Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related to amendment No. 1. Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, can be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
National Stud (Amendment) Bill, 2000: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 14, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete the words "or part" in line 15. If the Minister is going to vest the property in the company, I cannot see why he should dismember it before he does so. I cannot see the function of vesting part of the farm in the company. If he is going to vest it, he should vest the entire farm and if he is not going to do that, he should not vest any part of it.
I am sorry to have dealt with the second amendment before dealing with amendment No. 1 which seeks to replace "may" by "shall". The Minister has the right idea and is proposing something that is intrinsically worthwhile. I believe it is his intention to do this, so why introduce a Bill to permit it and then second guess himself and give himself the opportunity of not doing it? I cannot see the logic of that.
In the event that the Minister is vesting it, why should he vest only part of it? We are all agreed that this is an effective company that is doing its job extremely well. At present, it is facing the prospect of having part of its land amputated from it by the Kildare town bypass. That will create a parcel of useless land for the company. The bypassing of Kildare town will encourage development in the general area of the town. The stud farm is located on the edge of the town and I foresee a time when it will become difficult to operate it there successfully.
There is precedent for this. Another major trainer, not far from the stud, sold a substantial tract of land on the outskirts of Newbridge because it had become too difficult to keep horses there. There were the usual problems associated with being on the edge of a town - rubbish on the property, trespass problems, dogs and so forth. These things happen when towns expand. That could eventually happen to the National Stud. In the event that it does, the company will have to make the decision to move. It will not be desirable, unless circumstances oblige it, to move part of the operation. It would be better to move it all, holus-bolus. To give the company maximum flexibility, the Minister should vest the entire property so that proper comprehensive decisions can be made.
I have proposed in section 2(1) and (2) to empower the Minister of the day to vest all or any part of the stud farm in the stud company and to require the stud to obtain the consent of the Minister of the day before it sells or leases any such vested land. Deputy Dukes proposes that we take away from the Minister discretion in the matter and force him or her to vest all the farmlands in the company and remove the requirement for ministerial consent prior to sale. I appreciate the Deputy's objective, to remove as many restrictions as possible from the stud and to leave the company, in which we all have confidence, with a free hand to sell and replace land, where necessary, creating a situation in which the stud can operate on an open, commercial basis.
Even in its current position, the stud has been very successful in operating its business on a sound and profitable basis. This is because successive Governments ensured it was given the resources and freedom it required. I have no reason to believe this will not continue in the context of the much improved legislative framework we are seeking to deliver through this Bill. The stud and Ministers of the day have always worked well together in the best interests of the stud. The provisions of sections 2(1) and 2(2) are satisfactory and will facilitate the further development of the stud in a planned way. On these grounds I will oppose amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would require the Minister to vest all the stud farm lands in the company. Not all of these lands are licensed to the stud company. From his local knowledge, Deputy Dukes will be aware that a small number of acres are leased to RACE - the jockey training establishment - which is very useful. Kildare Chilling has also leased some land and we have legal obligations concerning those leases.
RACE is seeking a small increase in the amount of land available to it for an extension to its training facilities, including a planned master farriery school. Every village in Ireland had a blacksmith at one time but there is a severe shortage of blacksmiths. When I visit stud farms and other equine establishments around the world I am delighted at the number of Irish people I meet. However, there is a shortage of blacksmiths and we want to get the master farriery school going. Thankfully we have planning permission and moneys have been reallocated under the new Structural Funds. I hope the school will go ahead early in the new year. It is not possible for us to deal with this situation in the legislation. However, I assure the committee I will consider all the points raised on the issue and that the interests of the National Stud and the company will be a priority for me when deciding the way to proceed as regards vesting.
I must also oppose amendment No. 3 on the basis that the protection of the stud farm as a valuable State asset requires, at a minimum, that the stud company, if it wishes to sell or lease any significant part of the lands, must state its case and seek the Minister's consent. I anticipate that such consent would be forthcoming in any reasonable case. The section is adequate for the stud. The board of management has no difficulty with it as I discussed it with its members.
The section facilitates companies like RACE, the farriery school and so on. We also have a legal obligation to Kildare Chilling. With the consent of the Minister of the day, the company will have all the freedom in the world to do what it wants with the facilities, the realignment of the road and the land referred to by Deputy Dukes. For those reasons I oppose amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive.
It may be hypothetical but if I withdraw amendment No. 3 will the Minister withdraw his amendment to subsection (3) and accept mine? That would mean the company would not sell or lease any part of the stud farm vested in it under the section without the prior consent of the Minister. We would then provide, as in my amendment to the subsection, that the proceeds would be used for the objects of the company.
I will do a deal with the Deputy. With the consent of the Chair, perhaps we will discuss amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and my suggested amendment. My attitude to this matter would be clearer then.
I am prepared to go along with that.
Amendment No. 5 is an alternative to amendment No. 4. We will discuss amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
Amendment No. 4 states:
In page 3, lines 19 to 30, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) The Minister may attach conditions to her or her consent under subsection (2) of this section.”.
On Second Stage we received substantial contributions from a number of Deputies, particularly Deputies Dukes and Power, on this issue. The original section 2(3) effectively required the Ministers for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and Finance to decide how the proceeds of the sale of any part of the stud farm would be used and, in particular, to specify that some or all such funds would have to be paid to the Exchequer. Deputy Dukes referred to this issue.
I undertook to consider this issue and bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage to deal with the Deputies' concerns. It was never my intention that the subsection be used to restrict the stud from using the funds from the sale of such land to replace it with more suitable land, or to inhibit the stud in any way from furthering its development. The funds which we contemplated might go to the Exchequer would have been those received for land which was well in excess of its commercial or other needs. I saw this as an unlikely scenario and, on that basis, I would be happy to relax or remove the provisions.
In amendment No. 4, I am proposing to replace subsection (3) with a simple provision to empower the Minister to attach conditions to his or her consent to the sale of land to allow for any unforeseen circumstances. On that basis, I am proposing the adoption of my amendment. However, Deputy Dukes is proposing an alternative and I would like to hear his views before deciding whether to press my amendment.
I thank the Minister for adopting that approach. We are agreed on the objective. My amendment to subsection (3) specifies the uses to which the proceeds of any sale would be put, namely, they would be used by the company to achieve its principal objects or to do anything it considers connected or incidental to those objects. That keeps it firmly within the ambit of what the company is doing. Given that the company has a good track record we could be sure it would not do anything bad with the proceeds.
The Minister's amendment goes in the same direction and proposes to attach conditions. My formulation includes an obligatory condition on the use of the proceeds of sale, namely, that they must be used for the objects of the company, including matters connected or incidental to those objects. I am taking the text from the Bill and it includes tourism-related activities as the company has a number of other strings to its bow in addition to running the stud farm.
My formulation of subsection (3) is fairly strict and logical as it relates to the development of the company and leaves less room for argument than the Minister's amendment. I do not know what kind of conditions the Minister has in mind. My text is more specific than his as to what should be done with the proceeds of any sale.
I have the greatest confidence in the company and the board and in what they have done and are doing. I have no quibble with their bona fides in that regard.
Deputy Dukes has made a considered case regarding the proceeds and I am a considerate person. The Deputy's case is reasonable and I accept that his amendment is tightly worded and precise. Under his amendment, the proceeds are targeted for particular use and he includes tourism-related activities. I would like to see the company going ahead with the equine museum and it will have an opportunity to do so under the Bill.
If amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, are withdrawn, I will be prepared to accept amendment No. 5 which stipulates that the proceeds of the sale by the company of any land vested in it under this section shall be used by the company to achieve its principal objects, or to do anything the company considers connected or incidental to those objects, including tourism-related activities.
I thank the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, lines 19 to 30, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) The proceeds of the sale by the Company of any land vested in it under this section shall be used by the Company to achieve its principal objects or to do anything the Company considers connected or incidental to those objects (including tourism-related activities).".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, line 17, to delete "£25,000,000" and substitute "£30,000,000".
The current limit on the share capital of the company is £10 million. That is prescribed under the National Stud (Amendment) Act, 1993. To date, the State has purchased virtually all of that. This leaves the total unused shares at only £24,626. In recent years all the equity investment has been channelled into the purchase of top quality stallions. The published version of section 4 provides for an increase in the company's share capital from £10 million to £25 million, which would have the effect of allowing the Minster for Finance, who is the principal shareholder, to issue additional shares in the company to the value of £15 million. This amendment would increase the share capital of the company by a further £5 million, which would bring it up to £30,000. Given the potential value of quality bloodstock today and the likelihood that the State will need to continue to provide more equity investment in the stud over the coming years, I am glad to join Deputy Dukes in proposing this amendment. This is a sensible approach. If some of the stallions were to become available, one alone could cost £25 million to £30 million. I agree with the Deputy in proposing to increase the share capital of the company to £30 million.
Like Deputy Dukes, I intend to study all the technicalities. We had to rule out an amendment tabled by Deputy Dukes.
The Opposition is not entitled to propose a charge on the Exchequer.
I would like to be living in Deputy Dukes's part of the country.
There is money flowing in there.
My amendment is out of order, but acceptance of the Minister's amendment will have the same effect.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 4, line 35, to delete "£20,000,000" and substitute "£30,000,000".
While the Minister has proposed a substantial increase in the borrowing power of the company up to £20 million for very much the same reasons he adduced for increasing the share capital, it seems prudent to increase its borrowing power to £30 million so that we will not have to come back here soon to do the same job for the reasons the Minister proposed in previous amendments.
Continuing with a positive attitude towards the stud, I propose to accept this amendment.
I will be submitting an application for a second national stud farm in west Cork.
I understood the Deputy was the national stud.
I do not know whether it will be in Clonakilty, Bantry or somewhere in between those two towns.
(Interruptions.)
There is a fine entrance to the stud. I hope that will be replaced by a new entrance. The signwriting at the entrance is An Bord Graí.
I propose to accept Deputy Dukes's amendment. In view of the constantly increasing value of bloodstock, the argument put forward is a good one.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.