an extraordinary statement for a responsible Minister to make, that he was prepared to hand over a large sum of money without any supervision whatever, either from himself or his Department, to see in what way this money was being expended. I asked the Minister if he would clear up the rumour that the purchase of this horse for £250,000 was only one of three purchases which the National Stud authorities proposed to make.
That is not in the Bill.
There is provision in the Bill to purchase one horse at £250,000. I want to make my position very clear. I would not object to money being voted for the improvement or the general reconstruction ofthe National Stud and I would be inclined to support by every means in my power, and encourage in every way, the good work carried on by the National Stud authorities. My objection to this Bill arises from the fact that a very large sum of money is being provided under the Bill for the purchase of one racehorse. I consider that the establishment of National Stud headquarters elsewhere in the country would have been a better way of spending this money.
I join with Deputy Dunne in opposing this Bill. I think it is a foolish Bill, and that there is no sense in it. It has been steered through this House by big men with small minds and empty heads. It is a Bill that is looked upon with disgust by every taxpayer and citizen throughout the country. I believe that the decision to purchase this animal was not a unanimous decision on the part of the National Stud authorities, that there was a difference of opinion and that certain influential people, who have a right to advise the Minister on these matters, opposed the purchase of the horse and said that it was not worth £250,000. I want to place on record in this House that in conformity with the wishes of my constituents, I am strongly opposed to the Bill. I believe that the time of the House could be profitably occupied with more important and more serious work, work which would bestow a greater measure of benefit and some relief on the already overburdened citizens and taxpayers. For these reasons, I am opposed to the Bill, and I ask the House to reject the passing of the Bill in its final stages. It is an unwelcome Bill. This is no time to present such a Bill. I think that the Minister and the Government were very unwise, in the circumstances which prevail throughout the country, to ask the House to finance such a measure.
If ever a horse was galloped almost to the point of death, I think it is Tulyar. I think there has been a lot of hot air about this Bill and that certain people on the Opposition Benches were not either honest or sincere. This is a short Bill whichprovides for the enlargement of the capital of the National Stud. Inasmuch as any serious attempt was made to oppose the granting of additional capital to this company, it was based on the assertion that this is a luxury industry. Let us, for the sake of argument, accept the statement that it is a luxury industry. Let us accept that horse breeding and racing are, in general, luxury industries. That, in itself, is no reason why the Bill should be rejected. Some luxury industries provide large-scale employment for our people and help to raise the standard of living of our people. Many small nations depend to a great extent for the upholding of the high standard of living of their people on luxury industries—luxury industries designed, in the main, for the export market. Therefore, if it increases the wealth of the country and provides employment, it is not a case against the Bill to say that the bloodstock industry is a luxury industry. That applies to any industry whether it be the bloodstock industry, the manufacture of nylon stockings, or other such industries. It is all to the benefit of the nation if the industry provides employment and increases our national wealth and our national output.
I do not think that there was very much honesty or sincerity in the opposition which was expressed in this House to this Bill. This Bill was promoted by the Government but it had the support of almost the entire front Opposition Bench. Deputy O. Flanagan was kind enough to say that this Bill was supported by big men with small minds. Those big men with small minds include Deputy Dillon, Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Seán Collins. If Tulyar has done one thing in this House he has cut the Opposition Party in twain. No longer does a united Opposition face the Government Benches. We have, instead, the Tulyarites and the anti-Tulyarites. On the side of Tulyar we have the practical men, the realists. Opposing them, we have the idealists and the high-brows—men such as Deputy Dunne, Deputy O. Flanagan and, I suppose, a few light-weights thrown in like Deputy Blowick. Perhaps it was not a badthing that that should happen. Perhaps it is just as well that this particular issue gave certain members of the Opposition an opportunity of voicing the discontent which may, perhaps, have been pent up within their breasts for a long time. Be that as it may, the Bill has the support of the majority of the members of this House. It has the support not only of the present Government but of most of the ex-Ministers, including the ex-Minister for Agriculture.
I think that the ordinary sensible people of the country realise quite well that any industry that gives employment and that helps to strengthen the economic position of the nation is of benefit to the nation. The money invested in this industry will not prevent the investment of other moneys in other industries. It is nonsense to say that the investment of this sum of £250,000 in this particular industry will deprive some other industry of adequate capital. If there is any industry in this country that can show a reasonable prospect of making a profit I am quite certain that the necessary capital to finance it will be forthcoming. Provision is made in the Book of Estimates this year for increased expenditure on afforestation, on the land reclamation scheme, on——
On a point of order. The Ceann Comhairle pointed out to a Deputy who spoke earlier in the evening that he may not refer to anything that is not in the Bill. I suggest, with respect, that, in referring to afforestation, Deputy Cogan is not dealing with what is in the Bill.
The Deputy will not be allowed to deal with these matters. He is only mentioning them in passing.
I am dealing with the extra sum of £250,000 which is required to increase the share capital of the National Stud. I think that, on the expert advice that has been given to us, I am justified in so doing. Many of us in this House know very little about horses, and many of us cannot claim any expert knowledge on thatsubject. We know, however, that the Minister for Agriculture, who is a practical man, has consulted experts on the matter and has acted on the expert advice which he has received. I am quite sure that his opposite number, Deputy Dillon—who supports this Bill—also got expert advice on the matter and that he, too, is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of making this company a success. In spite of the attempts that have been made to discredit this particular industry, we wish it success and hope that it will continue to develop so that Irish bloodstock will become even more famous all over the world, with the result that there will be increased employment for our own people in that industry in our own country.
The suggestion that the Opposition has been torn asunder as a result of this Bill is just so much eye-wash. The fact of the matter is that the members of the Opposition were free to express their opinions on this measure.
While I appreciate the importance of the bloodstock industry and recognise that, at a more favourable time, the voting of a sum of £250,000 for the purchase of this racehorse might be accepted by this House, in the conditions which prevail at present throughout the country it would be impossible to expect members who represent the ordinary rank and file of the community to support this Bill. I appreciate the fact also that if the Whips were not put on the members of the Fianna Fáil Party we should see some Deputies of that Party walk into the Opposition side of the Lobby.
That does not arise at this stage.
The fact of the matter is that Fianna Fáil Deputies have no option but to vote for the measure and that they must all go in the one direction. With respect, Deputy Cogan was permitted, in your hearing, Sir, to suggest that there is a division in the ranks of the Opposition arising out of the introduction of this Bill. We object to the principle of the Bill. We appreciate the importance of thebloodstock industry. We feel that should be a secondary consideration when related to other conditions.
It is in the light of the prevailing conditions outside that the ordinary Deputy is opposing this measure and for no other reason. Our opposition is not concerned with the gentlemen who are engaged in the development of this industry. We are opposing this Bill because there is so much poverty, unemployment and emigration, and because of the fact that we find it so hard to get from the Minister for Finance moneys to carry out essential works of development which are more important than the purchase of a racehorse at a cost of £250,000.
When those of us, on earlier stages of the Bill, put forward our views in opposition to the purchase of this animal, we were castigated by some of the Deputies who are now supporting it. We were charged with being divided on it. Surely, on a matter like this, Deputies are entitled to put forward the views of their constituents. I am expressing their views in opposing the final passage of this Bill. They feel that the expenditure of this large sum of money on this animal, and at this particular time, is uncalled for. They do not think that the country can afford it.
We are told that this expenditure is for the betterment of the bloodstock industry. What we feel is that the same facilities are not being afforded to other sections of the community. This is an important branch of our live-stock industry, but it is no more important than other branches of it.
I think the Minister's introductory remarks were largely to blame for a lot of what has been said. He referred to the value of our exports of horseflesh without telling us what proportion of the £3,000,000 which he mentioned applied to bloodstock. I mention that for this purpose. There was a very large horse sale in my home town recently. A considerable number of horses were on offer and many of them were bought for export, but there was not one pure-bred animal amongst them. That is one reason why I suggestthat the picture which the Minister gave in regard to the bloodstock industry was not a faithful picture.
The country is considerably incensed at this huge expenditure, principally because of the fact that 12 months ago the Government painted very gloomy pictures for the people as regards what they would be called upon to face. It was, therefore, expected that the Government would be circumspect in the spending of the people's money. Demands have been made on the Government by various sections of the community—demands for increased wages and increased prices to meet the high cost of living and the higher costs of production, but the Government say that these demands cannot be met, due to the financial position of the country. On the other hand, the people see the Government spending this huge sum of money on one animal. Deputy MacBride was ridiculed the other night for suggesting that if this money were spent on the purchase of good premium bulls people could understand it, because such expenditure would be of benefit to the live-stock industry.
We cannot have a discussion on this stage of the Bill on what the money might be applied to.
I am just giving to the House the views of my constituents. They think that this is an extravagant purchase. Admittedly, this is a great horse. The horse may prove to be profitable, but still the people think that the price is exorbitant because the country cannot afford it. I would be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not give expression to their views. Charges of dishonesty and insincerity have been levelled at those Deputies who have opposed this Bill. We claim to be quite honest and sincere in our objections.
The bloodstock industry has been described as a luxury industry. We dispute the case which has been made for it, that it gives considerable employment. I think that the people who will benefit directly from this purchase are people who, if they had clubbed together, could have put up the money required to buy this animalwithout any State aid. We have many other sections of the community crying out for help. They are not the best-off sections of our people either. Their case should be considered by the Government. In view of what the Government have done in this case, we can only hope that they will be prepared to come to the assistance of those other sections of the community which are far more in need of help than those engaged in the bloodstock industry. We hope that, when measures are introduced in this House by the Government for the benefit of the people I speak of, the Government will show as much anxiety in their case as it has done in this case, to have them passed speedily through the Dáil.
If that is done, then the people concerned will be in a position to have a higher standard of living for themselves, to employ more people, pay better wages and ensure that the number of the unemployed will be reduced.
On the Final Stage of the Bill, I want to correct a statement which was made by Deputy Cogan who suggested that in opposing this Bill we, on these benches, were opposed to the development of the National Stud. I want to say that is not so. We are as determined as the people on the other side of the House to protect and foster the National Stud and all that it stands for. We do not believe that this Bill is the best way of doing that. The title of the Bill is "to amend and extend the National Stud". I suggest that if it were not for the fact that this horse had become available, there would have been no such Bill as this before the House. Therefore, to say that this Bill is to amend and extend the National Stud is a misnomer. The National Stud was able to carry on very well on the original capital provided for it. It was doing an excellent job.
What we object to is calling this a Bill to amend and extend the National Stud when its real purpose is to pay £250,000 for one animal. That is really what the Bill means—the provision of money to purchase one sire. We suggest that there could have beendevelopments carried out in other directions at much less cost to the State. Apart altogether from the impoverished state of the national finances, we think that £250,000 is a fantastic figure, an unwarranted price, to pay for any horse, even for Tulyar, with his great record. I mentioned earlier that the sire and dam which produced Tulyar were lowly-priced animals. They were respectable but poor stock. He has become an aristocrat, and we are told that, unless we pay £250,000 for him, the whole national bloodstock industry of the country will collapse. We suggest that that is not in the best interests. The people who have advised that this purchase should be made under a Bill called an Act to amend and extend the National Stud, put the House, to my mind, under false pretences because this is not for any purpose other than the purchase of a horse. In order to give it the proper legal clothing, we call it an extension and amendment of the National Stud Act. An amendment was moved by the Labour Party which would make the provision under this Bill £10,000. That £10,000, in my opinion, would have been ample and even unnecessary, because there was no request from the people who control the Stud for any money whatsoever for the purposes mentioned, except for the purchase of this horse from the Aga Khan.
Through the years we have maintained a splendid standard. We have sent our racing stock all over the world. We have sent sires to other countries for purposes other than racing. That continued unhindered and unhampered. Our record was untarnished. We suggest that this expenditure on this animal is a gamble, as any such purchase would be. Admittedly, the directors were guided by his parentage and history. Tulyar has an excellent record. We contend that the country could not at this juncture afford the luxury of spending £250,000 on a horse.
There are plenty of sires available. Tulyar won by a neck from Gay Time. Gay Time was sold for £50,000 and we are paying £250,000 for the horse that merely got his nose in front. Where is the justification for it? It gives theHouse cause for serious thought as to whether or not the people who are in control of the National Stud are acting with the best wisdom in the control of its destinies. So far, they have been working wisely and well. This seems to indicate a false step, a step that is unjustified and unwarranted. I wantto reiterate that I and the Deputies on these benches are opposed to this measure as being unwarranted and ill-timed, having regard to the circumstances obtaining in the country at the present time.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 31.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank
- Allen, Denis..
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Duignan, Peadar.
- Fanning, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Browne, Patrick.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Crotty, Patrick.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Finan, John.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- MacBride, Seán.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Junr).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Spring, Dan.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies Kyne and O'Higgins (Junr.).
Question declared carried.