asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will make available all correspondence and papers dealing with the proposed sale of Panaslipper by the Irish National Stud.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Proposed Sale of Panaslipper.
The reply is of an exhaustive character and runs to six and a half pages. I am reluctant to trespass on the time of the House to read this full reply and would be glad of your guidance, Sir, in the matter as to whether it would be agreable to the House that it should be published in the Official Report?
In the case of abnormally long replies, the procedure adopted is to publish the reply in the Official Report.
If that is acceptable, I propose to adopt that course with your approval.
Following is the reply:—
To make available, as suggested by the Deputy, all the correspondence and papers dealing with the proposed sale of Panaslipper by the Irish National Stud Company, Limited, would be an unusual step and would create a precedent in regard to the relations between Dáil Éireann, the Government and State-sponsored bodies which would be capable of having undesirable consequences in the future. It would, moreover, involve the interests of another party—the gentleman to whom the horse was proposed to be sold— who would have to be consulted; and even though there is no reason to anticipate that he would see any objection to the publication of the documents the effect of such action on the conduct of the business of State-sponsored bodies generally would also have to be very carefully considered from this point of view.
Having regard, however, to the public interest which has, undoubtedly, been aroused by this matter, I have decided to reply to the Deputy's question by making a full statement of the circumstances and of the progress of events in the matter, amplifying the information already given in the public statement issued, on behalf of the Government, on the 9th April, 1956.
I should explain to the House that the particulars which I am about to furnish as to the decisions and actions of the Stud Company in regard to the proposal for the sale of Panaslipper were procured by me in accordance with Section 25 (5) of the National Stud Act, 1945, which provides that:—
"The company shall furnish to the Minister for Agriculture such information, in relation to the policy, activities and decision of the company, as the said Minister may from time to time require."
On the 8th June, 1955, the board of the company conveyed to my Department, by telephone, an intimation, which they confirmed by letter on the following day, that they desired to purchase Panaslipper for stud purposes. This proposal, if it were to be approved, would require additional capital to be provided for the company, by the taking up by the Minister for Finance of further shares, by subscription. The Minister for Finance has power under the National Stud Acts to take up shares in the company, the necessary funds being advanced out of the Central Fund.
I gave careful thought to the proposal of the Stud Company to purchase Panaslipper, in the light of the considerations that a strain derived from that horse could be expected to be a valuable contribution to Irish bloodstock and that, if the horse were not bought by the company, there was an assured prospect of his being sold abroad.
On the grounds which I have indicated, I came to the conclusion that the proposal was a proper one to recommend to the Minister for Finance. I discussed it, accordingly, with that Minister and had an official recommendation addressed to his Department. On the 30th June, 1955, my Department was informed that the Minister for Finance had authorised the issue of additional shares, up to a maximum of £50,000, to enable the Stud Company to purchase Panaslipper. The sum in fact found to be required was £45,000; additional shares to this amount were subscribed for by the Minister for Finance; and the horse was purchased by the Stud Company.
The House will observe that the company's proposal to purchase Panaslipper was put forward on the basis that the horse would, in due course, be sent to stud in this country and that it was on this basis that the proposal was considered and approved and that the additional capital required was made available by the Minister for Finance out of the Central Fund. It is because of these facts that the subsequent proceedings of the board in regard to the horse have been found by my colleagues and myself particularly difficult to understand.
At a meeting of the board of the company held on the 5th March, 1956, it was decided to sell Panaslipper, although the horse had not yet (and still has not) been used for the stud purposes for which he was purchased. Neither I nor the Minister for Finance nor any other member of the Government was consulted in advance of this decision or subsequently informed of it by the company.
On the following day, the 6th March, 1956, the manager of the Stud addressed to Mr. Neil McCarthy, of Los Angeles, a telegram and a confirmatory letter. In the letter, having referred to the board's decision, he offered Mr. McCarthy first preference for the purchase of the horse, stated that the price was £80,000 and requested an intimation, before the 13th March, as to whether Mr. McCarthy was interested in buying the horse. The letter included, in addition, certain ill-advised observations, which were subsequently repudiated by the board when they became aware of them. The nature of these observations is not material to the main question of the sale of Panaslipper.
It is noteworthy that on the same day on which the manager addressed his two communications to Mr. Neil McCarthy, that is, on the 6th March, the manager also addressed a letter to me concerning certain other proceedings which took place at the meeting of the board held on the 5th March, but that, in his letter to me, no mention whatever was made of any proposal, let alone any decision, to sell Panaslipper. In fact, neither I nor any other member of the Government had any reason to apprehend that the sale of Panaslipper was contemplated by the board, until the 15th March, when I learned of the matter, not from the board or from the manager, but from the Press.
In view of the circumstances in which, and the purpose for which, Panaslipper had been bought by the Stud Company, my colleagues and I took the view that it was not proper or desirable that the horse should be sold without having ever been put to stud. We also considered that, in the circumstances, the board's decision involved an important question of policy, transcending the ordinary day-to-day administration of the business of the stud—in which we would not consider it appropriate for a Minister to intervene. We felt, and still feel, that such a decision should not have been taken, and certainly should not have been communicated to any other party, without prior consultation with me, as the Minister in whom the National Stud Farm is vested by statute, and with the Minister for Finance, who holds the share capital of the company and who had provided additional capital for the specific purpose of enabling Panaslipper to be purchased for stud purposes. Such consultation had taken place before the sale of Tulyar and, clearly, was no less demanded in the case of Panaslipper.
I, therefore, informed the chairman of the Stud Company, on the 15th March, 1956—the day on which I first heard of the matter—that Panaslipper should not be sold without my concurrence. Acting in my absence, on my behalf and at my request, the Minister for Finance, on the 16th March, requested the chairman to arrange for the manager of the stud to attend in the Department of Agriculture to give such information as was required in the matter. On the 17th March, the Minister for Finance had a request conveyed, in more specific terms, that the manager should attend in the Department of Agriculture on the 19th March for the purpose of furnishing a general statement concerning the negotiations about the proposed sale of Panaslipper and of producing the relevant documents.
From information furnished by the chairman of the company and the manager on the 19th March, it appeared that, since the issue of the manager's telegram and letter of the 6th March to Mr. Neil McCarthy, Mr. McCarthy had made it clear, by telegram and letter, that he was prepared to purchase Panaslipper for £80,000 subject to veterinary examination. The board, on their part, had, on the 15th March, instructed the manager to write to Mr. McCarthy accepting his offer of £80,000 on certain specified conditions, but this letter had not been issued in view of what I had said to the chairman on the 15th March.
The question then arose whether or not a binding contract for the sale and purchase of Panaslipper had already been entered into between the Stud Company and Mr. McCarthy. This is a question on which different legal views might be taken. In fact, the company's legal advisers, when apprised of all the facts, expressed an opinion to the effect that a contract had not been made.
The whole matter was discussed at length at a meeting which the Minister for Finance and I had, on the 28th March, with the board of the Stud Company, all the directors being present except Captain Charles Moore, who wrote expressing his regret that he was unable to attend. We did not receive from the board any explanation that appeared satisfactory to us of the circumstances in which it had been decided to sell Panaslipper without consultation with us. We made it clear that the Government did not desire the horse to be sold, but, irrespective of the legal position, would most carefully consider Mr. McCarthy's own wishes after he had been made aware of all the circumstances. It was arranged that the board would have a draft letter to Mr. McCarthy prepared for consideration, subject to the understanding that the matter would be explained to that gentleman orally, rather than in writing, if he visited Ireland within a short period, as was thought possible and as in fact occurred.
It is scarcely necessary to remark that it would have been open to Mr. McCarthy, if he so desired, to contest the view that there was no legal contract for the sale of the horse to him. But neither my colleagues and myself, on the one hand, nor Mr. McCarthy, on the other hand, wished to deal with the matter on the basis of legal rights or obligations. The Minister for Finance and I discussed the position with Mr. McCarthy, who came to Ireland to ascertain the cause of the delay in completing the proposed transaction. We informed him that we fully appreciated his position and would not wish to oppose his desire to purchase Panaslipper on any legal or technical grounds. We informed him of what had occured and of the Government's view that it was desirable to keep the horse in Ireland for the stud purposes for which he was bought.
Mr. McCarthy made it clear that, in his view, he had bought the horse and that he was anxious to have him. Having considered the matter, he conveyed to us that, in view of our attitude in not disputing his claim on legal grounds and his own feeling that, in the circumstances, it would be better that Panaslipper should remain in Ireland, he had decided to waive his claim. I am sure that the House will appreciate, as my colleagues and I do, the spirit of goodwill and friendliness towards this country in which Mr. McCarthy acted in this whole matter.