National Stud Bill, 1945.—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

What is known as the National Stud Farm at Tully, County Kildare, was established as such in 1916. At that time Col. Hall-Walker, afterwards Lord Wavertree, made a present of the stud, that is the stock both here and in England, to the Government which was the British Government of the time, the Government of the United Kingdom, on condition that the Government would purchase Lord Wavertree's interest in the property.

That agreement was carried out and the property with the stock passed over to the British Government. In 1922, the Government here made a claim for the national stud as part of this territory, but the British Government would not recognise the claim at that time on the grounds that the stud was a gift to the United Kingdom and that under the deed of gift it could not be alienated. Discussions went on from time to time from that on, and eventually it came to this that the British Government were prepared to agree that the buildings and the lands were ours but they claimed at the time that the bloodstock were theirs.

In 1935, we again raised the matter that all belonged to us as from the 6th December, 1921, and if there were gifts made in the meantime, these gifts should also come to our side. Discussions took place between representatives of the two Governments, and it was agreed that negotiations be continued by correspondence but these also broke down, and in 1943, we finally made the agreement. It was to the effect that the Government of the United Kingdom on December 31st, 1943, would hand over possession of Tully lands and buildings. The Irish Government would take over, as from that date, the farm equipment and livestock—there was no bloodstock. The bloodstock had been removed, and the Government of the United Kingdom would pay an agreed sum for user in lieu of rent on the Tully premises as from 6th December, 1922.

In actual cost it worked out that they owed us £28,260, and we owed £6,960 for stock and so on, so we got a net £21,300, as well as whatever livestock and farm equipment were there. The intention is that when the transfer date under the Bill approaches, we give the staff who are there a week's notice as our employees, the employees of the Department of Agriculture, because the place has been worked by the Department since 1st January, 1944, and then the company will take over all the existing staff or such of them as the company will have work for, which I have no doubt will be the whole lot, and then the company are enabled by the memorandum of association to make provision for any terms they may wish to lay down for their employees with regard to retiring gratuities, pensions, etc.

It will also be possible for the company under these articles to provide for the services of the staff under the Department since January 1st, 1944, as being services with the company in case they are drawing up any scheme of superannuation or gratuities. The farm there comprises an area of 871 statute acres, and when it was taken over on January 1st, 1944, it was being run by the Department of Agriculture in England, and we, having taken it over on January 1st, without any bloodstock, have run it as an ordinary farm since, making the necessary arrangements with regard to repairing paddocks and buildings, so that it can be used as a stud farm as soon as the company is set up.

A great deal of useful work has been done during this last year and a half and it should be possible at any time now to commence with the purchase of bloodstock. The Government decided at an early date that Tully farm should be used as a stud farm, as a national stud. Various suggestions have been made to the Government in the Press and elsewhere for using this farm for many other purposes, but we think on the whole it should be used as a national stud. Secondly, it was recommended by me to the Government that it could not be properly run by the Department directly, and the Government agreed with that.

Preparations were made for the legislation which is before the Seanad in this Bill. A public liability company will be formed to take possession of the national stud farm which will be financed by State funds. Senators will have noticed in reading the Bill that this company will also be empowered to carry out special schemes for improvement of thoroughbred horse breeding. Senators will note that the Department has schemes for horse breeding which apply only to the breeding of hunters and heavy horses. We consider that these schemes are satisfactory but we have never had any schemes for the breeding of high-class blood horses, and up to this that matter has been left entirely to private enterprise. I am satisfied that there is no necessity for a State owned stud farm as far as the present scheme of the Department are concerned. Under the present scheme we have to purchase animals and sell them to owners throughout the country for the breeding of hunters. Having gone into this matter fully I think we should continue that. We would never breed that type of hunter on a special farm. They are better when they have finished their racing careers because what we are looking for there is confirmation. We do not need any pedigree horses with sprinting blood in them or anything of that kind. We would continue the schemes under the Department and the national stud will be a separate matter altogether. It will be for the improvement of the very high-class blood horses. It can be made, I believe, the medium of valuable assistance and encouragement for the thoroughbred breeding industry generally. It will ensure that the services of the best class sires will be made available to small breeders.

In the Dáil, great concern was expressed for the small breeder. There is a good deal in the point, because the big breeder is able one way or another to get the services of the best stallions, but the small breeder is not in a position to do so at the moment. To that extent I think the national stud should favour the small breeder. I do not think we should undertake at all that it should be exclusively for the small breeder. Certainly it should give him preference. A big fee is charged for the services of high-class sires, and with most of them standing outside the country, it is made almost impossible for the small breeders to get a good stallion even though they have sometimes very good mares. If the mares were mated with the best stallions they would, in all probability —although nobody can be dogmatic, I believe, about breeding—produce from time to time very good animals. There is a feeling that the number of really good horses in this country is going down. That would be a great misfortune, because we have a good name all over the world for horse breeding. If, during the coming years, we fail and our numbers go down markedly, it might mean that buyers who are coming here at present might cease to come as it would not be worth their while. I think we are justified in making every attempt to keep the horse-breeding industry going as we did in the past. These are the main reasons for the establishment of a national stud here.

The next point that arises is how the stud should be run. It was suggested by various people to me that it is not the sort of business that a Government can interfere with, because it is a business proposition and therefore we should sell or lease the national stud farm to a private individual or a number of private individuals or a syndicate of breeders. I do not favour that because I do not think we would have achieved anything if we did. The object is to help breeders in general, not a syndicate. I do not think Senators will advocate that we should have done that and therefore I do not want to labour the point too much. The next point is that if it is not a company run by private enterprise then it appears to me only two alternatives are left, that it should be run directly by the Department of Agriculture or through a company as proposed in this Bill. The British Government did run it directly. They appointed a director and he usually had a committee of management of either two or three to advise him, but they were only advisers. As far as I can gather the whole concern was run by the Department of Agriculture, much as we run one of our agricultural farms. I do not think that that would be satisfactory in our case. It was a very small item in the activities of the Department of Agriculture in London, but I am afraid that here it would be a rather big thing and would not succeed as well as if it were divorced from the Department, at least by interposing a company. I do not know anything about horse breeding. As far as breeding of thoroughbreds or high-class racing horses is concerned the technical members of my Department admit to me that they do not know anything about it. Their training would help them to be as good experts as there are in any other country in the breeding of cattle, pigs, sheep, or even ordinary horses.

The breeding of race horses is a very technical and very speculative business, and for that reason is not at all a suitable one for the Department of Agriculture to engage in. The people doing so must have a great deal of knowledge and be in a position to take a chance as it were. A Government Department is not inclined to take a chance that this particular management must take. It would be admitted by all who know something about horses that if the proposed company buys say six hunters and one turns out well, they will have succeeded as well as nearly any other stud management. That is the sort of thing that a Department can hardly do. A Department can hardly take a chance, On the whole I think it better to have a company set up. It will of course be a non-profit sharing company, that is the men on the board will not benefit by any profits that are made. They will only hold one share out of the 250,000. It is possible under the Bill to pay them directors' fees, but they cannot profit from any profits made by the company. Any such profits will go to the Minister for Finance.

Broad policy will be laid down by the Minister for Agriculture. In defining broad policy, I should like Senators to realise that I would not, for instance, be in a position to interfere with the mating of mares. The company will have to decide that for themselves. They will have to decide what mares are best for the particular stallion concerned, and matters of that kind, but if I were to say to them, for instance, that I thought they should provide stallions at certain centres outside the Tully Stud, that it would be very convenient for breeders in the West to have a stallion standing there for the season rather than expect Western owners to send brood mares to the Curragh, or if I were to say that I thought that they had some horses to spare and that they could sell some of these stallions outright to certain owners at reduced prices—these are the things I mean by broad policy. I would be able to direct policy in that way but not to interfere with the day-to-day working—to say the particular stallion that they should buy, what they should pay for him, or the particular mares which they should select for nomination. That would be a matter for the company and the manager. There might be a scheme for the leasing of stallions. There will necessarily be, as time goes on, a scheme for the leasing of young horses during their racing period. I do not think it would be advisable for the stud company to race these horses themselves. I have no idea of what the system will be but they will have to adopt some system of leasing young horses for their racing career. They will have an option on them so that when their racing career is finished they can claim them for stud purposes. There may be other schemes. I mention some only for the purpose of distinguishing broad policy, in which the Minister would direct the company, from day-to-day working. We do not direct such companies really. In most cases we call in the directors and discuss matters with them. If we see that they have no strong objection to our suggestions, we say that it might be as well to go ahead with a scheme of that kind.

The general framework of the Bill is the same as that of some other Acts which have already passed the Oireachtas, such as the Industrial Alcohol Act and the Sugar Manufacturing Act. The principal features of the Bill are: a provision 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 object will be to take leases and licences of the national stud farm and carry on the business of stud farming. The Bill vests the property in the Minister for Agriculture and he will in turn make leases or licences of the property to the company. Then there are arrangements for financing the company. The company will have a capital of £250,000 which will be subscribed by the Minister for Finance. All the shares will be held by or in trust for the Minister. The company will have power, as well, to borrow a certain amount of money with the consent of the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture. They will have power to borrow certain sums, not exceeding £100,000 or not exceeding the amount of the capital not called up.

There are other smaller items with regard to the buying of land, etc., and then the matter which I mentioned already with regard to the specific schemes which the company might be asked to undertake. There was one matter about which, I was asked and I might anticipate some Senator, who may raise it again. I was asked whether it was necessary to provide in the Bill for the acceptance of donations or bequests of bloodstock from private persons or gifts, grants or loans from the Racing Board. It is not necessary to put such a provision in the Bill. Suitable provisions will be put into the memorandum of association of the company so that if they are asked to accept gifts of that kind they will not have to refuse; they will be able to accept them. I would recommend the Seanad to agree to the Second Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

Though this House is not elected on a geographical basis, nevertheless it is very obvious that when something comes before the Seanad that affects our own home area, we take a more than particular interest in that scheme, the more so when it affects a matter such as the breeding of bloodstock. I think it will be admitted by everyone without question that from the earliest times the love of horses has been engendered in each and every one of us in this country. From the earliest times, right through the 16th and the 17th century, when the export of our horses was first noted, and when the Irish horse was known under the name of "The Hobby," down to the present time, anyone going back over the list of winners of major races, particularly going back over the list of winners of the Grand National, will find that instead of its being a record of English races, it is much more a record of Irish breeding. For that reason, therefore, it gives me very great pleasure to welcome the proposal to set up again a stud at Tully belonging to the nation. It is a step in the right direction. It is a step which I am extremely glad the Minister has taken, instead, perhaps, of yielding to such representations as may have been made to him by other people, that the farm and the lands there should be used for purposes other than the breeding of thoroughbred bloodstock.

In this Bill, in dealing with the manner in which that stud will be operated, there are, I am afraid, some things which cause me some concern, some things with which I feel the Minister should have dealt somewhat differently. I feel in the first place that he should have given us a little more information as to what he meant by a national stud. He did, of course, tell us that he hoped that the stud would assist the small breeder, and that he was not yielding to representations made to him that it should be leased to one person or a group or syndicate of persons for private profit. On that last decision he is very much to be congratulated. I did think, however, that he would tell us more as to what he meant by a national stud—not that I expected him to bring in the New Oxford Dictionary, or the Dictionary of Turf Terms, if such there be.

A national stud means a stud owned by the State, and I should have liked the Minister to have given us an indication, more on the lines of the broad policy on which it will be operated. National studs in other countries have been operated along two very different lines. It is true to say that so far as the British national stud is concerned it was operated very much more along the lines of a private person owning a stud, whereas in the French model the national stud there is operated as a stud that has to be truly national in the real sense of the term, and has to be utilised, not from the point of view at all of the reputation of the stud as such, nor, of course, of the profits of the stud as such, but from the point of view, and solely from the point of view, of improving and assisting bloodstock throughout the country as a whole. I think, quite frankly, that the Minister has that French model in his mind, but I should have preferred that he should have stated so in no uncertain terms.

I am a little worried as to whether that is so under the provisions of Section 23, which provide that dividends and so forth shall be paid to the Minister. That may only mean that the company may have to pay some fair interest rate on the money advanced, and that it is not expected to pay profits in the ordinary sense of the term, but what I want to impress on the Minister above all else is that those moneys must be provided, and that though the Minister for Finance may say that the moneys so provided must bring back some small return, the aim of the stud and the policy under which it is going to be run, must never, if it is going to be a success, be looked upon from the angle of dividend and profit returns. If it is going to be looked upon from that angle, if it is going to be looked upon from any angle other than that of helping bloodstock breeding as a whole in the country, it will not achieve the success which we believe it should achieve. It will not be the success we hope unless it is going to be a question merely of interesting and helping breeders of bloodstock in the country—be they large or small.

It is admitted everywhere that the horse, more than any other animal, is one which is susceptible to climate and to environment, and it is an absolutely accepted fact amongst breeders and owners of thoroughbred bloodstock in every part of the world that the British Isles have the complete monopoly of bloodstock breeding, and that no matter where the stock are taken to from the British Isles, once they have been in another country for a particular length of time, they lose their inherent characteristics and become, so to speak, acclimatised to that other country in a particular way that worsens their condition. Bearing that in mind, and bearing in mind the fact of the position in which the British bloodstock owners and breeders find themselves after the war, it can easily be seen that we have here a chance of a monopoly second to none that has ever been open to us; that we have here the most perfect chance now of ensuring that not only our name and reputation as breeders of bloodstock will be assured in the future, but that we have in the bloodstock industry a perfect chance of getting whatever form of foreign or hard currency—or whatever else we like to call it—that we may require in various other countries, outside the sterling area, in order that we may import the goods which we may require. Bloodstock is going to be one of our most valuable assets in that bargaining match in the near future, and, therefore, I would suggest that it is absolutely essential that we should ensure that, so far as the country as a whole is concerned, everything possible is done to make certain that not merely the produce of the national stud, but, in addition to the produce of the national stud, the produce of breeders throughout the whole country is assisted, in quality particularly, with a view to getting us that bargaining power.

I came cross a further proof of the fact that we were in such a peculiarly advantageous position when I was reading an American annual journal, known as The Thoroughbred Record. I found there an authoritative article written by a man named Moss, who, I understand, is one of the leading experts on American bloodstock, and I shall just give one small quotation from his article, which was this:

"No country in the world is better suited than Ireland for breeding and raising horses, and no people more intelligent in breeding horses than the Irish."

We must remember that the bloodstock industry in this country has a tremendous place in our economic scheme. I have not been able to get figures since 1935, but I do find that in 1935 8½ per cent of our male population over the age of 15 years were dependent on the horse-breeding industry, and I find that there were 2,000 farmers keeping one mare or more, and that was in addition to the 3,000 people depending on racing, as apart from breeding. It can easily be seen, therefore, from that the vast importance of the Bill that is now before the House. I would have thought, too, that in dealing with the broad policy of the national stud, or of the company that is going to operate the national stud, the Minister would have made some reference to the commission of inquiry on which, I think, two members of this House sat. That commission, in one of the parts of its report, reported that even in 1935, although there was no diminution in the number of thoroughbreds here, there was a distinct falling off in the standard. They reported, too, that in order to command higher prices, to improve the standard of mares, and to maintain the reputation of the Irish horse, and particularly of the Irish yearlings, thoroughbreds must be sired by horses whose racing and stud careers would give promise that their stock would be successful on the Turf, and they recommended at that time that at least three first-class stallions should be purchased, and that those stallions should be utilised towards improving our bloodstock here. They further recommended at that time that seven stallions, of a slightly lower class, should also be bought so that they, too, would be available for the same purpose.

I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the fact that it might be desirable to locate the stallions sometimes, during the season, away from the national stud, because it would appear that in that suggestion of his he had in mind the paragraph in the commission's report which read as follows:

"The commission has considered the question of location and is of the opinion that all such horses should be located at a central stud during the off season. During the season the three first-class horses should still remain at the central stud, and the seven second-class horses should be distributed at suitable centres throughout the country, returning to the central stud on its conclusion— a system which has been successfully adopted in France."

Now, I do not expect the Minister to tie himself to whether we are going to have one, two, three or more first-class horses, nor whether we are going to come down to the numbers of first-class sires that were suggested in the report, but I do suggest to the Minister that before the Bill passes through this House he should take the House into his confidence and tell us whether he accepts the report of that commission as indicative of the broad lines of policy on which he proposes to operate.

The comment, too, might be made that this Bill is overdue, and that the Minister shall I say, has, in fact, missed the boat. I am afraid that to a large extent that is true, and were it not for the fact that I went all over the Tully Stud since the Bill was before the other House I would have expressed myself rather forcibly on that question. Having been over the stud I cannot press that point of view very strongly on the Minister so far as Tully is concerned, because it is the regrettable fact, from a personal inspection of the premises, that it is perfectly clear that when the Minister took them over one and a half years ago they were not in the state of repair which would have been satisfactory to operate a first-class stud. Whether it would not be possible for the Minister to have set up his organisation at an earlier date, in order that he might purchase bloodstock and, having done so, put that bloodstock perhaps elsewhere while Tully was being put in order, is another matter. To be perfectly fair it is easy to be wise after the event. Certainly he could not have got bloodstock and put it in Tully until the repairs of which he spoke had been put in hand, and put in hand fairly successfully, as I must frankly admit after having been over the premises.

The fact remains that I am afraid it is going to be extremely difficult now for the company to buy stallions of the type that the Minister possibly has in mind, certainly of the type that the commission reported on, because they are not available for sale. That type of stallion is largely held now by syndicates of breeders, who will not part with them, and it may be, no matter how much we wish to purchase sires, that we would not be able to get them for a considerable time. I am not saying that on the question of cost. I am leaving out the question of cost altogether. It may not be possible to get sires and in consequence it may be necessary to wait until suitable young horses have been bred at the stud, and have, through their racing career, shown that they were satisfactory, and the material to make suitable and successful sires. It may be, therefore, that the day when that particular part of the commission's report can be put into operation may be some distance ahead, but I ask the Minister to inform us if it is his intention to operate that part of the scheme as soon as possible.

I do not know whether Government property is subject to the ordinary regulations that apply to every other person's property throughout the State so far as compulsory tillage is concerned. Whether it is or not I urge on the Minister the necessity at the earliest moment to make certain that a progressive policy is adopted so far as compulsory tillage and the laying down of grassland for stud farm purposes are concerned. It has been calculated by most breeders of bloodstock that a ratio of about 30 cattle to one mare is about the proper one for land, to ensure that it will not become horse-sick within a period. It has already been accepted at the other side of the Channel that it is essential for mares and their foals, as they go on to yearlings, to get good grassland; that there must be plenty of grass feeding over which they can range, as it is that grass feeding which, more than any feeding of dry food, which ensures and builds up their bone. That is not a subject on which I can speak with any personal authority. I know nothing about it, but I have taken the greatest trouble to try to ascertain the position from those who have made a success of breeding satisfactory and successful thoroughbred yearlings and in consequence succeeded in obtaining good prices, and whose progeny won good races. That is their view and I must bow, as I think the Minister will, to their view as experts. It is a highly technical matter for which we must go to highly technical expert.

I earnestly ask the Minister not only in connection with the national stud, but in connection with bloodstock breeding, that a more loose policy in regard to compulsory tillage would be adopted as far as the stud farms are concerned. The stocks of stud farms, as far as my information goes, are tied to the 1939 figures; they are tied to the number of mares that they had on their land in 1939. It is difficult to find out exactly what acreage is permitted by the Department in making an allowance, but I ask that that question to be taken into account by the Minister, so far as possible. In consequence, it will assist very much, perhaps even more than the national stud, in ensuring that we have suitable stock coming on here.

There is another point that these technical experts tell me is only secondary in importance to that of range, so far as foals and yearlings are concerned, and that is change. I know it is a fact that the Italian breeder, Signor Tesip, has had outstanding success in Italy, for the reason that in order to get change he had three places where his stock was sent periodically, one in northern Italy, one in mid-Italy and one in southern Italy. There has been a suggestion in England that they should do the same thing. I suggest to the Minister that he should adopt the same thing here, so as to ensure that at Tully and elsewhere we would have another stud farm as a change, but part and parcel of our national stud.

Frankly, I do not like some of the machinery for operating this farm. I shall not take up and throw at the head of the Minister chunks of the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission. I did that before on the Minerals Bill in respect of another Minister and it had some unfortunate results. So far as this Bill is concerned, it is not the fact that it is a company which is to operate the farm to which I object but rather that the company is to operate it in what I might describe as a loose manner. However, those are matters of detail which the Minister and I will have a few words about when the Bill reaches Committee Stage. It is the absence of regulations by virtue of which nominations to stallions will be made and so forth that I take objection to in the machinery of the Bill. May I again impress upon the Minister that this is, as he himself said, a highly technical matter. Only highly technical experts really appreciate the niceties of breeding. I might say that there is almost an instinct for right breeding—that it is not merely a matter of knowledge. Therefore, when the Minister comes to nominate the board of this company, I appeal to him to nominate persons who have had success in the past as breeders and who have shown by their success that they have what I may call "instinct" in the matter.

The Minister said, so far as I could take down his words, that employees would be given a week's notice by the State and that, thereafter, such employees as the company will have work for will be taken over by the new company. I have no doubt that all the employees will be taken over. I read the Minister's speech in the other House on the Second Stage with the greatest care. Taking into account what he has just now said, I myself have no doubt that the company will take over the whole staff. I fully appreciate that the State, as such, must terminate the employment of the staff, and I appreciate also the legal implications which make it impossible for the Minister to put such an undertaking as he has given, in the Bill. Reading the Minister's speech in the other House, I do not think that there could have been any doubt in the matter. Therefore, to say the least, it was undesirable and mean that any person should have indicated to the staff that there was any doubt about their continued employment. That suggestion was, unfortunately, made and I ask the Minister, in even more uncompromising language, to undertake—in the most specific terms—that the company will take over the whole staff in the ordinary way and that, if they continue to be satisfactory, they will be retained. If they do not continue to be satisfactory, they themselves cannot expect—and do not expect—to be retained. Having regard to the very mean method which was adopted of sowing doubt and dissatisfaction in the minds of these men and their families, an undertaking such as I suggest would come well from the Minister. I am quite satisfied that that would express only what is in his own mind. I want to be perfectly clear that I am not suggesting that the Minister said anything to the contrary but, having regard to the suggestions made elsewhere by other persons, I should like to stress the matter.

I should like the Minister also to tell us—he was asked this in the other House and said he would look into it —whether it will be possible for the new company, within the terms of the Bill, to keep up the Japanese gardens. These gardens were very famous even outside the country, and it would be very desirable that they should be kept up as a show place. It is also desirable that they should keep up to date the unique display in the riding school, which showed a record from the very beginning of every horse bred at Tully, which subsequently won.

That record was kept from the time of Colonel Hall Walker, who established the stud. That record is completely unique and would impress a stranger who might visit the place and furnish proof, if proof were required, that in Tully we have the soil which is so necessary for the production of good livestock. We all know that we have a mild climate but that record proved beyond question that the grass and soil of Tully had been a success in the past—a success which I sincerely hope, and which everybody connected with the thoroughbred industry hopes, will be continued and even excelled in the future.

Mr. Honan

My reasons for intervening in the debate are, like those of Senator Sweetman, mainly geographical. But there is some difference in our general outlook. While Senator Sweetman very properly looks forward to the production of great racehorses, my outlook on behalf of the small farmers in my part of the country is concerned with the pious hope which, I am sure, will be implemented, that the breeding of the country horse will be improved. There is no doubt, from what I know of my county, that that type of horse has somewhat deteriorated over the past decade or so. We had a very fine hunter type that might be raised by the ordinary farmer. The production of racehorses is the luxury of the few, but the production of a good class hunting horse or mare may be undertaken by any ordinary farmer. That is the type of horse to which I refer. We had a type in County Clare—I am sure the same could be said of every other county— known as the Irish draught horse—a good class animal with a dash of blood. It was said of him that he was suitable for harness on Sunday, for hunting on Monday and for agricultural work on the other days of the week. That was a very good and useful animal. When he came to five or six years of age, having been worked for a few years, there was a fairly good market for him and a remunerative price—from £50 to £80.

That breed of horse has practically died out in my part of the country, and it is very much to be regretted, because it was more or less the backbone of the ordinary breeding farmer, and I hope the Minister will see to it that the class is revived as soon as possible. Recently I asked a breeder and farmer whose family have been in the business for generations, to what he attributed what you might call the downfall of this fine type of animal. He said that he believed, and most of his friends believed, that it was caused by the introduction of foreign sorts of animals, such as the Clydesdale, the Shire and the Suffolk, breeds entirely foreign to our part of the country.

There were no suitable mares to mate with these sires, so they were mated with the ordinary mare with the result that the breeders only got mongrel progeny. I asked him how it was that there was a market for these animals and what was the object of it. In reply, he deprecated the animals as working animals. He said that the old Irish draught mare would work two of them off their legs in one day. Nevertheless, buyers came down from the North and bought them as yearlings, or year and a half olds, and in that way they got a market, but they were never up to the standard of the old Irish horse or mare, one of which was equal to two of them in a day.

That is the class most suitable to our part of the country, and incidentally it may interest somebody to know that he produced a Grand National winner, Shannon Lass, out of that class. She was bred and reared on the very farm on which is now situated the Shannon Airport. The runways of the airport now pass through the farm. The other mare; Lady Hillen II, was bred nearby. It is quite possible that by producing a good class type of hunter you may get a valuable racehorse of the steeplechase type. Of course, the Minister has good reasons for introducing good horses, but this man of great experience and his friends said he concurred with the reorganisation of the Tully Stud and added that the Minister would be doing a great day's work if he entirely withdrew those stallions from the country altogether because they are not suitable for our soil, climate or breed. They have nothing in common with the Irish horse or mare. Those who are in a position to know, contend the Minister for Agriculture would do a good service by eliminating them from the country altogether.

Mr. Quirke

As the nominee of the Irish Bloodstock Breeders' and Horse-owners' Association, I rise to support the Bill, and I would like to congratulate the Minister on having produced this Bill in what, I regard, at any rate, as the shortest possible time. Senator Sweetman, who in his speech, I must say, was very reasonable and helpful and displayed considerable industry, said he thought the Minister may have missed the bus, and that the Bill came too late, but again, I can assure Senator Sweetman—I think he is in fact a member of the association himself, but in case he is not—over the past ten to 12 years, at every annual meeting of the association, the possibility of regaining the national stud or re-establishing a national stud was never overlooked, and, on every possible occasion, the Minister was urged by the association to do whatever he could to bring about the reestablishment of the national stud. In the Bill before us, he has done that. As has been pointed out by Senator Sweetman, and also by Senator Honan, it is very desirable that the small owners should be helped, as far as it is possible to help them through this measure.

In the other House, I noticed that a considerable number of references was made along those lines. I feel quite sure that the Minister will not overlook that aspect of the situation, and that every effort will be made to help the small breeders throughout the country. Heretofore, the small breeder was at a considerable disadvantage, and when I say the small breeder, I do not mean what is generally regarded as the small breeder, the man with four or five or more mares. I have in mind the man with one or two mares, the man who spends hours and hours of study on horse breeding every night, and I think if we go back on the records we would find in a great many cases that the outstanding Irish horses were produced by that particular type of man.

I know myself, with a small experience of the country, that it is nothing unusual to find a group of people sitting around the fire in any of the districts where horse breeding is regarded as a definite industry, night after night, studying not so much what is regarded as form, but the pedigree likely to produce the best type of horse. As I say, I believe the Minister has done a good job, and I was amazed to hear him criticised in the other House by people who should have known the struggle he must have had, along with the officers of his Department, to bring about the present situation. It has been suggested, particularly in the other House, that this was the wrong type of organisation, and that the national stud should be run by the Department of Agriculture. I am quite satisfied that if the Minister brought forward a scheme to run the national stud as a section of his Department, the very same people would stand up and say he was doing something which was heading for disaster.

If it were run by a Government Department, it would lack the different interest and experience necessary if this project is to be made the success we hope it will be. I am not suggesting that the Minister's Department has not some of the greatest men in the country, men who have made a life study of the breeding of horses, but, on this particular type of work, a better type of man can be found, a man who has himself been keenly interested for, if you like, the greater part of his life in the breeding of horses, and who is, at the same time, sufficient of an Irishman to throw his weight into a job of this kind and make it a success.

I am sure several people in this House are of opinion that people connected with the steeplechasing breeding industry are of a type which would not be bothered with flat racing, but from my experience of the industry I can tell them it is not so. Everyone connected with the horse-breeding industry, no matter what side of it, is interested in its welfare from a national point of view. I know men who would spend every night of the year, and every day of the year if they could afford it, trying to make the stud a success. I have no doubt whatever that the Minister will be able to find a sufficient number of suitable men who can be relied upon to do the job properly and who will not be open to criticism from any section of the community. Senator Honan referred to the winning of the National by a horse bred in Clare. I feel sure that many other Senators could make similar claims. Senator Sweetman might say that all the winning horses were bred in Kildare.

Mr. Sweetman

I am afraid none of us would be right; they were bred in County Meath.

Mr. Quirke

We will not argue about it at any rate. The fact is, as Senator Sweetman pointed out, that the most of the records of the Grand National, which is supposed to be the greatest race of this time in the world, are really a history of Irish horses. Reading the history which was produced by the Bloodstock and Horse Breeders' Association I observed that in 20 to 40 years 15 Grand Nationals were won by Irish bred horses. One was won by the American horse, Battleship, and four by English horses. I think that is a record it would be very hard to beat. I believe that in the selection of the Board to run this national stud the Minister should keep in mind that over and above the breeding of what you might call sprinters or flat-race horses we should have regard to the breeding of the steeplechase horse.

If I might say so, in recent years there was an indication that the breeding of steeplechasers had been falling off, and it is harder to-day to find what you might call the makings of a good chaser than it has been for 30 or 40 years. That is increasingly impossible in view of the fact that that particular type of horse is scarcer in Europe, and even in America, than it ever was before. The horse-breeding industry has got a very definite rap. A lot of people who were in the industry before the war have found themselves practically even without a foundation stock. I believe that this is a very important side of the horse-breeding industry which should not be lost sight of in the setting up of the board and in the subsequent running of the establishment itself.

I daresay the Minister would reply to that by saying that in fact it would be a matter of policy, but in the laying of the foundations things of this kind, to my mind, should not be lost sight of. I was particularly gratified to hear Senator Sweetman complimenting a member of the Horse Breeding Commission some years ago. I happened to be a member of that commission, and I feel that a lot of good work was done at that time. That was in 1935, I think, and in that time we advocated a system of what you might call boarding-out stallions. To my mind, that is the best system by which the small breeder can be catered for, because though he may have a very good mare, when he comes to putting down hard cash to send the mare 120 or 150 miles to the stallion, he has to consider his purse. The result in many cases is that though his board of directors, as you may call the farmers sitting around the fireside and discussing the pedigree, may decide that the right mare is in County Meath, the farmer happens to be down in West Cork. They finally try to persuade themselves that the grandsire of some horse situated locally was a very good horse, and they think the only alternative to leaving the mare barren is to send her to the local horse.

That is a disastrous system. It is a situation that can be remedied by the kind of system that may be called boarding-out stallions. In that way stallions could be sent to areas in which they are scarce. It was suggested by some people that it would be possible to distribute the existing stallions. Anybody who knows anything about the matter knows that that is not possible. There are areas within 30 or 40 miles of Dublin where you would find ten or 20 of the best sires in the country, all doing excellent business. They cannot be interfered with. The only thing I can say is the heartiest congratulations to the people who got hold of these horses, and may they never be without a good horse. The horse-breeding industry is certainly one of the greatest industries, if not, in fact, the greatest in the country.

As has been pointed out, it is the life stream of agriculture in this country. While at times we have produced wonderful cattle, and even now have a considerable name as breeders of cattle in various foreign countries, I think we will all admit that the one thing that stands out as regards our agricultural industry, is its production of high-class thoroughbred horses. What there is in the soil it is hard to say, but whatever it is the fact stands out that since the days of the hobbyhorses that Senator Sweetman referred to, we have kept breeding and exporting horses, exporting, naturally, the best horses.

The best horses were generally sold in the Dublin sales or at Doncaster. Notwithstanding that, we have continued to produce the best horses. With our own going away and becoming acclimatised in foreign countries, and the race deteriorating there, we can come along breeding from the Tully if you like and beat the best horses of any other country. The fact that we could do that makes the establishment of this stud a very important item in the history of this country. I believe that everything possible should be done for it and I can assure the Minister that he has the blessing of practically every man in the country who has at heart the interest of the horse-breeding industry. Even the sending of horses to the best sire in the country may not always be the best thing to-day.

As we all know, some of our best sires have in recent years been sold for export. Some have gone to England, some to America, India and various other countries, so that it may be necessary, very desirable, and well worth while, if it were not for the fact that pounds, shillings and pence have to be taken into consideration, to send a certain type across the Channel to a really good sire. That procedure can be avoided if we get the right type of sire here in the national stud. Senator Sweetman is pessimistic as to the possibility of doing that.

Mr. Sweetman

In the immediate future.

Mr. Quirke

I believe it is going to be very difficult, but as Senator Sweetman has pointed out people now in possession of what we might call the top-notchers, just refuse to ask a price. I know of several good sires that people have attempted to buy, and they were turned down without being asked a price. It will not be easy to get them in the next 12 months. I believe we must realise that with the best will in the world it will be a very difficult job to get the right sires. We all know that at a recent sale in England the price for the service alone of one sire was £4,600. That would give a fair idea of the sort of price that might be asked for the sire.

In any case there is not much necessity to say any more, except to repeat that we should not lose sight of the steeplechaser. At least one member of the board should be representative of that type of breed, a man who would, if you like, keep that end up. But I am not suggesting that a man who is interested in flat racing would not be interested in the breeding of steeplechasers, but there are a good many cases where men will not bother, when they go to a race meeting, to watch the steeplechasers. In other cases men will go to see steeplechasers and will not look at the flat racers. We can boast of the pedigrees of some of the most famous steeplechasers in the world, and horses which will go down in history as flat race winners. On the steeplechasing side our record is as good as that on the flat. We can point to steeplechasing blood string the best flat racers in the country. Look at the famous horse Ben Battle which sired Bendigo and Ambuss II which won the Grand National Steeplechase.

We have the same argument all down the line to Prince Regent, one of the greatest chasers of all time. We should all do what we can to make this national stud a success, and I can assure the Minister that so far as the bloodstock breeders and horse owners association and the bloodstock breeders are concerned, he will get a very welcome reception if he comes to our next meeting.

Mr. Duffy

Sir John Keane

Then how long do you have to wait?

Mr. Duffy

I have a recollection of the telephone when it was under private ownership. Senator Quirke apparently considers that you will get five or six people to become directors of this company and that they will be patriots devoting their whole time to running this organisation, but you cannot find one patriot in the whole country who would act as manager for the Department of Agriculture. That is the argument. If the Department of Agriculture said: "We are taking over this stud and we are going to run it but we are going to get someone who will manage the job in an efficient manner," I think one of the five patriots would probably be willing to take the job. There would be this distinction, that when the manager was running the stud for the Minister for Agriculture somebody at some stage might raise a question in this House or in the other House as to how the public money was being expended. I think that if the truth has to be confessed the Minister must say that the real reason for the setting up of the company rather than running the stud himself is to avoid public discussion as to the manner in which the stud is run. This follows a pattern. I am drawing attention to this fact because I think the Minister yesterday in another instance indicated a departure from the practice, which has grown up, in relation to the Labourers Bill. You may remember that I drew attention to the fact that he was divesting himself of the power to determine certain things under that Bill. In other words, there was a breaking with the practice which has been recognised by the State as Government policy for ten or 12 years, that is to say, the Ministers take away the power of the courts to define certain legislative matters. From the fact that the Minister broke with that tradition it seems to me that personally he dislikes some of these traditions.

I am suggesting that the policy set out in this Bill of establishing a quasi-private company of the kind that was denounced by the Vocational Commission is not the Minister's policy but is forced upon him by the Department of Finance. It is the policy of the Department of Finance and it is not necessarily in accordance with the views of the Minister for Agriculture.

You have a long string of these concerns in respect of which large sums of public money have been voted, and over which there is no control by the Legislature. If any member of this House asks a Deputy of Dáil Eireann to put down a question as to what is being done by the organisation financed by the State he will be told in the big office downstairs that the question cannot be put on the Order Paper, because the Minister is not responsible. That would apply to the Sugar Company, the hydro-electrification concern. It applies to the Cement Company, to the Transport Company, to shipping, butter production, industrial alcohol, mining. I am not raising this as a new issue. I have raised it in respect of mining and transport, the two measures that came before this House during the period I have been here. We are setting up this kind of concern, and handing over to a few individuals, whose names are not divulged to us until the Bill has gone through, the administration of large sums of money, and we are divesting ourselves of all responsibility as to how the concern is administered and how the money is spent.

Some of the people concerned in some of these companies appeared before the Commission on Vocational Organisation and were asked questions which they refused to answer. For instance, I put a question to the Governor of the Central Bank. I asked him where our Irish notes were printed. He refused to answer. I could have told him, because I had seen the invoices coming from London. I knew they were printed in London, but before the Central Bank was established they were printed by the Bank of Ireland in Dublin.

Sir John Keane

And very well printed.

Mr. Duffy

The Bank of Ireland was employing men in Dublin to print those notes, but once the Central Bank came along they must be printed in London. We asked the official concerned the names of the printers, he refused to tell, saying it was not to be divulged. I am drawing attention to what is being done under this Bill. It is a matter of vital concern to every person here irrespective of the side of the House on which he sits.

You are authorising the establishment of a company, and once the Bill is passed, it deprives you of any further right to inquire what is being done. If on occasion here, a very rare occasion, an endeavour is made to put down a motion regarding the national stud at County Kildare, the Cathaoirleach or the Leas-Chathaoirleach or whoever is responsible at the time, will tell you: "That motion cannot go on the Order Paper because there is no Minister responsible." If you are satisfied to agree to that, very well say so. I personally am not satisfied. I believe that a big national concern should be operated by competent people. I am not suggesting that the Minister or that civil servants should operate the national stud but I am suggesting that the Minister should have placed upon him by this House the responsibility of securing the best and most competent administrator he can find and that the Minister should be asked to hold himself responsible to the Oireachtas for the manner in which the duties of that office are discharged.

I do not want to be misunderstood; I do not want it to be said by critics who are not particularly scrupulous as to the way in which they misrepresent people that I am blowing hot and cold, that in one case I am all in favour of State enterprise and that in another case I am not. I put my position clearly. In a matter of this kind where the public must find the money, the line I take is that the Minister responsible to the Oireachtas should have placed upon him the responsibility of administering these funds and of seeing that the best possible persons are selected to administer the scheme. He could then come back and answer to us here as to how these functions are discharged. I know it will be argued that in these circumstances it is open to any irresponsible person to get up here or in the other House and ask the Minister why such-and-such a mare was refused a nomination or why such-and-such a stallion was not sent to Castlebar, West Cork, or somewhere else. No sensible person would suggest that the Minister should be asked questions of that kind. I agree that there are occasions on which, not in this House but elsewhere, questions of a particularly narrow character are asked, due no doubt to local pressure. The Minister knows as well as I do of the local pressure that is brought to bear on Deputies to ask questions about matters that are not important.

I think it will be found that as our experience of this kind of organisation grows, as we begin to see the big electrification scheme with capital resources of £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 developing, the Sugar Company developing, the Cement Company developing, the Transport Company developing, with a large investment of public money, that the people's mind will broaden and that they will not be asking Ministers 2½d. questions about 2½d. matters. The way to develop that mentality is to act in a big way, to let the public see that Ministers have big responsibilities and that they must not be asking 2½d. questions.

I was concerned mainly with that aspect of the Bill. As to the details, apart from what I mentioned, I do not think that anybody need concern themselves. The Bill is a well-drawn Bill and all of us can join in welcoming the decision of the Minister to set up a national stud. All of us can join in applauding him for having brought forward the proposal and I take the earliest opportunity of doing so. That, however, should not blind us to the fact that the manner chosen by the Minister of the Government for administering this organisation is unsatisfactory and we should have the courage to say so.

Sir John Keane

When I agreed with the last speaker on a recent occasion, it was referred to as an unholy alliance. I am afraid that that unholy alliance will have to continue for a bit longer because on the question of these new nominal companies, I am just as uneasy as Senator Duffy. Senator Sweetman on a previous occasion also had reason to express anxiety about them and there is real anxiety. Senator Duffy, if I may say so, put it very well in pointing out that these large sums of public money placed at the disposal of these companies are altogether outside the control of Parliament. Parliamentary control of finance is a fundamental principle and I think we have departed from that fundamental principle, perhaps largely due to the emergency, without considering where it is going to land us. I think we should really stand back, take stock of the position and get somebody to examine whether the thing is not catching hold and becoming dangerous and to report to the Government what modification, safeguards or changes are necessary in this practice which is quite unsound, this change from the orthodox or old fashioned methods of Parliamentary control. Parliamentary control is hallowed by experience and one does not feel that it should be lightly set aside in this rather unconsidered and fortuitous manner.

It is absurd to suggest that because questions might be asked about the location of mares or stallions, the whole system of Parliamentary control should be abrogated. At present there are opportunities for asking endless questions in relation to appointments in the Post Office. You get them occasionally, but I do not think it could be said that the Order Paper is cumbered with trifling questions of that kind. Similarly, I do not think that if questions concerning the national stud could be put on the Order Paper, there would be any degree of abuse. There is undoubtedly a certain number of troublesome people who will go to any length to put such questions.

I agree with what the Minister says as to the mentality required for running a stud farm. I speak with some hesitation on the matter, because I am not a racing man, but I have sufficient intelligence to realise that the particular risks to be taken require a different approach from that called for in the case of breeding commercial stock. I do not see, however, why a person expert in that matter should not be appointed by the Department to manage the farm I do not think the previous manager of the farm when it was under British control was anything other than a gifted individual. I think he would have been very restive if he had been under the control of a company, even if they were a company who had a wide knowledge of stock breeding. I cannot see—although I do not say that one is necessarily better than the other—why a specially appointed person, directly appointed by the Department, could not undertake the management of an affair of this kind every bit as well as the company. I agree with the Minister that he has not the officials on his staff now, but that does not say that he could not make a special appointment for the purpose. That is all I have to say about this question of the general structure of the company, but there is another matter that I want to mention, and that is this: Have the Minister and his advisers considered the possible change that the growing practice of artificial insemination is going to make in stock breeding? I am told that that practice is growing in other countries at great speed and that it is likely to make revolutionary changes in this whole matter of stock breeding.

Would the Minister tell us what amount of research is going on in his Department in this matter? My information is that there is little or no research, and I think that it really is very necessary, when embarking upon an enterprise of this kind, on which artificial insemination may have a revolutionary effect, that we should be up-to-date in the practice and be able to anticipate, in the structure of a company of this kind, the effect of this new practice on its future activities. Otherwise, you might find yourselves committed to a large capital expenditure on an enterprise which may become out of date or unproductive in the course of time. I would be satisfied with an assurance from the Minister that he is fully aware of all the implications involved in this growing practice and that it is being borne in mind in connection with future developments, not only in relation to the particular matter of horse breeding but of stock breeding in this country as a whole.

Mr. Douglas

I must say that I know practically nothing about horse breeding and therefore shall not say anything about it, but like Senator Duffy I have some definite views on the question of control of similar industries by companies partially or directly controlled by a Department of Government. I am not going to join the unholy alliance referred to by Senator Sir John Keane. I have a great deal of sympathy with some of his remarks, and also a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by Senator Duffy, but I do not believe that either is correct. It seems to me that one of the serious difficulties in the operation of democracy effectively in the future is going to be, here and elsewhere, the overloading of Parliament and the difficulty of getting efficiency with the full amount of Parliamentary control. If you object to the formation of a company, and if your only other solution is that it should be run by a Department, there is no use, to my mind, in Senator Duffy's suggesting that while we have anything like the present system of Parliamentary control, any clerk, official, chairman, or anybody else, is going to make a distinction between what is a silly or unreasonable question and what is an essential one. In my humble opinion all of the questions that he suggested might be put down, would be put down if the national stud were under the direct control of the Minister and his Department. For some considerable time I have felt that there ought to be a way out.

The great fault that I find with these companies which, in a general way, were criticised by the Vocational Commission, is that we have not provided any proper alternative for the shareholders' meeting in an ordinary company, and that while I know that normally, if the State holds shares in a company, the Minister for Finance sends an official, who may or may not ask questions as to the affairs of the company, and who will report to the Minister afterwards, that is not, in the proper sense of the word, a shareholders' meeting, and does not give to Parliament the control that shareholders would have at an ordinary annual meeting.

In that connection, I was very much impressed with the way I understand they deal with the matter of Parliamentary committees in Sweden. I am not quite sure of the actual procedure, but I do know that in Sweden Parliamentary committees have been set up to deal with many matters, and that the officials—in this case it would be the directors or the manager—can attend at these committee meetings. My suggestion would be that the whole position of these companies should be carefully examined and we should see whether it would not be possible to have a series of Parliamentary committees—preferably, joint committees of both Houses of Parliament—before which, once a year, the annual reports of the directors would be placed and at which the directors would attend or, at any rate, be represented in the same way as at an ordinary directors' meeting; that questions could be put and answered at that committee, and a report afterwards made to Parliament in connection with anything which they felt required special attention. Shareholders' meetings are public, and these meetings would also be public, and Some system of that kind would avoid the wasting of time by Parliament and also the danger of relatively petty and small matters being raised through local pressure while at the same time maintaining a degree of Parliamentary control which, to my mind, does not exist at the present time.

I do not wish to say a word against the Post Office, for which I have considerable respect, and having been chairman of a post office board some years ago, I have some experience in that connection, but I should not like to see the Electricity Supply Board placed in the same position as the Post Office. I do not think it would be an advantage to have the same kind of control, but I think it would be an advantage if some such control as I have suggested were introduced in connection with all or almost all companies of this kind.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I am afraid that I am rather a Simon Pure in this matter, and feel bound to go further than the speakers before me. I object, in principle, to a government having economic control over commercial interests. It is a doctrine which the Nazis took from Marx, and which has formed part of the Nazi handbook: that for any party to get complete control in a State, it is necessary to combine economic and political control. I am not accusing the Government of a conscious following of that maxim, but if you do find economic and political control being mixed up, you have taken the first step to what is known as the one-party system, and if you have taken the first step towards the one-party system you have taken the first step towards totalitarianism. I have the greatest distrust of many of the Bills that have recently come before the Dáil, whereby the Government is given whole control, partial control, or any kind of control of economic aspect of the national life. I think that it would be dangerous. I know nothing about horse breeding, and less than nothing about horse racing, but I oppose this Bill on the general principle that it is wrong that the Government should get a great and increasing control over the economic aspects of national life.

Dr. Ryan

Senator Sweetman was the first speaker, and he raised certain matters. The first point that he put to me was that he thought the English National Stud was worked exactly as if a private individual were in control. I think that is quite true. Senator Keane, speaking afterwards of the manager of the stud, said that he would have found it almost impossible to work under the direction of a company. I think that Senator Sweetman agreed with the statement that the manager worked as if the undertaking were a private concern—in other words, that he did what he liked. That may be one way of running a stud, but I do not think that the Government, having spent public money, could say to any individual: "Go ahead and do what you like."

Senator Sweetman said that the French National Stud was worked from the point of view of assisting bloodstock production throughout the country. That is what we are aiming at. Whether we shall achieve it or not is another matter. It is rather important to have this money spent for the benefit of bloodstock breeding in general, and, having given the matter full consideration, we brought this Bill before the Oireachtas. I agree with Senator Sweetman that high dividends should not be paid to the Minister for Finance. If that should occur, it would be a sign that things were not being done as they should be done. The Minister for Finance should get a reasonable dividend. A stud of that kind should be made pay to the extent that the Minister for Finance would get, at least, as much as he has to pay for the money, or perhaps a little more. If he got 5 per cent. on his money, I do not think that anybody would object.

Mr. Sweetman

As a long-term policy, but not in the immediate future.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. If, after some years, the Minister for Finance were getting 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. on his money, that would indicate that this institution was not being worked as intended, because the company would not be devoting as much money as they should devote to the encouragement of bloodstock breeding in general. I confess that I have not read the recommendations of the Horse Breeding Commission of 1935 for some time. At the time I studied the report, and I agreed that everything contained in it was desirable. We set out to give effect to a number of the recommendations, and some of them were, in fact, carried out. One of the recommendations referred to by Senator Sweetman had to do with the purchase of stallions. That is a matter I should like to refer to, because it shows how difficult it is for a Department to do certain things. I was very keen on purchasing three tip-top stallions and seven secondary stallions. After a great deal of trouble, I got the Minister for Finance to agree to give me the money to do so. Then I tried to get the stallions and failed. There was no man in my Department who claimed to know anything about the purchase of thoroughbred stallions. I was advised that a number of men would undertake to buy the stallions for us but that we should not have them.

However, we were not entirely bereft of honest men. We got in touch with three or four good judges of stallions who were very honest men, and we had a discussion about our requirements. We gave them a certain amount of freedom if they saw a stallion going which they thought would suit the purpose. We told them that we did not want them to write back to us and to wait until we got the sanction of the Department of Finance, that, if they considered a stallion which was offering was good value, to telegraph or telephone us and that we would tell them whether to buy or not to buy immediately. We got only one inquiry. We were asked if we would pay so much for a particular stallion. We said "Yes". The person concerned said: "I am going out to see if the stallion is available", and he came back and said it was not available. That system does not work. We must get down as closely as possible to the position of the man working for himself. The manager of the stud must have a great deal of power in the making of purchases under the control of some body —whether that body be the company or the Department, I shall discuss later.

Senator Sweetman said we should have made some attempt to purchase horses. Recently, a very good horse was offered. I said: "Let us purchase that stallion and have him when this stud is set up". When we went to the owner, we found that he had decided not to sell at all. I am glad that Senator Sweetman raised the question of the employment of the staff, because I should not like them to have any apprehension about their future. I am told that, legally, it is safer, from the point of view of the future of the company, that we should say to the staff: "We are letting you go in a week's time". That would be seven days before the company would take over. The company will take them over under ordinary conditions of employment—as any farmer would take over his men-but they may have a little more security than they would under the ordinary farmer because they may have certain rights regarding gratuities if they are found unsuitable. No man need have the slightest anxiety, any more than he has next Saturday night, as to his employment by the company. If it is found at present that there is no work for the staff, somebody has to go, but it is not likely that any man will be found redundant.

Mr. Sweetman

You will require a great many more.

Dr. Ryan

Probably. Senator Sweetman referred to the Japanese gardens. They have been famous for many years. There is nothing in the Bill regarding them but there will be a condition in the lease or licence to the company requiring them to keep these gardens in order. I understand that the laying down of those gardens cost a huge amount many years ago. They were supposed to be an allegory of some problem in life. They are well worth seeing and we must have them maintained properly. During the past few years, they may not have been maintained as they should, but I think that they will be much better maintained henceforth. Senator Honan spoke of the Irish draught horse and other horses. We are not dealing with that matter in this Bill but I agree with the Senator that the Irish draught horse should be encouraged in every way. Indirectly, the maintenance of a stud like this may have a good influence on breeding in general. I need hardly repeat—though Senator Quirke invited me to do so—that every preference will be given to the small breeder. I do not know how the company will define "small breeder"— whether a man with from four to six mares or, as Senator Quirke suggested, a man with one or two mares. If there be any controversy on the question, it would, I think, come to the Minister because the fair interpretation of "small breeder" would be a matter of policy.

As Senator Quirke said, we want as manager a man with a thorough knowledge of horse breeding. That is a very ticklish subject—a question of mating, different lines of blood and so on. He should be, as was suggested, an Irishman and, I should like to add to that, a man of great integrity. I think that we should be able to get a man of that type. Senator Duffy said that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs managed the Post Office and asked why we could not manage a stud farm. I myself could manage a post office, but I am doubtful if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would manage a stud farm. It is quite a different matter. As we have all stressed in this debate, a person requires a good deal of technical knowledge to run a stud farm properly. That is the big reason why this company was set up. There is a Bill following this one on the Order Paper, with regard to the estate in County Wexford on which we are going to run an Agricultural College. That college will be run directly from the Department, because I feel as I did when walking over Johnstown farm, that I know enough to be able to criticise what is taking place there, and the officers of my Department, while eminently qualified to manage a farm of that kind, could not manage a stud farm.

There is no use in saying, like Senator Sir John Keane, that we have officials who know something about horse breeding. Of course we have officials who know something about it, but we cannot expect an official who has come in at the ordinary age and minded his business properly to know all about horse racing and horse breeding. I am not making little of the men who do know all about it, but it is only men of that kind who know all about the breeding of horses and the management of a stud. That is the first reason why I asked the Government to have the farm managed by a company and not run by the Department directly, but the second reason is, as some of the Senators here have mentioned, that there might be public criticism of the detailed management of a company of that kind, and I think if Senators would be a little bit sympathetic to the manager, they will see that it would be extremely awkward if a manager was subject to question and answer in the Dáil.

Even the best manager we could get in the world will not be successful every time. If he goes on buying stallions, he is sure to buy a dud sometime, and if he buys brood mares he will make a mistake sometime, and if some disappointed seller of a stallion hears that the manager bought another stallion which turned out to be no use, he can approach some local Deputy and say: "You have a manager getting a big salary and he goes and buys a stallion which anybody could see was not worth a bob. He paid £30,000 for him and there must be something shady about it." The Deputy can then ask: "Why did your manager buy a £30,000 stallion, when he was not worth a bob?" The result of that would be the manager would be afraid of his life to buy another stallion for any price, if that sort of procedure was adopted. Even from that point of view alone it should not be done in that way. But the primary consideration was that I did not know anything about it, and my officials did not know anything about it, and if we were to put a manager in whom we knew was competent, we could always say to him whatever he might suggest: "You know the best—go ahead." I might as well say to the manager: "I am appointing you because I am going to have full control in my Department." It is better we should have a manager appointed and have four or five men who knew something about the business to examine his proposals and criticise them if necessary, and carry on in that way.

I have heard a good lot of talk about the principle of setting up a company. I did not realise there was a principle in the matter. Senator Sir John Keane says there is a fundamental principle in regard to the spending of public moneys. For 20 or 25 years, and before that, with the British Government, we have often had grants-in-aid for large amounts. Nobody said that was going against a fundamental principle in devoting public moneys without finding out how they were spent. You can go back further to the time of various governments in relation to the taking over of land, and someone not being very particular to whom they gave the land, or who paid for it. That is going a long way back. In recent years, when the principles of parliamentary government became more or less established, large sums of money by way of grants-in-aid were given, and surely that was not against the fundamental principle.

If we departed from that principle, the departure was generally accepted. On the formation of the Electricity Supply Board, certain members of the Dáil and Seanad did not appear to have realised that we were on the wrong road. No one appears to have realised it until now, when the National Stud Bill came up. I was rather surprised to hear such strong criticism of that form of looking after certain things. I can understand Senators like Senator Kingsmill Moore having strong objections to Government dealings in economic matters at all. It may be wrong, and we may be going in the wrong direction, but I do not know how we can deal with things like this national stud unless we have Government interference. We could have said that we do not interfere in economic matters, and, therefore, we are selling this farm to the highest bidder, but I think it would be a pity to do it, from the point of view of the horse-breeding industry.

Senator Sir John Keane has asked me about artificial insemination. We have not done any research in it here, but we have sent officials to study what has been done in other countries, and we have studied literature on the subject. I do not claim to have read a lot about it, but I have read something of what has been done in countries where it is in practice for some years. So far as I can gather from the knowledge available at the moment, it is not likely to interfere in any way with horse breeding in this country. From what I can gather from the experiments so far carried out—in fact, they are not experiments now—it is routine practice in Soviet Russia, and to a great extent in the United States. The number of mares served through artificial insemination is not appreciably larger than the number of mares served in the natural way. That being so, and the distances in this country being such, I do not think it is likely that artificial insemination will ever be introduced in this country unless there is some further change or further knowledge is secured.

Sir John Keane

What I was asking the Minister was, is he alive to the importance of continuing research in this country? It is important to have our own independent research, because this is a science which is developing.

Dr. Ryan

We were more or less cut off from these other countries by the war, and we thought it well to select two officers of the Department and to send them, first of all, to get up-to-date knowledge so that we need not go through the preliminary investigations here. When we gather that knowledge together, we may make up our minds whether we will proceed with it here or not.

Senator Douglas gave us what he might consider as a reasonable alternative to the arrangement for the stud contemplated in this Bill. The alternative was one between the Department running all these various activities and the Minister being responsible to the House for the activities of companies, or running them, and the Minister not being responsible to Parliament for the companies. The Senator suggested as an alternative that there might be a joint committee from both Houses which would be more or less in the position of representatives of the Minister on the same principle as shareholders at an annual meeting. I do not think I have anything else to say arising out of the discussion.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister say if there is any possibility of relaxation of compulsory tillage as far as studs are concerned?

Dr. Ryan

As the Seanad knows, we gave them a certain exemption. I can give no figures because they are rather hard to remember. We gave so many for a stallion, so many for a brood mare and so many for a horse in training. One thing the Senator did not mean was that it would not be fair that we would not give these breeders a higher exemption than the number of horses they had in 1939. We had to have that figure up to the present as a safeguard against a certain amount of manipulation.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, July 25th.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 19 Jul 1945

National Stud Bill, 1945.—Second Stage.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jul 1945