Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 27 Jul 1945

Vol. 30 No. 8

National Stud Bill, 1945—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, put and agreed to.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub—section (2) to insert immediately before the word "substitute" in line 27, the words "give to the person so registered notice by registered post of the application of the Minister for registration and if no objection shall be made to the registering authority by such person within 14 days, shall".

A thing that I do not really understand in this section, or rather the second sub-section of it, is: what persons are registered as the owner or owners at present. If the Minister could tell me that, it might save a lot of time.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

There are three portions of the national stud. I think that is the simplest way to deal with it. There is a portion containing 174 acres, held in fee simple and subject to the payment of a Land Commission annuity of £53 18s. 6d. per annum. There is another portion of about 360 acres held in fee simple absolute. Then there is a third portion of 674 acres held on a judicial tenancy from the landlord, Colonel Richard Michael Aylmer.

Mr. Sweetman

This section deals only with that part of the land subject to the Land Commission annuity. Who is registered for that land?

Dr. Ryan

The owner of A and B, the fee simple portions, is His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, War Office, London, S.W. As the British Government are making the property over to us, we are, obviously, the owners.

Mr. Sweetman

Does this provision merely save you from getting a formal legal transfer from His Majesty's Secretary of State?

Dr. Ryan

We have not purchased out from Colonel Aylmer.

Mr. Sweetman

I was wondering if this referred to Fulham, the pensioner.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Sweetman

I thought that it might take away some of his rights. If the Minister assures me that that is not the case, I am satisfied.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 7.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (2), paragraph (b) (i), lines 44 and 45, to delete the words "and shall agree upon with the proposed lessee".

I cannot see the point of the words which I propose to delete. They are, obviously, what I would term "excessive verbiage" or what Senator Magennis might refer to as "unnecessary verbosity". There may be some point in these words but I cannot see it. It is obvious that you would not put terms into a lease unless the lessor and lessee were agreed upon them. The lease will contain only covenants which are agreed upon by the parties to it. It would be just as logical to say that an agreement would contain something to which both parties to it would agree.

Dr. Ryan

I think that the Senator has virtually answered his own question. It seems reasonable that both the lessor and lessee should agree upon the conditions to be inserted in any lease.

Mr. Sweetman

Is that all it means?

Dr. Ryan

That is all, so far as I know.

Mr. Sweetman

Why put that in the statute?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know.

Mr. Sweetman

If that is all that it means, I am satisfied.

Dr. Ryan

We have followed, word for word, some of the old State Land Acts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 3:—

In sub-section (3), to delete all words after the word "Oireachtas", in line 3, to the end of the sub-section and to substitute the words "a draft of the proposed lease".

I object to the principle of putting summaries of documents on the Table of the House. Summaries of documents lend themselves at a later stage to discussion as to whether they were, in fact, true summaries or not. Having regard to the many things which the Minister prefers to put in by way of covenant in the lease, it would be far better that the full draft lease should be placed on the Table of the House. That may save a great deal of recrimination at a later stage and allegations that the whole facts were not disclosed.

Dr. Ryan

On going into this amendment, I found that we were trying to be kind to the Seanad and the Dáil by summarising the terms of the lease. It would have been just as easy for us to provide that the lease should be laid on the Table. We are proposing to have all the essential parts of the lease summarised and placed on the Table of the House.

Mr. Sweetman

Summaries are horrid things.

Dr. Ryan

In practice, if any member of either House were to ask for a copy of the lease, he could get it. I ask the Senator not to press the amendment because I do not want to have the Bill delayed. I undertake that if any member asks for a copy of the lease he will receive it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (4), lines 14 to 23, to delete paragraph (b).

The aim of this amendment is to make approval of the lease a positive act. Under the Minister's draft, the lease may be approved either by positive act or by the expiration of a particular time. So far as the expiration of time is concerned, I ask the Minister to look at paragraph (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (4)—"12 days after the first day on which either House of the Oireachtas sits". Suppose the lease was made yesterday. We have sat to-day but the Dáil will not sit, if the Minister can help it, until October. Does that mean that the Dáil would get no chance of making any alteractions in the lease? If so, it would appear to me to be undesirable. Approval should be either by positive resolution of each House, which is the strongest way and the way I have suggested in the amendment, or, at least, after the expiration of a certain time after each House has sat. I am not absolutely clear whether that is intended or not.

Dr. Ryan

It is the longer of (i) and (ii) that must be taken. It would be either 12 days after the first day on which either House sits next, after the appropriate statement is laid before the Houses or six days on which either House of the Oireachtas sits after the statement shall have been laid before the Houses. I think that that is giving the advantage, as it were, to the Houses. It is the longer of the two periods that is taken.

Mr. Sweetman

Can a paper be laid on the Table of a House during a recess?

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

Then the provisions of clause (ii) would be no use to the Dáil when in recess?

An Cathaoirleach

Sitting days is the provision here.

Mr. Sweetman

But we have sat to-day. Am I right in thinking that all that is necessary is for one House, and not both, to have sat so as to carry through the provisions of paragraph (b)? I think only one is necessary.

Dr. Ryan

I think that is right.

Mr. Sweetman

In that case I will press the Minister strongly to accept my amendment. If it was not so, I would not press so strongly. This does not appear to be right. Perhaps the Minister would like to telephone the Parliamentary draftsman. If so, we could deal with the matter when the Bill comes up on the Report Stage.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid I shall have to agree with the Senator in his interpretation. If it was laid before both Houses, and either House sits for six days, then if that House does not pass a resolution rejecting it the other House has no power to do anything.

Mr. Sweetman

I think the Minister will agree that that is hardly a satisfactory position.

Mr. Douglas

Perhaps it is not right for me to raise the rights of the Dáil here, but it is doubtful if that is in accordance with the constitutional position of this House. It removes the power from the Dáil altogether. A very interesting point arises.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid I shall have to go back to the State Lands Act again. We are evidently following the State Lands Act in these provisions. Section 2 of that Act contains practically the same words, except that we cut the time a bit, but that does not alter the principle. The State Lands Act gives 21 days instead of 12 and it sets out 12 days instead of the six that we have here—12 days on which either House of the Oireachtas shall have sat after the said statement shall have been laid before both Houses. There may be something in Senator Douglas's point.

Mr. Douglas

I really think there is.

Dr. Ryan

I would not like to have to argue the constitutional position.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister will agree that because a thing has a precedent it does not follow that it is right.

Dr. Ryan

It does not.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Minister and I are correct in our interpretation of what the words mean, I think the sub-section as drafted is not satisfactory. I think that if it were not for a certain difficulty, the Minister would be inclined to agree with me and would accept the amendment.

Mr. Douglas

This is a matter to which we have drawn attention and we have done our duty. I sympathise with the Minister, but I would like to point out that this is one more illustration of what has happened again and again over the past six or seven years. Bills are sent here, important Bills, after the Dáil has adjourned. The Minister concerned—I am not referring specifically to the present case— has a majority and assumes that there will be no amendments passed. But what happens in effect is that important matters, or matters which may in the future turn out to be important, are raised bona fide and they are left, simply because nobody feels inclined to go to the expense and trouble of calling back the other House.

It is as well to draw attention to the fact that this is not the first time that sort of thing has occurred, and until this House decides to make up its mind that it will not take important Bills such as this after the other House has adjourned, we will have them every year. I do not think there is anything we can do now.

An Cathaoirleach

In the meantime, the amendment is not being pressed?

Mr. Sweetman

I shall withdraw it in order to get the Minister out of a specific difficulty and on the distinct understanding, which I am sure the Minister will give me, that so far as any lease that he may make is concerned, he will not execute it until both Houses have sat. If by any chance there was a possibility of either House sitting during the Recess, I do not think he could complete the lease.

Dr. Ryan

It could not be done. A question will arise later as to the difference between licences and leases and we can explain the position.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Minister will not make a lease between now and the time when both Houses sit again——

Dr. Ryan

Obviously it cannot be done until the two Houses meet again.

Mr. Sweetman

But one House can meet and if the Minister will say that he will wait, then I am prepared to withdraw on that assurance.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 7 put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 5:—

In sub-section (1), line 33, to insert immediately after the word "period" the words "not exceeding five years".

Let us be quite clear about this. When I say the Minister might do this, there is nothing personal in it and I am not thinking of any Minister of the present Government. I do not want the position to be that a Minister could get away with it by giving a licence for a period and in that way avoid having to lay the lease on the Table. I do not think he could, even under the heading of the term licence. I want the Minister's express view on record.

Dr. Ryan

First of all, I would like to say that the difference between a lease and a licence is that the Minister can give a licence which could be terminated at any time, whereas a lease can provide for a period of time. A licence is a very convenient sort of provision which might be granted. Suppose we had to make some move with regard to the national stud for an interim period and then we might go ahead and grant the lease. I think no Department, the Department of Finance in particular, has been working things of this kind under the State Lands Act. Their practice is to give a licence sometimes where it is convenient to allow things to go on, as it were, for a few months while the lease is being prepared and the terms are being decided. I think the Senator may be assured that even if we were to follow the ordinary practice the lease will be issued as quickly as possible. The lease will be given under Section 7.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister has nothing in his mind in that section to cover a letting such as an 11 months' letting?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think so.

Mr. Sweetman

What was worrying me was this: suppose the company decided that they did not want to work all of the stud themselves—the farm beyond the road, as it is commonly called—and that portion of it would be let. If the company had a lease, they could do it, but when the lease fell in, I do not think the Minister should be in a position to let it every eleven months, without seeking authority.

Dr. Ryan

Three or four points arise in this connection. Some parts of the national stud are sublet at the moment. The intention, if we can do it legally —and I am not sure that we can and neither is my legal adviser—is to let the whole lot by way of lease to the company and that the company, in turn, will make a subletting to those people who are actually there. Beyond that, we will have a provision in the lease against their being permitted to make any subletting—at least, without the consent of the Minister and perhaps we would not allow it at all. I cannot foresee, I must say, how any subletting, apart from the two holdings already there, could be made. I do not think there is any danger of what the Senator has in mind happening.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 6:—

To insert after Section 9, and in Part II, a new Section 10 as follows:—

10.—Before the 31st December in every year a joint committee of six persons shall be appointed of which three members shall be selected by Dáil Eireann and the remaining three members shall be selected by Seanad Eireann. During the calendar year following their appointment the members of such joint committee shall have all such rights to receive information about and to attend meetings of the company as if they were shareholders thereof. Such joint committee may, if it thinks fit, appoint an auditor (in addition to the auditor appointed by the company in general meeting) to make such reports to it on the working of the company as may appear to him proper and for which purpose all information required by such auditor shall be made available by the company and such auditor shall be paid by the company such fee for his services as may be fixed by such joint committee with the approval of the Minister for Finance.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 can be discussed together as amendment No. 7 is merely ancillary to amendment No. 6. This, I will admit at once, is a new principle. At no time did I intend, and most particularly do I not intend at this hour, to go into the detail of the Vocational Organisation Commission's report and so forth. I discussed it here on another occasion, and if the Minister will look up the debate then, he will find that what I was objecting to was not the company per se, but the absence of control of the company. It does appear to me that the method I suggest in this amendment is a possible method of providing some sort of safeguard in respect of State companies.

One of the things we must remember is that when we leave Civil Service rules and regulations, we are leaving rules and regulations, which, though they may be cumbersome—I quite see the Minister's point of view in that regard—have been built up to ensure in the best possible way that proper care of the expenditure of public moneys will be taken. When we leave them, we want to be quite certain that we are substituting something equally satisfactory. The other House has decided that the stud is to be carried on as a company and that principle was also decided here on Second Reading, and there is, therefore, no question of changing it, but it is purely a question of the method of control of the company.

I do not at all say that the details of the suggestion in the amendment are the last word, or anything like it, or even anything near it, but I do think that some committee of either or both Houses, who would be in the position of vigilant shareholders without having a financial interest, would ensure that the public interests with regard to the expenditure of public funds were adequately safeguarded, and, at the same time, that safeguarding would not be carried out by the method of open discussion, by question and answer in the House, which the Minister appeared to be so anxious to avoid and in favour of the avoiding of which—to be perfectly fair to the Minister—in respect of the particular business we envisage a very much stronger case can be made than in respect of any other State business. I ask the Minister to consider the principle in a sympathetic manner, or, if he is not prepared to do so, to indicate that he has some other suggestion on somewhat similar lines.

Dr. Ryan

Senator Douglas, I think, raised this point on Second Reading and I said then that it was an interesting proposal. I think it is an interesting proposal, but, as Minister for Agriculture, I have very little to do with these State companies, and it would be much more appropriate if the matter could be brought up in relation to some Bill for which the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce was responsible, because these Ministers deal with the great majority of these companies. I must say that I do not see how I could put up very much opposition to the proposal. I could not possibly accept it in relation to this Bill, and all I could undertake to do at this stage is to bring the views of the Seanad before the Government, as I shall; but I think it would be better still if Senators themselves could do that.

Mr. Sweetman

Before this matter came up I discussed it with Senator Douglas. All I intended to do was to put it down in concrete form on a specific Bill and, having drawn attention to it in that way, to give notice of my intention at a later stage to put down a formal motion with regard to it. I appreciate that the Minister could not accept it in relation to this Bill, because he must be bound in relation to the practice in regard to other companies, and I am really only giving anticipatory notice that I propose to deal with it later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister prefer one of the other Bills to be taken now to enable him to get some tea?

Dr. Ryan

We can continue until 7 o'clock and then perhaps adjourn this debate until later.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 8:—

In sub-section (2) to add a new paragraph as follows:—

(h) the said Articles shall provide that nominations for the service of any stallion to mares not the property of the company, shall only be allotted in accordance with such schemes or regulations as shall from time to time be approved by the Minister for Agriculture.

The Minister will recollect that, on Second Reading, I referred him to the Report of the Commission on the Horse-breeding Industry of 1935. He said then that he had not read it recently, but he will recollect, whether he has read it or not, that one of the recommendations in that report was that where there were more applications for nominations for approved mares than the number to be allotted, the question should be decided by ballot. Of course it is conceded at once that before you do have a nomination, the mare must be approved but if you have owners of 100 approved mares applying for 40 nominations, I want it to be quite clear that those 40 nominations must be allotted by ballot rather than by singling out any particular person. These nominations, if the stud is carried on as I hope it is going to be carried on and as I think the Minister intends it to be carried on, will be nominations made at less than the commercial price. If nominations at less than the commercial price can be allotted to individuals by any system of selection, according to whether the applicants are personal friends of directors or personal friends of whatever Government or political Party may be in power at the time, it will completely undermine confidence in the company. My aim is to secure a general scheme of regulations which the Minister will lay down and under which mares must be approved and, secondly, to secure that if there are more applications for nominations than the number available for approved mares, that the selection will be made by ballot. Possibly there may be some other regulations which the Minister may like to make in regard to payments. I am not tying him on that nor am I suggesting—and I want to be very clear on this—that the regulations should be in any way detailed. It would be highly undesirable if a position did arise by virtue of which we could ask why Paddy Murphy's mare was served and Senator Sweetman's was not. That would be a perfectly hopeless situation, but a general scheme with a ballot as its main principle would be very desirable.

Dr. Ryan

I find it very hard to discuss the particular problems that may arise in selecting mares for any particular stallion. My intention is to give a great deal of freedom to this company and I should not like to limit them in the way the Senator has suggested. The Minister, of course, will lay down policy. In that policy the Minister may go so far as to say—I am sure he would go so far as to say—that small breeders should get preference, but it is very hard to define that further, beyond merely saying that they should get preference. The company might say in carrying out that policy of giving small breeders preference: "We will take only one more from any breeder." That might be one way of giving the small breeder preference and of securing that the big man would not get any undue preference, but when you come to the question of approved mares, I do not know a lot about horse breeding, but it is possible that any competent manager if he were asked by the board to give a list, out of the number applying for the service of a particular stallion, of those he might regard as having the most suitable mares would say that the number would have to be cut down. He might say that although 100 mares had been approved—and nobody could find any fault with him—there were 25 amongst these that were highly desirable—in other words, that if they were mated with this particular stallion they would be likely to produce first-class progeny. In a case like that I think a ballot might be a mistake. I think if the board were satisfied that the manager, with any technical advice he had at his disposal, was advising them in this respect, that out of 100 mares 25 should get special preference, it would be a great mistake to interfere with him. The board would probably say: "Let us take these 25 and then we can go on to the next 75". If they had more than one stallion in the place, they might get a number of the owners to agree to accept the services of another horse and they might in that way eventually avoid a ballot. I think we should not lay down any specific rule of this kind. As the Bill stands, the company will have a great deal of freedom and they would be bound to carry out any general directions of policy that the Minister may give them. I think we should not go further than that.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister will agree that the 10 gentlemen who formed this commission knew a great deal more about horse breeding than he or I. I think we can put both ourselves into the same category in that respect. The members of that commission were Mr. Justice Wylie, Captain Gerald Martin, Mr. Maxwell Arnott, Senator, Parkinson, Mr. Roderic More O'Ferrall, Mr. James Clarke, Mr. Séan Hyde, M.R.C.V.S., Senator William Quirke, Colonel Liam Hayes and Mr. Michael V. McKevitt and in their report they state: "Should the number of applications exceed the nominations, the choice to be decided by ballot, unsuccessful applicants to get preference the following year".

Dr. Ryan

I do not think they were dealing with the national stud.

Mr. Sweetman

What they were dealing with was: "The commission is of opinion that nominations to the three first class horses should be open to all breeders who are bona fide residents in the Saorstát and who apply for a nomination for an approved mare”. The Minister in his reply on the Second Stage envisaged a situation in which the national stud would get the three first class stallions that were wished for.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

Again there is no good in repeating what Senator Douglas has said already. If the Dáil were not up, I might take a different course on this because I think it is an absolutely vital principle. All I can say about it at the moment is that if a scheme which does not include a ballot is adopted I think, having regard to what the Minister said to-day I can have him here on some future Appropriation Bill to show that his policy was bad in not incorporating such a scheme.

Dr. Ryan

I do not want to rule out a ballot but I should not like to be tied to that system.

Mr. Sweetman

Neither am I tied to a ballot. What I am tied to is a general scheme of regulations. The only reason I mentioned the ballot was to explain the type of regulation I had in mind so that the Minister would appreciate that I was not trying to get down to the individual detail of what mare went to what stallion.

Dr. Ryan

General directions will be given all right.

Mr. Sweetman

If there are going to be directions to the company would the Minister tell me under what section of the Bill?

Dr. Ryan

It is under the memorandum of association that I think it will be possible to do it. The intention all the time was that the Minister for Agriculture would lay down the policy, and then appoint a board to carry out the business of the stud inside that general policy.

Mr. Sweetman

With all due respect to the Minister, if that is the intention, it is an intention so vital that it should have been put in the words of the Bill and not merely left to the memorandum. It should have been put in as one of the objects of the company in Section 12 (2)—as one of the things that the memorandum must include. I think the Minister's draftsmen have made a serious omission.

Dr. Ryan

Perhaps we will try to make it right in the memorandum.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister consider adding an article that nominations would be allotted in accordance with the general policy laid down by him from time to time? The Minister can add such articles as he wishes.

Dr. Ryan

I should not like to say straight off, but I do intend to put in the memorandum of association that their activities will be according to the policy laid down by the Minister from time to time. I do not think I would go so far as to mention nominations specifically, but all the activities will be in accordance with the general policy laid down by the Minister.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Mr. Sweetman

No. I think I should like it to go on record, because it is a vital principle, in my opinion.

Amendment put and declared lost, Senator Sweetman dissenting.

Section 13 put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 9:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Before the Minister for Agriculture shall give his approval to any alteration in the memorandum of association or articles of association of the company as provided by the preceding sub-section, he shall give notice of his intention so to do, before each House of the Oireachtas and if a resolution be passed by either House of the Oireachtas within 21 days after the first day thereafter on which each House has sat, prohibiting such approval, such approval shall not be given.

It would appear to me from the wording of this section that the Minister could alter the articles of association—the memorandum does not matter so much—in such a way as to alter the things that had to be included in Section 13, and if we are giving the Minister power to enable the company to change its whole terms it does appear to me that it is a power which was not envisaged in the drafting of the section, and I do not think the Minister intends it to happen. Again, the probability is that a Minister would never approve. I am prepared to accept that the probability is that a Minister would never approve, and, although a good many of the matters I am raising on this are unlikely, I have done it quite deliberately so as to lend more force to an argument, which some time I will put up, that there is an attempt being made to rush Bills through this House, regardless of the time of the year. I do not mean only the Senator Douglas point, but that attempts have been made to rush Bills through; that Bills do not get proper consideration either in this House or in the other, and that in consequence of that we have had, in the last few years, to deal with more amending Bills than we have ever had to deal with before, or should have had to deal with.

Dr. Ryan

It would look rather strange if the Minister could not give his approval to an alteration in the articles of association without laying it before the House, when he is not laying the articles before the House.

Mr. Sweetman

But the Minister is bound to put certain things in.

Dr. Ryan

But surely that is binding? Surely I cannot depart from that?

Mr. Sweetman

In the original articles you could not depart from it, but, if you come along to alter the articles——

Dr. Ryan

I cannot think that would be right.

Mr. Sweetman

However, I have made my protest, and I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 14 to 24, inclusive put and agreed to.

SECTION 25.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section (2), line 16, to insert at the end of the sub-section the words:

"and where any item of assets or portion thereof has been purchased by the company, the amount of the cost of such item or items if such assets are not already valued at cost".

I think it is always desirable that, where the assets of a State company have been purchased—where a yearling has been bred, it is a different story—the purchase price should be set out, at least in the first year, as well as the price of valuation if it is different. It is desirable that the two, the cost and the valuation price, should be set out if they are different. That gives the person looking at the balance sheet a very much clearer idea of the true value of the asset.

Dr. Ryan

I think the Senator's amendment is giving the Minister for Agriculture power to ask for more information in this particular respect. Sub-section (3) says:—

"The company shall on demand furnish to the Minister for Agriculture such explanations as the said Minister shall think fit and proper to require in respect of any balance sheet, profit and loss account or report furnished pursuant to this section".

Mr. Sweetman

But this is an amendment to sub-section (2).

Dr. Ryan

Yes, but in sub-section (3) the Minister has power to ask for practically anything.

Mr. Sweetman

Quite, but I am talking about the balance sheet that is going to be laid on the Table of the House.

Dr. Ryan

But whatever he does ask for will be laid before the House.

Mr. Sweetman

But he might not ask for it.

Dr. Ryan

He might not under the Senator's amendment either.

Mr. Sweetman

Well, I cannot see the Minister not asking for some balance sheet. If the Minister did not ask for a balance sheet, I think he would find it very difficult to withstand a vote of censure for not asking for it. When he asks for information, I want it to be mandatory that, when the balance sheet comes, it will be in it.

Dr. Ryan

Yes; I see the Senator's point now. I did, I must say, read this amendment as if the Senator were giving the Minister for Agriculture power to ask for more from the company than was actually put down in sub-section (2), and I was pointing out that under sub-section (3) he can ask for practically anything. The Senator's point is that he would like that this information should be given by the company in all cases. I think that to ask for all these particular items in all cases would be very cumbersome.

Mr. Sweetman

There are only five items in the balance sheet, and the only effect of the amendment would be that it would mean inserting, say, nine mares value £50,000, cost £43,000. You would have items of that sort.

Dr. Ryan

I think the Senator may take it that we will get very full information about the activities of the company. I am quite sure that if there is any suspicion, or any rumour, that certain things have not been done right, we will get full particulars about that particular item, whatever it may be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 11:—

After sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) The report to be furnished as aforesaid shall contain—

(a) the name of every mare served by any sire the property of the company, the name and address of the owner of every such mare and the fee received from each such owner for such service;

(b) the name of every sire which served a mare the property of the company, the name and address of the owner of such sire and the fee paid for such service;

(c) the name of each sire or mare purchased (for the purpose of breeding) by the company, the name and address of the person from whom the same was purchased, the amount paid therefor, the method of purchase and the amount of the commission, if any, paid to any person in respect of such purchase;

(d) the name of each horse sold by the company, the name and address of the person to whom the same was sold, the amount received therefor, the method of sale, and the amount of the commission, if any, paid by the company or so far as the company is aware by the purchaser, to any person in respect of such person.

I regard this as a very vital principle. I again ask the Minister to recollect that I am not making any personal charge. One of the difficulties about these State Companies is that there could, very easily, be bribery or political corruption. The Minister will agree that the surest way of stopping the possibility of anything like that happening is to ensure that, as far as possible, the transactions of the company should see the light of day. I have worded my amendment deliberately to avoid cutting across the Minister's principle, which is that he wishes all these matters to be handed over completely to the company—matters connected with the breeding of horses, the service of sires, purchase of mares or sires, the selection of the auctioneer who is going to be responsible for purchases and sales, and so on. In connection with all these matters, there could be the very greatest corruption. I do not mean corruption in the actual sense of money passing, but I do mean corruption in the sense of favouritism, in the deliberate selection of people because they happen to be political favourites of whatever Government is in power at the time, or, as Senator Baxter suggests to me, because they are members of the same golf club. I would not go so far as to say that, but I would say personal friends of the people running the company. If it is going to be made clear to everybody in advance that all information, in relation to the company and its activities, is going to receive the full light of day, then I suggest that will prevent any possibility of what I fear ever happening.

The Minister must get a report from the company every year. The reports that I have seen—the reports that I looked over before we had a discussion here on the Minerals Act, a discussion which centred round this question of State companies—give details which are meagre in the extreme. To be quite frank, I think that probably the Departments concerned ask for other information from these companies which, technically, is not called a report, and, therefore, has not, technically, to be tabled. I am not suggesting that the Departments themselves do not get the appropriate information.

I do think that one way in which we can be absolutely certain that we are not going to have anything undesirable in the management of this company, as I believe we will not have, is to make certain that its activities will see the full light of day, and that a report will be submitted which will cover the full history of the work done by it during the year. The report should contain such particulars as will make it absolutely certain that nobody will ever attempt to do anything wrong. If they do they will know that it will be exposed at once in the report at the end of the year.

Sir John Keane

I have considerable sympathy with the Senator's desire to keep these companies clean and beyond reproach, but I do not see that it can be done quite in this way. After all, the same principle applies to all those Government companies. One can feel that there are opportunities for undesirable practices in the case of a number of the companies already existing. What I feel is that this matter should be approached from the point of view of having an examination of the conditions of all companies of this character. I am satisfied that the safeguards which are there at present are inadequate. The shareholders in these companies—Deputies are really the representatives of most of them—exercise a very remote control over the activities of these companies. One may say, of course, that the shareholders, even in the case of a commercial company, have not very much control. One can say, however, that they have access more readily to the directors and the management than the public generally, who are the shareholders, have in the case of these companies. I would like to have an indication from the Minister that he is in some way apprehensive about this form of Government trading, and that he will use whatever influence he has —I have no doubt whatever that his influence is very considerable—to get this matter considered by the Government, and to have an examination.

Mr. Douglas

He has already done so.

Sir John Keane

I am glad to hear that the Minister does realise our point of view in this matter.

Mr. Sweetman

There is a clerical error, which I am afraid must be due to myself, in the last part of my amendment. The last word should be "sale" and not "person".

Professor Johnston

The principle involved in this amendment is an important one, and for that reason I desire to associate myself with the arguments put forward in support of it by the two Senators who have spoken. I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration and will adopt this principle not only in this but in all similar legislation.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think any Minister, or anybody else, has any delusions about the dangers there are in the case of these companies, but, on the other hand, I think Ministers realise—I do not know whether Senators will agree or not—that there is a necessity for dealing with business of this kind somehow or other. So far, the best method we have struck upon is this method of setting up a company. As time goes on we may learn of some better way of doing it. As to how far this company should be subject to public criticism and so on, that is a matter for discussion. One of the reasons why we are setting up this company is that we did not want to have the national stud directly under a Government Department, with the manager of it subject to criticism in the Dáil and so on. For that reason we ought not to go too far. I think we are going too far in this amendment. That is my opinion. I think it is asking too much from the company to submit all these details with regard to every visiting mare and stud owner, the amount charged, particulars with regard to every mare sent out from the stud, with particulars as to purchases, sales, commissions and so on. I think we should provide, naturally, for straight dealing in all these things, but I will ask the Seanad not to agree to an amendment of this kind which is going so very far, setting out detailed information. When we are setting up a company and putting a certain amount of trust in the company to manage its affairs properly, it is hardly fair to set out all these little details, and I think I will have to oppose an amendment of that kind.

Sir John Keane

Has the Minister in mind, or has he considered, the form of report he would expect to get from this company? Is he in a position to lay down the main headings under which a company of this kind should make its annual report? You may provide very considerable safeguards there. I think I am right in saying that some of these companies give you an account but no report at all; there is no meeting held, as there would be in a commercial company; there is no opportunity for the shareholders to ask questions. I think the Minister has admitted, in fact, that he is not altogether happy about this form of finance, but in this special case would he be in a position now to set out the headings under which the board shall report, and publish—lay on the Table of the House—that report which should be, I think, set out in very considerable detail?

Dr. Ryan

It is very hard to say because I do not know when this national stud may be in full working order. It may take years before they are fully stocked or they may be lucky in getting a few good stallions in the first few years. They may have to build up from a foundation by buying yearlings and seeing how they may turn out. I do not know in what way they will proceed or may have to proceed in order to build up stock and on that account it is very difficult to lay down definite details with regard to the report that will be submitted. I would like to have in the report sufficient matter for any citizen to realise what is going on because every citizen, I suppose, may be regarded as a shareholder in this case. I must say that at any meeting of shareholders that I attended outside I did not get very much information. I think the State companies do give at least as much information as the ordinary commercial companies.

Sir John Keane

I do not quite agree there. I may not be very familiar with these things. Of course, the Electricity Supply Board give a very full and very good report. I can think of other companies and I do not remember seeing any detailed report from them, such as the fuel company and the shipping company. They are absorbing large sums of Government money and, I may be wrong, but I do not recollect having seen from them anything comparable to the ordinary report one would get, the chairman's speech, and all that, in the case of the commercial company. However, I do not wish to elaborate that point.

Mr. Sweetman

It is the chairman's speech that is always absent in the case of these companies.

Sir John Keane

You do not get anything comparable to the publicity one gets in the case of the commercial company. I think we want, not less publicity, but rather more, on account of the special monopolistic position of this company. However, we will possibly have another opportunity of bringing this up on a specific motion.

Dr. Ryan

I think we would have to see it working.

Mr. Hearne

I would not like to let the matter go without saying that the last report of Irish Shipping Limited contained. I will not say a very full, but a full report, at least as full as a normal report of an ordinary commercial company.

Sir John Keane

I accept that. I am not following it very closely but I have not happened to notice it and I have not had a copy of it myself, so far as I remember.

Mr. Hearne

I happen to remember it because it was a very interesting report.

Sir John Keane

I gather it was not circulated to the members of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Sweetman

I might get a little information from the Minister on this. Take myself as the public nuisance. Supposing I hear that Mr. X from Cork is sending a lot of very bad mares to Tully and is there getting nominations cheaper than the commercial rate for a great many mares that are not suitable, if the Minister is asked to give the information at all—I do not say necessarily give it across the floor of the House—but if he is asked by a Deputy or Senator to give the information envisaged in the amendment, is it his suggestion now that he would refuse to ask the company for the information in order that he might himself pass it on?

Dr. Ryan

I think what the Minister in fact would do there is, he would ask the company for the information all right; if he found it was true, he would probably tell the directors that they would not be nominated the next time —or do something drastic of that kind —but I am doubtful if he would pass the information back to the Senator.

Mr. Sweetman

That is a very honest answer but it is about the most unsatisfactory answer the Minister could have made because it means that it is not going to be possible to have any form of public investigation into the affairs of the company, and that it is going to be a concern in respect of which, if it did happen, if it was desired to happen, there would be more possibility of political and even monetary corruption under the Bill than there would be under any of the other State Company Bills—easily more. Apart from that, anyone who takes any interest in horses appreciates that there is nothing that causes so many scare stories and scare rumours. The only way of killing these scare stories and scare rumours is to ensure that all the information sees the light of day. Ninety-nine per cent. of the rumours will be scares but their existence will do the national stud harm, and unless you are going to make certain that they cannot exist, you are going to do harm to your own company.

Dr. Ryan

I agree with the Senator there. As far as possible, we must not allow them to exist but you cannot, I am afraid, have these little details thrashed out in public. If I ask the head of some commercial firm whether a certain man, who is in a fairly high position there, has been guilty of embezzlement, in all probability he will investigate the case and if he finds that the accusation is true he will sack the man; but he will make some excuse to me, that he is inquiring into it, and he will not give me much information about it. I think members of the Seanad are really asking for more information than the ordinary commercial firm would ever give, even to its own shareholders.

Mr. Sweetman

If I am a shareholder in a company and if I go to the chairman of the company, as the Minister has suggested, and say that one of the employees has been embezzling the funds, the chairman need not give me the information then or, after he has made his inquiries, he need not give it to me privately, but he must give it to me at the general meeting, if I insist. That is where the difference lies between the two positions. If the Minister had accepted my joint committee, which was an effort to find something to stand for the public as a shareholder, then there would be no necessity for this at all, but it is there that the real difference arises.

The shareholder who hears something is wrong with his concern—and after all this concern is going to be the concern of every single person in the State, because it is State money— can get that wiped out and dealt with satisfactorily at a general meeting. We cannot. That is the whole basis of my objection. Having regard to the fact that I have already made my protest on an earlier section, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 25 agreed to.

Sections 26 to 31, inclusive, and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Sweetman

There are two points which I meant to raise on the Fourth Stage. Will the Minister give us an indication as to whether the omission to include in this Bill a provision similar to that in the Central Bank Act is deliberate—that no director may be a member of either House of the Oireachtas—or whether it just was not thought of. Secondly, was the omission to make the appointment of the chief officer or manager of the company subject to the approval of the Minister also deliberate? In the Racing Board Act, the chief officer, the first time he was appointed, had to have his appointment confirmed by the Minister. There is no similar provision in this Bill and that leads me to wonder whether the omission was due to these Bills having been drafted by two different Departments and the point not having been adverted to in this case, or whether there was some deliberate point of policy behind the omission.

Mr. Counihan

I intended to put down an amendment on the Committee Stage to ensure that a practical farmer would be one of the directors, but there was such a lot of talk as to who should be on the board that I preferred to leave it to the Minister to select his own board. I am now asking the Minister to have some practical farmer in mind when he is considering the nomination of the board, especially some one with a knowledge of the cattle trade. Tully Farm contains 870 acres, and there will be a lot of cattle, as well as horses, brood mares and foals. Senator Sweetman said on the Second Reading that there would be a good deal of tillage to provide proper grass for the young horses. It might be said that there will be a manager there for that.

The same thing could be said in regard to the management of the horses, including the selection and buying of the stallions and mares. It might be a lot more effectively done if one of the board of directors knew about the sort of cattle to feed on this farm and how the tillage should be carried on by the management. For that reason, I hope to have some assurance from the Minister that he will consider this suggestion when he is nominating the board of directors.

Dr. Ryan

There are three points I was asked to answer. In the case of the Central Bank Act, it is laid down that a director must not be a member of either House of the Oireachtas. I must say I agreed with that in that particular instance, as I thought those who have so much to do with the direction of our finance had better not be connected with either House of the Oireachtas. However, I do not personally approve of that principle in relation to other State companies. If it is possible, as it may be, to find a much better person in either the Dáil or Seanad than we can find outside, I do not see why we should not put him on the board of a company of this kind. I may say it was not omitted with intent, as so far I have not given very much consideration as to who should be on the board. I suppose I will have to give consideration to that soon, if the Bill goes through to-night.

In regard to the appointment of a practical farmer, I had that point in mind before Senator Counihan raised it. It is possible that the manager of the farm may not be an expert on the management of cattle, though I hope he will be an expert on horse breeding and the management of horses, even if he does not take much interest in the cattle side. On that account, I had in mind that we should provide on the board for the management of the farm apart from the stud, so I think I can assure Senator Counihan that, as far as my recommendation goes, that important point will be safeguarded. Senators will realise that it is the Minister for Finance who appoints the board, after consultation with me. All I can say to the Minister for Finance is that I think that particular point should be kept in mind.

Regarding the chief officer, I did not advert to what was in the Racing Board Act when this Bill was being drafted by the Department. The other Bill was drafted by the Department of Finance and I think the Department of Finance would, by way of habit if by nothing else, insist that everybody be approved by the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Sweetman

We all agree on that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be returned to the Dáil without amendment.