Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Jun 1976

Vol. 291 No. 9

National Stud Bill, 1976: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Haughey

Before we adjourned the debate on this Bill for Question Time I was raising a question on the running of the farmland of the National Stud. I should like to emphasise that the stud purposes must take priority; the entity is a stud. That does not mean that the farm should not be run as efficiently and as profitably as possible. There are 850 acres of good County Kildare land there. Even allowing for the fact that the stud and the breeding side must take total and complete priority, I still think we should get a better return from those 850 acres than the accounts disclosed over the last few years. I am not making any carping criticism in that regard. I would like the board of directors to devote perhaps increasing attention to that aspect and to ensure that the farmland of the stud makes the maximum contribution to the finances of the stud which can be used for the benefit of the bloodstock industry subsequently.

In this report the chairman of the stud mentioned the danger that the Kildare by-pass might go through the lands of the national stud. I would like very urgently to direct the attention of the Minister to that matter. I hope no such proposal will be proceeded with. The National Stud is an important national asset and should not under any circumstances be interfered with in that way. It may well be that the board of directors might not have the power and the influence with the Kildare County Council to protect their vital interests. I hope, if it comes to an issue, that the Minister for Finance preferably, or the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, whoever regards himself as being involved, will stand up stoutly for the interests of the National Stud and the national interest. I am certain it should be possible to plan the road system in Kildare without interfering in any way with this very valuable property.

The Minister might be more interested in my next point than in anything I have said so far. I want to ask him about the financial provision in this legislation. First, very rightly, he is increasing the share capital from the existing level of £2 million to £5 million. He is also increasing the borrowing power of the company from £200,000 to £500,000. I suggest that there is a disproportion there. When he is bringing in this legislation why does he continue to restrict the borrowing powers of the company in this way? Would he not think that a company with a share capital of somewhere in the region of £5 million should also have borrowing powers on somewhat the same level? I suggest that if he is increasing the share capital to £5 million he should increase the borrowing powers to the same amount. In this field of the bloodstock industry, £500,000 is a relatively minor sum today. I intend to put down an amendment to that effect and hope the Minister will consider it favourably. I cannot understand why he should restrict the company in this way.

Apart from the share capital aspect, the bloodstock and other assets of the company, the value of 850 acres of land in Kildare would be security for a very considerable sum of money indeed. I would also like to ask the Minister if the increasing of the share capital to £5 million is simply a legislative exercise, or is it his intention to take up these shares and provide his money for the company? There is a very important principle involved here.

There are two different approaches to the finances of the National Stud. One school of thought suggests that the National Stud should become commercial in its activities and should seek to build up its own resources and its own funds and to have these at its disposal for the purchase of suitable stallions when they come on the market. Another school of thought says that the primary purpose of the National Stud is to provide services for the small breeder at very reasonable costs. In other words, the company should not be too commercially oriented in its outlook. The way in which both schools of thought could be reconciled would be if the Minister were to provide, in the form of capital and borrowing powers, all the resources the company might need to enable them to buy one or more prestige stallions. They could do that out of capital and at the same time maintain the service at a reasonable level for the smaller breeders.

I would like the Minister to tell us what exactly he has in mind on this. I hope he says that he proposes to take up the additional shares which this Bill will make possible because it would have a very important bearing on the activities on the National Stud in future. We all want to see the National Stud maintaining the role of friend and helper of the small breeder. At the same time many of us would like to see the stud having at least one top-class international prestige stallion in their stable.

These are the main matters I wish to raise on the Second Stage. I hope the Minister will not regard the measure for which he has ministerial responsibility as simply a routine, technical ministerial chore that he has to dispense with as quickly as possible. I hope he would recognise that in the National Stud he is responsible for something that can be of very great importance and significance in regard to one of our fundamental interests, the bloodstock breeding industry. I also hope he will avail of the opportunity of this legislation to direct the activities and the policies of the National Stud to a new and much wider area and that he will encourage the directors of the National Stud to regard themselves as the natural centre of progress and development in this field.

There are other points about this legislation which I will make when we come to the Committee Stage. At this stage, I conclude by welcoming the legislation. In so far as I have been critical of it, I hope my criticism will be accepted in a bona fide way. I regard the National Stud as a very important national institution. I hope that the introduction of this legislation will be an important step forward in the history of the development of the stud

Mr. Barrett

My contribution will be brief because my colleague, Deputy Haughey, has given a full race over the full course and a very fine performance. However, there are a few points I would like to make with regard to the operations of the National Stud. As we all know, the National Stud provides a service at reasonable cost, in particular, for the small breeders and we hope it will continue to do so. It is the duty of the National Stud to have top-class sires available and, as Deputy Haughey said, at least one prestige sire.

It is some considerable time since we had such a horse. It is time to provide one again. I know Sallust and African Sky are top class ones but we really need some top classic winners or international winners in this stud as well. They should be made available to breeders at a reasonable cost since stud fees are prohibitive when they are in private ownership.

As well as providing this type of animal the National Stud has a duty to the small breeder to provide national hunt sires. As far as I know the National Stud has never concentrated on the national hunt sector of breeding. It has, in the main, purchased horses who have a flat racing background of breeding and in due time if those horses were not successful in breeding flat racers they reverted to national hunt breeding. There are some very fine strains in horse breeding in the national hunt field and progeny of some very fine sires now dead which could be purchased by the National Stud. Some of the progeny of horses like Vulgan, Fortina or Cottage and such well established strains could be of benefit in breeding. The National Stud should concentrate on this side of the breeding business more than they have been doing. Those sires should be made available to the small breeders.

There are many people who are not involved in breeding who would be involved if it was not such a costly business. I am not criticising stud fees but there is another aspect of breeding which is putting it outside the bounds of possibility for small breeders. When a breeder sends a mare to the National Stud her stay there is about eight to ten weeks. It will cost £25 per week to keep that mare at the National Stud, which amounts to £250 for ten weeks. The fee for Linacre is £100 and haulage will add £60 to £80 to the bill if the mare comes from Munster or a reasonable distance from the National Stud. The fee of £250 for the mare's keep is definitely prohibitive to small breeders.

The National Stud have 850 acres of land so it is very hard to understand the mechanics of this costing, particularly when one compares the cost of keeping a mare at a small private stud. There are two national hunt sires whose fees are over £200. One is Minalek. If a mare is sent to a horse like Minalek, which is privately owned somewhere in the south of Ireland, the owner of the mare is assured of a winner. As far as I know the cost of keeping that mare at the stud is only £5 per week. There is something definitely wrong if it costs £25 a week to keep a mare in the National Stud, which is run by the State and it only costs £5 a week if you go to a top class national hunt sire like Minalek. The Minister should take this matter up with the National Stud when we are providing this extra share capital and borrowing power for them. Since the National Stud have 850 acres of land it could be utilised to bring down this cost. If the private man can keep mares for £5 a week surely the National Stud can do it?

I should like to know if it costs £25 a week to keep a mare at the National Stud for ten weeks is it necessary to have the horse standing at the stud in Kildare? The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have a system where they lease thoroughbred sires to farmers and small stud owners, not particularly bloodstock owners, throughout the country to breed hunter type horses. They have been doing this very successfully. I believe it is quite feasible for the National Stud, if they acquire this type of sire, to lease them throughout the country. One or two could be leased in Munster and the same in Connacht. This would cut down the distance and also the cost of keep. This would be most helpful to the small breeder, racing and our sales activities in the racing world, which is now over £6 million.

There is no reason why the National Stud should not engage in this type of boarding out because the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have been doing it in relation to non-thoroughbred horses for a number of years. I would like the Minister to refer this matter to the board of the National Stud. This will make a horse available far more easily to breeders and it will cut down the costs I have referred to, costs of possibly £250.

Deputy Haughey dealt with the sales situation and racing. It is regrettable that we have now two sales complexes instead of one which operated very successfully at Ballsbridge. The Ballsbridge sale was famous throughout the world and attracted a large number of purchasers every year. They were very successful. We have now a second one which appears to be competing with places such as Newmarket or Doncaster which continue to thrive in England. It would have been more successful, particularly from the point of view of the breeders, if we had only one centre that was run properly without any clash between interests, as is the position now.

Racing is the shop window of the whole industry; breeding and sales will stand or fall on whether our racing activities are successful in our own country and internationally. All of us know what it means for our breeding industry if a racehorse trained in this country wins an international classic for three-or four-yearolds. All of us benefit from such a success.

Deputy Haughey referred to the system of stewarding and to the people who are responsible for the day-to-day running of our race meetings. The Turf Club and the Irish National Hunt Committee control the day-to-day running and the way racing is conducted on the various tracks. I share the view of Deputy Haughey that it is time to look at the way the stewards are appointed because it appears that the same family names recur year after year as stewards of these bodies. There are occasions when some of the decisions made are questionable and perhaps I might give an example.

Recently in the west a horse that was second favourite at nine to four won a race on which there was a stewards' inquiry. Cameras were not available on the course on that day and the stewards made a decision based on their inspection of the track, particularly at one fence, and on the hoof marks before that fence. They did not seem to consider the fact that two other races were run on that track on that day. They decided to disqualify the winner. I am sure the owner and trainer would have got over that but we must also consider the punters who are an important part of the racing world and who suffered a loss in this case. As a result of the stewards' inquiry the second horse was placed first and the bookmakers paid out on that.

The matter was referred to the stewards proper of the Irish National Hunt Committee. They reversed the decision of the local stewards and maintained that the original winner was the correct one but the unfortunate people who backed the original winner will not be able to get any compensation. This procedure must be changed. If no winner was declared when the matter was referred to the stewards it should have remained that way until a final decision was made. An injustice took place and this could happen again. The Minister should consider this matter with a view to correcting the procedure.

I should like to emphasise the role the National Stud should continue to play with regard to the small breeder in making horses available to him. In this connection I am referring to the small and medium-sized farmer who would like to get involved in thoroughbred breeding if it could be done at a reasonable cost. The leasing or boarding-out of not very highly priced sires should be within the capability of the National Stud, as is the situation with regard to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in the non-thoroughbred breeding sector. This would cut down the cost and it would be helpful to small breeders and to others who wish to enter this part of the industry. The National Stud would be doing a good job if they embarked on such a course. I am not talking about leasing horses of the calibre of Nijinsky; I am referring to lower priced sires with a proper breeding background, that could be traced back to successful sires and that, in turn, become successful when put to stud. I would ask the Minister to ask the stud to develop such a scheme.

Mr. Malone

I should like to welcome this Bill because of the tremendous importance of the National Stud to the economy. Anyone who has had the opportunity of visiting the National Stud in recent years will appreciate the valuable part it has played. It has become not only an economic proposition but it is a place tourists can visit and see the tremendous strides that have been made in a short time. Heretofore it was just a place on the map, referred to in passing through Kildare town. Nowadays the gates are wide open and people from this country and elsewhere are welcome to visit it. During the summer months the manager arranges that twice daily the sires are taken out and shown to the visitors who are given all information regarding the horses.

At one time it was popular to breed horses at the stud and to have them trained and raced in the name of our President. This practice has lapsed and it is a pity because on occasions we have extremely good yearlings that are offered for sale. The fact that they are not kept, trained and raced by the stud, leads to the possibility that they may go into foreign hands. Consequently, the impact of their future success can be lost.

I know it is an extremely costly business now to breed, train and race horses but the Minister for Finance is aware of the amount of revenue obtained from the industry. Anything that can be done to improve the industry and to increase the amount of revenue coming into the country from the bloodstock industry must receive all the help and encouragement the Departments of Finance and Agriculture and Fisheries can give.

Many people think the National Stud should be under the aegis of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The Minister for Finance is responsible for providing the money and, consequently, he must be the major shareholder. At the same time, because of the diversification of activities at the National Stud it would be in the interest of agriculture and bloodstock if the industry were under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

I was surprised to hear the remarks of the last speaker with regard to some of the stewards. He regretted that the same names were appearing year after year. Anyone who knows anything about this matter is aware that these people are dedicated to this service and is aware of the amount of time and energy they give to it. I would not wish to change the position of a man who was giving a good service regardless of whether his name was cropping up again and again. There are quite a number of people very deeply involved in the bloodstock industry whose names could be added to those already holding office and who would, I am sure, give good service.

Mr. Haughey

Even if they had not double-barrelled names.

Mr. Malone

Some of the people already there have treble-barrelled names. I do not mind whether they are single, double or treble, so long as they are involved in the business and know their job. They would be entitled to be heard at the round table whenever the occasion might arise.

I should like to say how much I welcome this Bill but I have one reservation. It is a pity to exclude a director from seeking or obtaining nominations to the Seanad or to this House but since that exclusion is incorporated in the Bill there must be very good reasons for it. Why not make them a nominated body? The Bloodstock Breeders' Association have nomination. The National Stud could possibly follow suit. It is an extremely important industry and any voice that can be heard in its favour or any representations that can be made would be in the best interest not only of bloodstock but of the nation as a whole.

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Ryan)

I am appreciative of the manner in which the House has received the Bill but a number of criticisms were offered during the course of the debate which I will have occasion to rebut.

I agree with what Deputy Malone says about the desirability of giving primary responsibility for the National Stud to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. That was the position in 1945 and 1953 when legislation in relation to the National Stud was first promoted. When I arrived at the Department of Finance I found an anachronistic mess of responsibility. Not only had the Minister for Finance responsibility, as he must have, for financial management and economic planning but his mandate also extended from support for the theatres to horse breeding, from sail training to sugar production, from rescue services for manufacturing industry to the revival of Irish. I regard that as nonsense because no Minister for Finance or no Finance Department in any State could give sufficient attention to these multitudinous interests in addition to managing financial matters and economic planning. Of course, Ministers for Finance, notwithstanding any image they may have to the contrary, are human beings with individual preferences and dislikes. It is wrong that any Minister should insist upon drawing within his own ambit spheres in which he has a particular interest which on account of that might well receive preferential treatment.

The Minister for Finance is, above all, a central agent who must ensure neutrality between conflicting demands being made on the public purse. Therefore, he should deny himself the privilege which he can exert of dragging within his own Department spheres of responsibility which should be left elsewhere. One of those was certainly the National Stud. If you look through the legislation for 1945, 1953 and 1969 you will see that the central figure in relation to the National Stud was the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Deputy Haughey had the temerity to chastise me for what he said was a certain responsibility for leaving the National Stud in a limbo situation. It is in a limbo situation since 1969 when Deputy Haughey dragged it into that situation. Before that it was the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Even since 1969, 90 to 95 per cent of all the consultations and contacts between the National Stud and Government were with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries because the Ministry of Finance does not purport to have expertise in the field of bloodstock management and the horse-breeding industry generally. Responsibility for the National Stud should not have been taken from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. That is where it naturally belongs and it is being returned to that Department.

Mr. Haughey

When?

Mr. R. Ryan

When we pass this Bill. Legally, the situation has not changed. It is still on the Statute Book and it will be seen that the central figure in this situation is the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries rather than the stallions and the mares which must be central to the National Stud. After that, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is the next most important element in the productive, generative and management process. What happened was that a decision on an administrative level was taken to grab the National Stud and drag it into the Department of Finance. Therefore, we have had this dual management which I regard as most unsatisfactory. As we are trying to rectify the situation, I decided that the right thing to do was to wait until we had occasion to introduce legislation in relation to the National Stud.

As soon as this Bill is through both Houses of Parliament and is signed by the President we will get back to what I have no doubt Dáil Éireann originally intended, that was that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries should be primarily involved in the management and development of the National Stud. The Minister for Finance will in the future as in the past in relation to this company and other companies be the shareholder. That is because the Minister for Finance must hold the shares on behalf of the Irish public and such powers as are reserved to the Minister for Finance or the Minister for the Public Service in this legislation as it is now being amended are similar to those which are reserved to the Minister for Finance and to the Minister for the Public Service in relation to other State bodies. That is the only further involvement on what I might call a central or national level as far as the Department of Finance are concerned. What we are doing is recognising that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are in the best position to assist the National Stud in relation to its overall management.

Mr. Colley

Which Minister will introduce the next Bill of this kind?

Mr. R. Ryan

The next Bill of this kind will, as in 1945 and 1953, be handled by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I think the 1969 Bill should have been handled by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries but we had drifted into a situation where for the time being under an administrative arrangement which was never sanctioned by this House the Department of Finance dealt with it.

Mr. Colley

If it is administrative, why did the Minister on his announcement not hand it over to Agriculture and let the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries introduce it?

Mr. R. Ryan

Because we wanted to tidy up this thing properly. I will come to that when I am dealing with section 7 of the Bill. It has been in a limbo and it has been most unsatisfactory. It could never be justified on any ground related to the best interests of the Irish bloodstock industry. Deputy Colley asked me to explain the difference between section 5 of this Bill and the previous provisions in relation to the provision of accounts. What we are doing is modernising the provisions in respect of the furnishing of accounts.

Section 25 of the 1945 Act provided that the company should within 90 days after the end of each accounting year furnish the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with the balance sheet and so forth. The differences are in accord with the changes that have taken place in other legislation and Section 5 is now in keeping with sections of a similar kind in relation to the accounts of other State bodies. There is no significant change but the new formulation, as it were, in section 5, is in accordance with that which was recommended by the Comptroller and Auditor General and which we have applied in relation to other semi-State bodies. It will require that accounts should be kept in a form to be approved by the Minister in question, who will be the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with the consent of the Minister for Finance. This will ensure that the accounts of the National Stud will be in a form similar to the accounts furnished by other bodies.

Additional responsibility is imposed on the National Stud by the 1953 Act in relation to the keeping of accounts which are peculiar to the bloodstock industry. In section 7 which deals with the articles of association of the company changes are being made over those which existed under the 1945 Act. Substantially they are the same. The only differences relate to pin-pointing the responsibility which will lie on the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in the future rather than on the Minister for Finance. In future the articles will provide that the chairman and other directors shall be appointed by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries after consultation with the Minister for Finance instead of, as was provided in the legislation, to be appointed by the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The other provisions are the same with the exception that no person shall be nominated as an auditor of the company without the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, again after consultation with the Minister for Finance. It is simply a reversal of the roles of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister for Finance. This is the right thing to do and it is in keeping with modern practice in relation to companies where prime responsibility lies on other Ministers, and the only involvement of the Minister for Finance is that he is the holder of the shares in the company, because it is desirable that there should be a common trustee, and the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service must have a central responsibility in relation to remuneration, to standards of keeping accounts and so forth.

Deputy Haughey mentioned that it was his view that the Government should strive to make Ireland the centre of the bloodstock industry. He is quite right. This Government is entirely dedicated to that objective. Nobody could seriously challenge the dedication of this Government to achieving for Ireland a premier place in the bloodstock industry's sun. That has been the Government's objective and it is in keeping with that objective that the National Stud is being aided in every possible way to achieve that goal. Deputy Haughey said that he would like to see the National Stud becoming a show piece. It is a show piece but doubtless it can be made even better.

A lot of Deputy Haughey's criticisms might have been valid several years ago but in fairness to the existing board and to the manager we should put on record our admiration for the great progress in recent years. The National Stud has been opened up in more ways than one to stimulate the interest and involvement of people who are concerned with the bloodstock industry and they have also excited interest in other people who previously had not a direct involvement in this industry. It is an historical accident that the National Stud has responsibility for the Japanese Gardens but this association has in its own way helped to develop an interest in the Irish bloodstock industry.

One point where Deputy Haughey might have declared interest was when he spoke about a sales complex for the bloodstock industry. It brought me back to the situation which faced the Government some years ago when there was an insistent and persistent demand that the Government should produce capital for the provision of a new sales complex for the bloodstock industry. I took the view, as I am glad to say the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and the Government as a whole did, that the bloodstock industry were in a position to provide the capital necessary for a suitable sales complex without making an imposition on the general body of tax-payers for the provision of such a facility.

Not only have the Government been proved right, but they have been proved right on the double, because there are now two sales complexes, both of which were financed out of the private sector. This shows how right we were in forming our view that the industry had the ability to provide a sales complex without making an imposition on the Exchequer. I will not say what my own view is on having one or two sales complexes. Private enterprise made its own assessment of the situation and made its own decisions. As a result, quite clearly we have been confirmed in the correctness of our opinion that there was no need to involve the taxpayer and the Exchequer in the provision of capital for the facilities which now exist. They have been provided by private enterprise and I wish both enterprises every success.

There was some hesitation over the provision in the Bill that the remuneration of the manager should be subject to the approval of the Minister for the Public Service. I have the greatest admiration for the operations of the National Stud and for the personal contribution the present manager has made to the progress and success of the National Stud since his appointment. In all recent legislation on State companies we have provided that the remuneration of the chief executive should be subject to the approval of the Minister primarily responsible, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service. This is in keeping with what is recommended in the Devlin Report.

It is also in line with the almost universal practice in all continental countries that, if there is to be any discipline in relation to pay at any level, particularly in the public sector and related sectors, there must be some overall agency which compares like with like as far as possible. It may be suggested it is difficult to find exact parallels. It is not. There must be some agency which endeavours to sort out the conflicting interests.

I trust it will be found that the central control is not offensive and not operating in such a way as to discourage State enterprises or State-related enterprises from engaging the services of the very best available. We cannot have in any of these concerns, including the National Stud, anybody who is second rate or expect that the best person should receive remuneration which is less than his fair reward.

Mr. Haughey

Will the Minister deal with my point? Can it happen in a State company that the salary of the chief executive is controlled in this way and salaries of persons under him are not and they sometimes receive more?

Mr. R. Ryan

Can it happen?

Mr. Haughey

Does it happen?

Mr. R. Ryan

It has happened. This is a development that I believe is now being brought under control. I would hope by bringing all within the ambit of the supervision of the Department of the Public Service this kind of thing will not happen in future. The notion previously existed that people at a certain level were outside central supervision. The result was people outside central supervision lost out. When rises were given generally over the public sector, under national wage agreements or otherwise, those outside central control lost out.

Mr. Haughey

The Minister misunderstands my point. It is the operation of central supervision mechanism, as I understand it, that in some cases is bringing about the other situation.

Mr. R. Ryan

I think that is not quite so. It was the non-automatic applicability of rises given to others which led to a situation in which people who were deemed to be outside the other sectors lost out. I know they may have lost because an embargo was put on at a certain level. Bringing all within the one discipline will mean the person at the top of the pyramid will rise if there is a raise at the base of the pyramid.

Mr. Haughey

Am I right in thinking the new mechanism the Minister is putting into operation in all State companies controls the remuneration of the chief executive only, and there is no guarantee that others in the company will not in certain circumstances have more than the chief executive, that they are not controlled by the central supervisory mechanism?

Mr. R. Ryan

As the Deputy knows, we have the review committee which deals with higher remuneration. That body will be asked to review the remuneration of people whose office was examined some years ago but, by keeping all within the benign supervision of the Department of the Public Service, we will avoid a number of the anomalies which Deputy Haughey correctly points out arose in the past. They should not have arisen. They arose because of a subtle distinction drawn in relation to the mechanism for fixing the remuneration of people at different levels in semi-State bodies, and in State bodies as well. We have seen this apply to the upper levels of the civil service, to parliamentarians and to Ministers of State. If all are subject to the same kind of discipline we will avoid many of the anomalies which existed in the past. It is not an easy problem to resolve. It has taken time and, I am sure, a great deal of patience on the part of many people. I hope it will be possible to resolve it in the not too distant future.

A number of well-deserved tributes have been paid to the National Stud and their management. I endorse everything said in that regard. Deputy Haughey spoke about the speed with which I made my opening statement. He seemed to infer from it that I was less than interested. I would point out to him that a slow horse never won a race. This is not the first occasion on which I have been criticised in this House for the speed of my delivery.

Mr. Haughey

Galloping.

Mr. R. Ryan

If not in the House, certainly I know some of the hard-pressed recorders of our statements have found difficulty from time to time in keeping up with the speed of my delivery. If I offended anybody by the speed of my delivery I apologise. I noticed Deputy Haughey was reading the script of my speech at one stage and later on I saw he was listening to what I was saying, from which I assume he was reading it even faster than I was. He was in the advantageous position of not having to speak as he was reading.

On Deputy Haughey's proposal that the borrowing limit should be raised to £5 million I find myself in serious disagreement with him for a number of reasons. I suppose the principal one, which is a worthy one, is that past experience does not justify the need for giving borrowing powers in keeping with the capital involved. We have not received a request from the board of the National Stud for any increase in their borrowing power, which at present is £.2 million. I thought as we were increasing the capital, and having regard to the changes in money values since the borrowing limit was originally fixed, it would be appropriate to fix it at a limit of £.5 million. The only reason we need borrowing authority at all is that occasion might arise from time to time where the National Stud want to make a certain investment in relation to the purchase of a particular stallion, which would require temporary financial facilities, but I am satisfied on the basis of previous experience and on the basis of representations the board itself has made to me that in advancing from £.2 million to £.5 million we are making a sufficient improvement.

Deputy Barrett raised the question of the cost of maintaining a mare in the National Stud and suggested it is five times higher than the charge elsewhere. Now I have said very openly and I trust people will accept honestly —I think Deputy Haughey will—that we in the Department of Finance do not pretend to be experts in this field, but I have seen a recent report which says the average cost of maintaining a mare was £20 a week. This was in March last. The National Stud is charging £25 a week and it is not very much out of line, therefore, and possibly the £20 mentioned in The Daily Telegraph of last March is not extraordinary. Here, again, this is an area of expertise which requires the familiarity and knowledge of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Where the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is standing at this stage overrides Finance. If I were as knowledgeable in this particular field as Deputy Haughey is—I acknowledge that—I might be able to answer him more specifically, but I can argue, and I do not think anybody can challenge my argument that obviously all this points to the need for this to be in the hands of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, he being the spokesman in this field in this House rather than the Minister for Finance of the day.

Mr. Haughey

With all due respect to my colleague, I do not think he would keep a donkey for £5 a week these days.

Mr. R. Ryan

You might also have a cup of tea and even a drop of brandy for that. I must say I was rather surprised at the figure produced and I was wondering who was making money and in what particular activity. I accept what Deputy Haughey says. I think £5 a week is extraordinarily low.

Mr. Malone

Very reasonable.

Mr. R. Ryan

Very reasonable, indeed. The cost of keeping a cat or a dog could reach such proportions these days. With regard to the size of the board, I am sure I can say, and nobody can challenge it, that what matters is its quality and not its size. The interesting thing here is that the board of the National Stud at a maximum of five is working, is known to be working, and the evidence is there that it is working satisfactorily. I am not a great believer in large boards and large committees. That is the kind of thing that can produce a camel and the National Stud has no responsibility in that particular sphere in this environment anyway. I would fear that a very large board could well lead to a situation in which you could have quite a number of people absent from meetings, whereas with a small board the tendency is to have a very high attendance record. When I see things working I tend to leave them alone. Perhaps that classifies me as a conservative. I hope I am not a conservative either at heart or by inclination but, when I see a body working successfully, I do not naturally jump at any suggestions for change.

I have noted what Deputy Haughey said in relation to the Kildare by-pass. He will appreciate it would be inappropriate for the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to endeavour to exert any influence over planning matters beyond that which is available to the private citizen. The board will, no doubt—it has already made its voice heard in this field—make its impact in regard to any proposal to build a Kildare by-pass. In this area my own personal view—it is supported by Deputy Haughey's remarks—is very much in favour of an improved road across the Curragh and the by-passing of Kildare. I do not think anyone could seriously challenge the need for this. One of the worst parts of the road from Dublin to Cork or to Limerick happens to be across the Curragh. I think nobody would seriously challenge that. I would also share with Deputy Haughey the hope it would not be necessary to split up the lands of the National Stud in order to achieve what no reasonable person could oppose.

I do not regard the Bill as a routine technical exercise which I have to handle. I have a certain fondness for all the particular areas of responsibility which come under my command, but I must discharge my greater obligation to free the Department of Finance from—I do not say this offensively and I am sure no one will take it offensively—the minutiae history has imposed upon it where it finds itself involved in decisions affecting sugar production, potato marketing, the care of the bloodstock industry and so on when there are other people much more competent to give a direct worthwhile contribution in the particular field.

Mr. Colley

Some people suspected the Minister had shed responsibility for economic management.

Mr. Haughey

And financial stability.

Mr. R. Ryan

They, of course, are not well disposed people. With regard to the farm, it consists of 850 acres. It is an occasion of some disappointment that the farm did not make a greater profit over the years, but I congratulate the present management and the board on the very great improvement they have brought about in recent times in the operation of the farm. In 1975, we are likely to have a profit figure of about £10,000 from the farm.

Mr. Haughey

£10 an acre.

Mr. R. Ryan

If you like, yes. It is certainly a very significant improvement. Most of the produce is not, of course, produced for sale at commercially profitable rates. It is produced to provide fodder for the stud. The fact that they did not do this successfully without loss over a number of years must be a cause of regret, but the situation has improved and I believe the present management of the farm and the plans for the next five years will ensure there will be a continuing success in this field. I trust I have dealt with the most significant points raised.

Mr. Haughey

I mentioned the annual report. It could be a much more significant document. It is a bit skimpy.

Mr. R. Ryan

I suppose it could say more. Sometimes silence is defence without wisdom. I will bring the board's attention to the Deputy's remarks. I am sure it will not need my specific intervention and I am equally sure that what the Deputy has said will be borne in mind by the board. The industry in general and the country can be assured that any appointments made by this Administration to the board have not been governed by political considerations. We believe the interests of the bloodstock industry rise above political considerations and those who are really dedicated to this industry allow no political bias when they are making judgments as to what is good or what might be bad for the industry. That will continue to be our policy. I am sure we are making the right changes in ensuring that in future the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will virtually be in total control of the National Stud. This is not minimising in any way the personal interest of any of my predecessors in this area, even though from an administrative point of view one might well fault the switch in administrative responsibility which might have occurred. We are now putting the matter right and all I can say is that I have been encouraged by the reception my proposals received from those directly involved in the company itself and the bloodstock industry generally.

Section put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.