I wish to indicate my intention to submit an amendment on Report Stage as to the title of the Bill.
Committee on Finance. - National Stud Bill, 1953—Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
The Deputy should have brought it in on the Committee Stage.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In lines 21 and 22, to delete "five hundred thousand" and substitute "two hundred and sixty thousand".
In the course of the debate the Minister made several efforts to put two fingers in the eyes of the Irish people. On more than one occasion he has said that he does not know what this money would be used for. He has admitted in reply to questions by Deputies that he has not the foggiest idea what the directors of the stud will do with the money. He has tried to suggest that there is no relationship at all between the provision of £250,000 for the stud and the purchase of this racehorse. For a piece of political impudence that takes some beating. It is based on the assumption that the ordinary people are unable to appreciate facts.
No matter what the Minister may say, everybody knows that the addition to the capital of the stud is for the purpose of purchasing this horse. As we have stated repeatedly, we believe that this is not the time for expenditure of so large a sum upon the National Stud. There has been a great deal of talk about prestige and how important it is that the prestige of the bloodstock industry should be boosted and, as has been so well described by Deputy Norton, a great deal of idle boasting about the importance of purchasing this particular horse. There has been a suggestion that we got away with something, that we beat the Americans, that we got a bargain. Only the most juvenile delinquent type of mind will accept that argument.
The fact is that we are paying what is probably the highest price that has ever been paid in sterling for a racehorse. The Minister is being dishonest, to say the least of it, when he tries to get the Dáil or any member of the Dáil to accept that he has no particular knowledge as to the intentions of the directors of the National Stud.
If it is the case, in law, that the directors of the National Stud have noresponsibility as to how they spend the moneys provided by this Dáil, the sooner a change is brought about in that respect the better because there is something fundamentally wrong with that. We as a Parliament are being asked to vote moneys which must come out of the people's pockets, no matter what may be said to the contrary, and if that money is to be provided for any group, whether they be State-appointed or not, we certainly should have the right to question the manner of expenditure. The Minister has tried to establish that we have no such right. We of the Labour Party do not accept that. We insist upon questioning this and every similar matter which is brought before us.
Is the National Stud in need of improvement? We all assume that it is. We assume that certain steps and certain expenditures are necessary from time to time for the improvement of the National Stud but, at a time such as this, when it is found impossible to give people increased wages to enable them to live, we of the Labour Party say that £250,000 is totally disproportionate to the importance of the stud to the country. The expenditure of that amount shows no sense of proportion whatsoever.
We have based our approach to this matter on the facts. The country is completely opposed to the idea of spending so large a sum upon a horse. It is quite understandable that horse-breeding enthusiasts will make a case for this expenditure. Persons who are interested in horsebreeding for any reason whatever will try to justify it. I am quite prepared to accept that to some people the purchase of this horse is far more important than the creation of employment-giving schemes. As far as we are concerned, we do not believe that so large a sum should be spent at this time on this project when there is such great need for expenditure of such amounts in other directions.
The Minister referred to the similarity between the National Stud and Bord na Móna. The only thing they have in common is turf. Bord na Móna. which employs between 10,000 and 15,000 men at reasonable wages, is being compared by a responsibleMinister with the National Stud, which employs, in Tully at any rate, no more than a handful of people and does not over-endow them when it comes to pay-day at the end of the week. That shows the lengths to which this Government are prepared to go to justify this. Of course everybody knows that the Government now realise that they have made a mistake in regard to this matter but that it is too late to turn back. Some of their most loyal supporters are critical of the Government because of the proposal to spend this money. The Minister tried to make the case that the progeny of this animal will be of immense benefit to the country because he anticipates that they will be sold at £1,000 or £2,000 at least more than the progeny of any other sire. What guarantee have we that he will produce any at all?
The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech on this amendment and that cannot be permitted.
I am making the case that the sum by which the Government propose to expand the capital of the National Stud is excessive. We believe that the sum of £10,000 which we have suggested should be sufficient at this time to enable the National Stud to carry on. I do not accept the view that there is any comparison between the bloodstock industry and its importance for the country and a project such as Bord na Móna. The Labour Party have been criticised on the score that their function should be to support anything which is put forward by a Government board. Of course that kind of specious and foolish argument convinces nobody. As far as the Labour Party are concerned, we have been and will be prepared to examine any project on its merits.
Will somebody explain what benefit will be bestowed on the agricultural community by the purchase of this horse? Surely it is not suggested that the ordinary working farmer will benefit to any degree by its purchase? Is it not a fact that if there is anybenefit, which is highly problematical, that benefit will be confined to a very minute fraction of the people, those who are directly engaged or interested in the bloodstock industry? It cannot be suggested that, of all sections of the people, these people are most in need of being helped. I think the reverse is the case. Is it not true that persons who can afford to engage in bloodstock production are fairly well looked after already without the Government coming to their aid? If there is a need for bringing this exile of ours home—incidentally, the only thing we have not done is play "Come Back to Erin" for him—why must the ordinary people be called upon to fill that need? Is there not sufficient money in the bloodstock industry to raise £250,000 to bring this horse back? Surely it is most unjust to force the people against their will to meet the bill?
We have been told that this is the repatriation of an external asset. That is another attempt on the part of the Government to wrap the green flag round them. When in doubt, wrap the green flag round you—that seems to be the principle of the Fianna Fáil Party. We believe, however, that there are interests in this country who are very closely bound up with the bloodstock industry, who live by it and who regard it as a very important industry sufficiently strong financially to buy several Tulyars without calling on Dáil Éireann to provide the money. In the last analysis, is it not the case that if any benefit does come from the purchase of this horse, assuming that he does some good, the people to whom I referred, the people who control and run the bloodstock industry, and who would be financially able, at least as a syndicate, to purchase this horse even at £250,000 will be the principal beneficiaries of this deal? Can anybody suggest that this is a fair and honest way of dealing with the people of Ireland? We have referred—I do not think it can be mentioned too often— to more urgent problems which need attention and to the background in which this deal was carried out, with unemployment rampant and getting worse every week.
The Deputy must not discuss unemployment on this amendment. The Deputy should address himself to the amendment.
I am addressing myself to the subject matter of this amendment. I am sure the Chair will appreciate that one cannot discuss this question in a vacuum. We are entitled to make a reference to other and more important factors.
The Deputy will understand that he cannot discuss this without some reference to Standing Orders.
We are still waiting for a lot of information which has not been provided. We are still waiting to be told what is the position with regard to insurance. I do not suppose we will ever be told. We should like to know what is happening so far as the policy of the National Stud is concerned. Is it proposed in the near future, as is rumoured, to sell Royal Charger at a high price? Perhaps the Minister will give us some information as to that. If that is proposed, should it not be possible by internal management of the National Stud to refrain from making this exorbitant demand on the taxpayers at this time? If there is such a proposal, who are the people to whom it is proposed to sell that horse? I want some information on these points.
The Minister stated that Irish horses have been our best ambassadors abroad. It is a matter of one's perspective and point of view. The Minister obviously holds the point of view that horses are more important than human beings. We take the view that it is more important to create employment than to increase even the prestige of the Irish bloodstock industry. It is for that reason we put down this amendment.
This is not the time at which to propose such a heavy expenditure on the improvement of the National Stud. The Minister tried to make the case that this additional capital is required for the improvement of the NationalStud. If there must be some improvement, by all means spend £10,000 on it. A good deal can be done with that amount. It might even be possible to purchase for less than £10,000 a sire that might prove more productive in every sense than the one we are proposing to purchase now.
The Government is displaying a lamentable and unique irresponsibility. The Government is displaying a lack of responsibility in their approach to the people in this matter. They do not seem to appreciate what the people are thinking. This proposition has been met with amazement throughout the length and breadth of the country. The people are asking: "Is the Government mad?" I am sure the members of the Minister's own Party know that as well as I do.
Even at this late hour let us have some common sense. Let the Minister display some sense of responsibility. He should admit that this money is for the purchase of Tulyar. He should not endeavour to make futile and foolish attempts to hide that fact. That is the purpose for which this money is required. I hold that the sum should be reduced to £10,000.
The Minister said that the debate was going on too long. What sort of outlook has the Minister on this question? Does he think it is unimportant? We regard it as of paramount importance. We regard £250,000 as an expenditure holding great potentialities if applied in the right direction for the relief of hardship. If the House agrees to this expansion of capital, it is simply ignoring the rights and the needs of the great mass of our people.
Mr. Walsh
Deputy Dunne has tabled an amendment that the sum of money to be voted for the National Stud should be reduced by £240,000. He talked about Tulyar. He would have been more honest had he said he was not prepared to give any money to the National Stud.
For almost two years the directors of the National Stud have been looking for a suitable sire and, irrespective of who was Minister for Agriculture, when a suitable sire appeared on the marketthe capital of the National Stud would have had to be increased for the purchase of a suitable sire. Last year the directors decided to purchase a mare. She cost £11,500. Even the £10,000 expansion that Deputy Dunne would be prepared to support would not be sufficient to purchase that mare. I do not think it would be sufficient to carry out the repairs and extensions needed in the Tully Stud at the present time. We must now provide the capital to purchase a suitable sire. It would be better to say we should not purchase one at all rather than put down an amendment such as this. It would be more honest to say we do not want any expansion of the National Stud.
The £10,000 is to pay the wage increases.
Mr. Walsh
I have no function in regard to wages but I take it the employers in the case of the National Stud are as good employers as any others.
The Labour Court recommended 7/6. We want that award implemented.
Mr. Walsh
I take it the employers in the National Stud are as good employers as one will find anywhere.
They had to be taken before the Labour Court before they would increase the wages of their employees.
Mr. Walsh
There is no sire for sale here of the type needed by the National Stud and the directors have had to go abroad. They went to Britain and to the Continent. They have now succeeded in getting a suitable sire. When Tulyar came on the market they were determined to purchase him simply because it was good business and not because he was Irish bred or for the purpose of repatriating him. The directors of the National Stud are good businessmen. It is because they are good businessmen in their particular line that they were appointed as directors.
I believe this investment is a good one. The progeny of this sire will be very valuable. There is no reason to think the progeny will not be very valuable having regard to his performance on the racecourse, his breeding and his qualifications. He has the distance and that is exactly what the directors have been looking for—a long distance horse.
Deputy Dunne referred to rumours in connection with Royal Charger. The sale of Royal Charger is a matter for the directors since they are charged with responsibility for running the National Stud. If at any time we feel the directors are not doing their duty in the best interests of the nation it will be our task to get rid of them. They were placed in charge of the National Stud because of their ability and because they were men well qualified to carry out their duties. We must, therefore, regard this proposition as a good business proposition on their part. When the request was made to me that I should go to the Government for an extension of their capital I had no hesitation in doing so. It is wrong for Deputy Dunne or any other Deputy to compare this investment with something with which there can be no comparison at all. This has no relationship to any other project. The bloodstock industry must be regarded as being a valuable industry to the country. It is an industry that can be extended and, in my opinion, will be extended by the acquisition of this horse. If yearlings from the Tully Stud go to Ballsbridge, I believe that apart altogether from people being interested in this animal, the fact of these yearlings being in the catalogue and being offered at the sales, will be a good advertisement for the sales and will encourage people to come. If people interested in Tulyar come from America and other countries and do not buy the progeny of Tulyar, they may buy something else. In that way this may prove a very good investment by inducing people to come across to attend the sales and buy the yearlings that are on offer.
Deputy Dunne has mentioned insurance. All these matters are the responsibility of the directors. We must havehad confidence in them when they were appointed and the Coalition Government must have had confidence in them because there were no changes made during their term of office. They have been there since 1946 and their investments over that period have been good. For instance, they purchased Royal Charger. He had a good record and it is believed that he is worth considerably more now than the £52,000 paid for him five or six years ago.
He is worth more than twice that now.
Mr. Walsh
Yes. That was a good investment and a good business transaction not merely from the point of view of his enhanced value but from the point of view of his progeny, the good-class horses he has produced. This year I think he is second in the list of winning sires in Britain and he is first in the list of winning sires at home. There is no reason to think that the purchase of Tulyar will not have as successful a result as the purchase of Royal Charger. I know every Deputy in this House, irrespective of what action he took regarding the expansion of the capital, would wish that Tulyar would be as successful at the stud as Royal Charger has proved to be.
My offering the National Stud the sum of £10,000 as increased capital would be no use. It would not meet their requirements. They must purchase a sire and, as I pointed out in concluding the debate on the Money Resolution, there is no sire of the desired type to be had for anything like £50,000 or £60,000. Those days are gone. A reputable sire with any record on the course to-day is costing anything between £150,000 and £200,000. There is no use in making all this noise and fuss about Tulyar.
It has been suggested that we have been bluffed into buying this horse. There has been no bluff. Other people are just as interested in its purchase as we are. On the conclusion of the debate on the Second Reading I quoted an article in an American magazine that deals with the bloodstock industry in America. It was stated there thata syndicate was being formed. There is no doubt that we could have syndicates formed even in this country but then the purpose we have in mind would not be served because any sire syndicated in this country would get the best mares at the fee at which he is quoted. It could happen that if a private individual owned Tulyar he might not get more than four or five Irish mares and that we would have mares coming from France, from America and from Britain.
In our case, as has happened with Royal Charger, a number of mares is selected. These may be regarded as the best mares that can be found. There will be many applications for him and the directors will have the right of selecting the mares. In the case of Royal Charger 25 per cent. were selected. Possibly there will be a big number of applications for nominations and what has been done as regards Royal Charger will probably be done with Tulyar, that is, there will be a ballot for them. I do not know whether there is any suggested change but I take it the procedure will be the same as obtained with Royal Charger.
When the National Stud sought the increase in capital, the Government decided that they would increase the capital by £250,000, bringing it up to £500,000. As I pointed out already, it is the intention of the National Stud, first of all, to buy Tulyar and then to increase the number of mares at the National Stud, possibly to carry out schemes of repairs and extensions and whatever else needs to be done. If the purchase of Tulyar is to be completed, it is urgently necessary to have this Bill passed by the House. There is no use in Deputies criticising the Government because they are increasing the capital for the purpose of buying a horse. It is part and parcel of the business of the National Stud to get the best. If the Government is to finance a National Stud I believe that stud should be the best. Why should we spend money on mediocre sires and on mediocre mares? We have enough of them in the country already. If we intend to retain the National Stud let us put the best material we can obtain into it. We have at thepresent time at the National Stud as good mares as can be found in the country. It is our duty to put in sires equal to, if not better than, the sires we have been sending there.
I have two points to bring to the Minister's attention. I have heard, whether it is true or not, that there is a full brother of Tulyar running as a two-year-old this year. The Minister would be well advised to check on that because it might have a deleterious effect in regard to Tulyar. Apart from that, I want the Minister to put the country's mind at ease in connection with the informed, misinformed and allegedly inspired information that some British papers are publishing in connection with what Tulyar's career may be for next year. Certain suggestions have been made by responsible members of the Opposition to the Minister that he should at least, when this capital extension has been granted, indicate to the directors of the National Stud that we felt that Tulyar would not enhance his value by further running this year. I should be grateful if the Minister would put our minds at ease with regard to certain information which appeared in the English daily papers purporting to set out the full racing campaign for Tulyar for the coming year. I know it is bunkum but I think the Minister should take the opportunity now to set the minds of Deputies at rest.
Is this horse paid for yet?
No.
I support this amendment. I fully appreciate the importance to the nation of the National Stud and of its being maintained in a condition to enable it to earn the greatest possible profits for this country. I suggest, however, that were it not for the appearance on the horizon of a horse called Tulyar, this item would not appear on the Order Paper. The amount it is proposed to devote to the extension of the capital of the National Stud and the figure which is mentioned as the purchaseprice of that horse significantly coincide to a remarkable degree.
I think we are entitled to assume that if this horse had not been purchased, the existing capital provision would have been ample for the functions which the National Stud has to carry out. By adopting the ordinary parliamentary phraseology, we propose in the Money Resolution to amend and extend the National Stud. I suggest that is strictly not correct. It is admittedly the correct parliamentary form but the House is perfectly entitled to assume that the National Stud was carrying on successfully without this additional capital until the appearance of this horse on the market which they felt it desirable to purchase. All down the years this country has been famed for its bloodstock. Horses bred in this country have won races in England, France and all over the world. Going back to an earlier period, European armies were continually looking for Irish bloodstock. Russia, Germany and Austria in turn sent representatives to this country to buy famous sires here in order to introduce Irish bloodstock into their armies. Remembering these facts, I am wondering when we come to consider the colossal figure paid for Tulyar, if there is not something more in the minds of the directors of the National Stud than the mere production of horses for running on racecourses. Up to the present we have been able to produce racehorses to complete successfully against the best that other countries could produce without having to embark on the expenditure of the colossal figure involved in the purchase of Tulyar.
I heard Deputy Dunne make reference to the fact that Gay Time which was beaten a neck by Tulyar had been sold for £50,000. Now we are paying £250,000 for Tulyar which Deputy Dunne rightfully points out means that we are paying £200,000 for a neck. I do not wish to take from his merits but I do suggest that the figure that has been paid for him is out of all proportion to what we should have paid for him. The sire and the dam of this miracle worker were themselves moderately-priced horses. He is a decent horse, coming from poor but decentparents, but he immediately becomes an aristocrat in his own right. Why should we have to go to this stupendous figure to secure the services of this sire? I might recall that Ardpatrick was bought by the Russian Government for £25,000 and, even allowing for the altered value of money, there is still a big discrepancy between the price paid for Ardpatrick, Galteemore and other famous sires and the price which it is now proposed to pay for Tulyar. I think that you cannot get a single instance in the world of a horse which fetched such an enormous price.
I heard Deputy Dunne asking for more information in regard to the purchase of this horse and I think notwithstanding all the facets of this transaction which have been developed here there are some further items which have not yet been disclosed. Is it the intention to use this horse for some purpose other than the production of racehorses? Some people might be inclined to think that it was the intention to produce cavalry horses for the Army from this strain but we have it from the Minister for Defence that recent trends in the Army, in common with most modern armies, is towards motorised transport. Similarly it can scarcely be suggested that we intend to produce horses for the armies of the Continent. At one time, of course, we had representatives of the Spanish, French, Austrian and Russian armies constantly coming to this country looking for mounts for their armies but we are scarcely likely to see a renewal of demand from these quarters. Is there some other army for which we intend to produce horses? I am reminded of the incident when Sarsfield's mount collapsed when he was making a dash to the North. A certain lesson might be drawn from that incident in our past history but still it can scarcely be suggested that the purchase of this sire is prompted by a desire to provide better mounts for the Army of to-day. Yet it would appear that the expenditure of such a large amount in money could only be justified on the ground that something other than the mere production of horses for racing was visualised.
I think the Minister was ratherunwise in rather chippily suggesting that if the £250,000 were distributed amongst the unemployed, it would provide only £3 per man. I think that is a rather cheap suggestion. Following the same line of reasoning, if £500,000 were provided, it would mean only £6 per man. Are there to be any limits whatever to the amount that the National Stud will pay for a sire? We suggest that a figure of £250,000 is altogether unreasonable.
I have not once adverted in the few remarks I have made to the impoverished state of the country but that is visible to the eyes of everybody in the country. Quite apart from the impoverished state of the country, I say that £250,000 is an unreasonable figure. Such an expenditure incurred by a small country gives a false idea of our true position to anybody else with whom we have to deal. It gives the false idea that there is no lack of money in the country. If Tulyar never existed we would still have to carry on with horses that have made the name of Ireland famous for the last 30 or 40 years.
Deputy Dunne waxed musical in regard to this transaction. I heard him say that the only thing that had not been done with Tulyar was to bring him back to the air of "Come Back to Erin." I suggest that Erin would more appropriately be spelled "E-A-R-N" in this case. If that is so, I think he will have a whale of a job to earn £250,000. There has been a good deal of facetious comment in regard to the purchase of this horse but the feeling expressed in this House is only a pale reflection of the indignation that has been felt throughout the length and breadth of the country in connection with it. Now and again. this transaction may have been made the subject of jokes but the jokes were tinged with sadness. As I say, whatever we have heard in this House in the way of jokes and gibes, it is only a pale reflection of what is felt throughout the country. The people believe that this transaction should not have taken place. We believe it should not have taken place. We believe we could carry on the National Stud and this great tradition without this hugeimpost which is creating a wrong impression in the minds of the people who are suffering very grave hardships at the present time. It is an ill-timed and unwarranted act to spend £250,000 on the purchase of an animal. I trust that, with God's help, it will prove a success in the functions which it has to perform but, nevertheless, its purchase is a gamble.
I support this amendment which suggests an extension of the share capital of the National Stud by £10,000. If there were no question of the purchase of this horse I submit that £10,000 would be more than ample— and, as a matter of fact, the directors would not have asked for £10,000 at all, as they would be able to carry on quite well on their existing capital of £250,000. This sum of £250,000 is to cover the purchase of Tulyar and not for the purpose of extending the National Stud.
I am sure that Deputies on all sides of the House, and that the Irish people as a whole, understand and agree with the desirability of improving our bloodstock. Surely, however, nobody would ever have suspected or expected that a small country like ours would ask the Irish taxpayer to provide a sum of £250,000 for the purchase of a horse, no matter how valuable or how high its reputation might be. The National Stud was established to improve our bloodstock industry. It has been in existence for quite a number of years now and if the business of the stud is being carried out efficiently, surely at this stage it ought to be in a position, financially and otherwise, to provide whatever sires or mares it might require.
The Minister states that we should not mix up this matter with other projects. Surely, however, when this House is asked to vote money for any purpose we should have the right of suggesting other projects on which the money could, in our opinion, be spent to better advantage. That is how the people of this country will look on this matter. The vast majority of the people of this country will want to know what benefit the purchase of thisanimal will confer on the community. Of what benefit, for instance, can the purchase of this animal be to people living along the western seaboard? They will point out that if they asked for money to purchase, for instance, the best types of bulls or cows——
The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech and that is not in order on this stage.
When we are asked to vote money for the purchase of a racehorse we should be entitled to suggest other ways in which, in our opinion, the money could be spent to better advantage.
The Chair has to be guided by the Standing Orders of the House.
As Deputy Dunne stated, we cannot be sure what type the progeny of this animal will be. As several Deputies have stated, the purchase of this racehorse is a gamble —but it is too costly a gamble for the ordinary people of this country.
A few minutes ago Deputy Collins asked the Minister to take steps to ensure that this racehorse will not be run. The Minister states that he has no function in regard to the National Stud. How, then, can he prevent the directors of the National Stud from running this horse, if they so desire? Suppose this horse is run and that it runs badly, as could happen. That would reduce the value of the horse by reducing what I may call its prestige.
We suffer losses in various ways in various Government enterprises. We have to vote money to make up for the losses of C.I.E., of Shannon Airport, and so on. Now it looks as if we are voting money for the losses of the National Stud—because that is what it amounts to when they cannot carry out their own business. The Minister sold the land project machinery: I think it would be just as well for him to sell the National Stud too. Surely some individual,some second Aga Khan, some company, firm or syndicate would purchase it. We should be rid of the whole matter by allowing it to be run by private enterprise.
The Minister makes the case—and rightly so—that the money is for the purpose of the National Stud and not for the purchase of a horse. A few days ago, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Boland, made the very same case. In his last speech, however, the Minister for Agriculture sought to prove that that is not, in actual fact, the truth: he sought to trace the good points of the racehorse Tulyar and to show that its purchase on behalf of the stud is good business. No more than anybody else, the Minister cannot have it both ways. I think this House could agree that while the money itself is for the purpose of increasing the capital of the National Stud, the object of the increasing of the capital is the purchase of Tulyar. As Deputy Keyes remarked, if the question of the purchase of Tulyar by the National Stud had not arisen, we should not have this request for an increase of £250,000 in its capital.
At the risk of repeating myself, I should like to say that the Labour Party have no objection to the purchase by the National Stud of a good stallion for improving the bloodstock industry in this country. If the case which the Minister made to this House were made either by a syndicate or by a private individual to an ordinary bank manager for an overdraft, I suggest that they would be laughed out of the office. If you went to an ordinary bank manager and sought a loan or an overdraft of £250,000 and made the case which the Minister made to this House for that sum, not only would you be refused but you would be laughed out of the office.
We could say that this is a good horse and that if he goes to stud it is very likely that, in the future, the country will gain. Even if this horse is as successful as the Minister hopes, then the National Stud will scarcely be able to earn in hard cash as much per year as it will cost it to insure the horse.It is quite true that if he is successful, and if the dams are Irish dams, a certain amount of money and of prestige will accrue to the country. From the point of view of a business proposition, there is a very weak case to be made for this. At best, it can be called a gamble. Should ill-luck follow this magnificent horse then the country will be at a loss of £250,000.
It has been suggested that the Labour Party should not drag into this debate the fact that we have a large number of unemployed at the moment, and that the country is also labouring under various other restrictions. Is it not true to say that, if one of us is seeking for a bank overdraft, our present style of living and our prospects of earning are closely examined by the bank manager? Therefore, is it not quite correct for this Parliament to examine with a jealous eye and a critical mind this proposal of the Minister for a sum of £250,000? I suggest that if the Dáil examines this proposal against the background of poverty and unemployment that is facing a very large percentage of our people at the present time, it should say to the Minister that the Labour Party's amendment is not only justifiable but a laudable one.
We feel that this is not the time, when the money of the nation is so badly needed to meet the needs of our people, to gamble on this horse. There is the saying: "Live horse and you will get grass." Are we to tell the unemployed that the purchase of this animal is good for the country? That would be tantamount to saying to them: "Live on and you will get grass." This, surely, is not the appropriate time to tell the unemployed that the purchase of Tulyar is a good thing for them.
A volume of protest has arisen amongst those whom the Labour Party represent at this action of the Government. The people are amazed that it should even be suggested that we can afford £250,000 for the purchase of this animal, especially when at the same time the people are told that we must have austerity, that the gap between imports and exports must bereduced—a policy which was advocated by the Central Bank two years ago and adopted by this Government. Are we to tell the people that they must do without butter, that they must eat less bread and have no work at a time when we are squandering £250,000 on the horse-breeding industry?
I think the Labour Party are perfectly justified in suggesting that £10,000 is sufficient, if not more than sufficient, for the National Stud. The purchase of this animal has aroused a storm of criticism in the shops and market places throughout the country. The witty stories that are told indicate that the purchase of Tulyar is not only a live but an important issue amongst the people at the present moment. We suggest that if the National Stud needs more money, £10,000 should be sufficient for its purposes. It was disclosed a week or so ago that the National Stud could not afford to pay a fair wage, according to the findings of the Labour Court, to sections of its employees. Therefore the employees had to avail of the good offices of the Labour Court to secure an increase to compensate them for the increase in the cost of living.
The Deputy is now travelling very wide on the amendment. It is not in order to discuss the Labour Court on it.
I suggest, with all respect, that the proposal to give more money to the National Stud, as well as the actions of that body, come within the terms of the amendment.
Has the Minister any responsibility for the points which have been raised by the Deputy?
I admit that the Minister has no direct responsibility, but I am suggesting that this money should not be given to the National Stud unless the Minister is satisfied that it is carrying out its work in a manner which meets with his approval. I bow to the ruling of the Chair, and suggest to theMinister that he should encourage the National Stud to use this £10,000 to pay reasonable and honest wages to its employees.
We of this Party are not against any proposal which would mean an improvement of the bloodstock of the country. That is quite a laudable thing, but we are not satisfied that the purchase of a high-priced stallion, no matter how good, is any guarantee that his progeny will be of equal value. It was pointed out at least twice to-day that the sire and the dam of Tulyar did not themselves rank as high priced animals. If they can produce more offspring reaching the status of Tulyar, does it not necessarily follow that there is no vital reason why it should be necessary for the National Stud to purchase the most famous horse of his year in the interests of bloodstock breeding in this country? When he has been purchased, we are not satisfied that the ordinary small breeder, even if he gets the opportunity of doing so, will be able to take advantage of his services. We believe that the purchase of this horse will be something like the Managerial Act—the reserved function of the National Stud managers and their nominees, and that on the whole, the ordinary small breeder will derive little advantage from the purchase of this horse.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, Deputy Briscoe made the comment that very few members of the Labour Party were able to produce any telegrams or messages to support their claim that the money for the purchase of this horse had not the support of the people.
I have received a telegram from a reputable association. It was handed in to-day at 2.48. It is addressed to Deputy Kyne, Leinster House:
"Killeagh,
County Cork.
Would you touch in debate money being spent on racing army jumping national stud public inquiry is wanted on lines of greyhound inquiry if Government is to continue subsidising racing and breeding they should get some direct representaately-pricetion on racing bodies or new statutory board formed right of appeal must be allowed."
It is signed "O'Brien, Hon. Sec., Point-to-Point Association."
It is significant that the secretary of a point-to-point association, which is the small man's association, does not attach to the purchase of Tulyar the same degree of confidence as is expressed by individuals or organisations which are more in touch with the upper-class horseracing bodies. It is significant that the point-to-point association suggests that, before issuing public money, the Minister should have a full investigation on the same lines as the investigation that was held into the greyhound industry, that he should satisfy himself that all is well and that he should give representation on bodies and boards that are subsidised to organisations of the small man, the small breeder. I suggest that the Minister would be well advised to consider that request from the point-to-point association.
I stress the fact that the Labour Party are not against the National Stud as such. We are interested in putting to the House that this is not the time to spend £250,000 on a gamble. We are prepared to face the country on that issue, if necessary, and I have no hesitation in saying that in my constituency I would make a much better case against spending the £250,000 than the three other Deputies would make for spending it. I feel that they would be much happier making the case that I would be making than the one they will have to make if this becomes an issue at any future election.
I do not think that any further arguments have been adduced by the Minister in support of this proposition to add to the capital of the National Stud for the purpose of buying Tulyar. Has this money been paid? Have we, in fact, bought Tulyar? If the money has not in fact been paid to the Aga Khan, is there a period wherein an option operates, as has been suggested by other speakers in the House? If there is such a period or time-limit, what isthe final date? The Minister should be able to give us that information. Would he oblige us by telling us whether or not the money has been paid?
Mr. Walsh
No, the money has not been paid. They have not the money to pay it.
Is there a limitation of time?
Mr. Walsh
I am not aware of it.
These are matters in which the public are interested. I have asked these questions with a view to getting some further information. If ever there was a dark horse, this surely is one. We have been told that he will be raced this year in four races, including the Coronation Cup, that the President of the Republic will compete with the Queen of England for the Coronation Cup.
Mr. Walsh
Who has told you this?
That is what we have been told. It is in the Press. I will show the Minister statements by very reliable racing reporters in the Press that this horse will be run four times this year. God between us and all harm, I think the Minister will be offering up prayers while these races are being run. We all hope that this horse will never see a bad hour so far as racing is concerned, but if he loses by a nose in any of these races where is our £250,000 then? I have already adverted to the fact that Tulyar beat Gay Time by a neck. Gay Time was sold for something like £100,000—or was it £50,000—at any rate considerably less than £250,000. I am sure everybody in the House realises that there is no such thing in racing as a certainty. We have had political tipsters for the last three weeks giving us this certainty, persuading us that they cannot lose. Not only are they telling us what this horse can do now, but they presume to tell us what his progeny will do and what his progeny will earn, before they appear in the world at all. As Deputy Blowick quite rightly said, how do we know we will ever see his progeny? There is noguarantee of that. There are these multifarious aspects of this colossal gamble. First of all, if the horse runs and is beaten, particularly if he is beaten in the Coronation Cup by the Queen's horse, we will feel very aggrieved, but if he is beaten in any race our so-called trustee investment goes up in smoke. Secondly, if he survives the journey to this country and survives long enough to serve a sufficient number of mares who, if they are fortunate enough, may produce progeny for him, we will have a gamble as to whether any of the progeny will ever win a "bumper" or a point-to-point race. We have all these problems facing us. Absolutely nothing has been said in this debate by the Minister or those who support him to justify this step. Our line has been consistently that this sum of money is too much to demand from the people at a time such as this.
I referred to the fact that, undoubtedly, this is a dark horse. Was there ever an animal in history about which it was so difficult to get information? The Minister has consistently refused to tell us whether the horse will be insured and, if he is insured, what the premium will be or what firm, if any, will insure him. If he is not to be insured, that increases the enormity of the gamble. If he is to be insured, it will increase the cost by £9,000 or £10,000 a year. All these facts have been referred to again and again in this debate and we know as much now about the horse as we did in the beginning. The Minister just comes in and says in effect: "I want for this group of people connected with the National Stud £250,000 of the taxpayers' money. I do not know what it is to be spent on." Everybody else in Ireland knows that. People all over the world know about it by now. We have done our share to try to boost the value of this horse by giving it free publicity. We have tried to oblige the Minister in that way. But the Minister, the man who is to make the money available to the National Stud, does not know to what use it will be put. Probably by now he will have abandoned that particular line. As I wasout of the House for some time, I do not know if the Minister answered my query regarding Royal Charger. Is it a fact that he is to be sold or are any negotiations in process for his sale?
Mr. Walsh
None, as far as I know.
There is a rumour that he is.
Mr. Walsh
The Deputy must have heard many rumours.
Many rumours, and so did the Minister I am sure.
And stories.
And stories. It is not impossible that at some future date the Minister or the National Stud will be very glad to dispose of Tulyar because he may not prove a worthy investment. But supposing all the progeny he produces will be the best this world ever saw, supposing he delights the hearts of every bloodstock owner in Ireland, that would be nothing in importance compared with the fact that we are giving, in effect, to a small group of people, to a small fraction of the population, who are well able to pay themselves, the people's money to the extent of £250,000.
The case has been made, with the usual effrontery of the Fianna Fáil Party and with that customary brazenness which has gained so much for them in the past, but which is now coming to be recognised by the Irish people for what it is, that this money could not be put to better use. Because we mentioned unemployment, the fact that there were 90,000 people registering at the employment exchanges, an effort was made to put anybody who did that in the dock and, in one case, out of the House, because a Deputy was ejected from the House.
The Deputy is straying very far from the amendment.
I think this is all very relevant to the amendment.
The Chair does not think so. The Deputy should relate his remarks to the amendment.
I am sure the Minister was joking when he said that our best ambassadors abroad were our horses. He must have meant that in a facetious sense. It is quite true that in jumping competitions our horses have won prizes in Nice, Toronto and other places abroad. That does reflect a certain amount of credit on the nation and adds a little lustre to the Irish name. But what good is that to the fellow who has to depend on the farmer for his weekly wages? It is only a matter of relative importance. The Irish nation always had the reputation of being proud. The Fianna Fáil idea seems to be that the poorer we get the prouder we get. Logically then, we will eventually reach the very top level of pride when we all die of starvation. We will have the satisfaction of knowing that the prestige of the nation has been kept up, that it is important to keep up our name.
We suggest that the money which is being asked for by the Minister as necessary for the further development of the National Stud is excessive. If the National Stud is in need of improvement, by all means let us have it improved; let the bloodstock experts in the National Stud avail of the £10,000 for any purpose they think necessary for the improvement of the National Stud. Surely we could easily buy a couple of dozen, if not 50, horses equally as good as the dam and the sire of Tulyar for the amount which it is proposed to pay for Tulyar. A great deal of misconception exists amongst people who are connected with racing. Racing is important and the bloodstock industry is important, but they are not as important as the well-being of the mass of the people. We say that the balance of this money, namely, £240,000, if the amendment were accepted by the House, could be used for the building of a factory and the employment of up to 1,000 workers. Such an industry would not alone provide employment for them but would provide employment in the future fortheir children and their children's children. The money could be used in many ways for the improvement of the national position. The Minister has not made any case to justify opposition to this amendment of ours.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
Amendment negatived.
Section 2 put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This section reads:—
"The company shall keep in such form and in such manner as the Minister for Agriculture after consultation with the Minister for Finance may from time to time direct accounts showing the receipts from the issue of share capital for the purchase of bloodstock and the proceeds of the sale of any bloodstock together with the manner in which such moneys have been dealt with."
I would like to know why the Minister has not availed of the opportunity provided by that section in this Bill to require the directors of the National Stud to take the responsibility of providing an annual statement of accounts in the conduct of their business for the benefit of this House? The section provides that the Minister for Agriculture may in consultation with the Minister for Finance direct the manner in which the accounts may be kept and so on but there is no proviso such as there is in respect of other State-sponsored projects to present the accounts to this House.
Mr. Walsh
The statement is presented to the House.
There is no mention of that in this Bill.
Mr. Walsh
It is in the 1946 Act.
It is not mentioned in this Bill. Can the Minister assure us that Deputies have the right to have presented to them a statement ofaccount by the National Stud in the same way as such statements are circulated to them by Bord na Móna and other State sponsored bodies?
The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.
Perhaps Deputy S. Flanagan will throw some light on the situation for us?
I could if the Deputy knew what he was talking about when he got up.
That enlightened observation does not become the Deputy.
You do not know what you are talking about. If you did you would not be standing up.
The Deputy should contain himself. We will have to give him a nosebag if he does not behave himself. Deputy Flanagan is trying to usurp the function of the Minister at the moment. Even though the Deputy may regard himself as the last word in matters of law and may have some idea of his own capabilities I would prefer to have an answer from the Minister to my question. Is it the position that Deputies are entitled to receive a copy of the annual statement of accounts of the National Stud?
Mr. Walsh
Audited accounts are placed on the Table of the House.
The National Stud accounts are not circulated to Deputies. They are available in the Library. Deputy Dunne's point is that the accounts of other State sponsored bodies are circulated to members of the House but the accounts of the National Stud are not.
That is my point and I think it is appropriate to raise the point on this section. Since the Government has decided to enrich this concern to the extent of £500,000 I believe we have a right to receive from the National Stud the scant courtesy of being circularised with a statement of their accounts. I have never seensuch a statement. Bord na Móna, the activities of which are more open to public question and public scrutiny and which has placed upon it a very important responsibility in the fundamental economy of our State, employing as it does thousands of workers, can find the time and thinks it desirable to circulate their accounts to members of this House. Is it too much to ask that the gentlemen running the National Stud—sometimes I think the word national is used in a very ironic sense—should circulate their accounts in like manner?
Mr. Walsh
The Deputy would not by any chance want somebody to come in and read them for him, would he?
I would not hire a lawyer to read them. I certainly would not like the Minister for Agriculture to interpret them for me.
Or Deputy Joe Blowick. He is great at telling lies.
Is the Chair going to allow that observation to pass?
The Chair thinks that Deputy Dunne might be allowed to proceed with his speech.
I am interested in the statement of Deputy S. Flanagan "Or Deputy Joe Blowick. He is great at telling lies."
Acting-Chairman
The Chair did not hear him.
I am about the same distance radially from Deputy S. Flanagan and my hearing is not any better than the Chair's.
Acting-Chairman
If Deputy Flanagan made the remark, perhaps he would now withdraw it.
I did make the remark and I withdraw it.
A most intelligent remark it was.
I do not ask for the Deputy's comment. I withdraw it because it is unparliamentary.
(Interruptions.)
Acting-Chairman
Deputy Dunne is in possession.
Deputy Blowick and I have become used to these petty discourtesies from Deputy S. Flanagan. They have no importance. Sometimes the Minister is liable to fall into the same trap. Such remarks do not serve any purpose.
Acting-Chairman
Perhaps Deputy Dunne would come to the section now.
It is a matter of wonderment to me that this is the first time on which any statement of accounts has been shown here to my knowledge.
Mr. Walsh
Did the Deputy look for them? They were available in the Library.
The public will not see them in the Library.
The procedure of laying papers on the Table of the House is sometimes a very effective method of muzzling discussion and criticism. This matter has never arisen until now and the people have suddenly become conscious of this National Stud down at Tully.
Mr. Walsh
Is not that a good thing?
Many people have been asking me what is the position in regard to the expenditure of the moneys involved? Possibly the expenditure has been accounted for to the Minister in a proper fashion. My objection is that no accounting has been made available to the public and there is nothing to ensure that it will be made available under this section. There is nothing in the section to ensure that it will be.
Mr. Walsh
It has been made available to the public through the public's representatives. If the Deputy was doing his duty he would make use of the means available.
He would have gone down to the Library and sought out slowly and painstakingly all the contents of the balance sheet and other statements of account. Would it not be much simpler to circulate the relevantdocuments in the ordinary way as Deputy Dunne has suggested?
Serious objection must be taken to the absence of a clause in this section requiring, as I have said, the circulation to members of the House of details of the income and expenditure of the National Stud. It would be interesting to know what are the sources of revenue of the National Stud apart from getting money so handily out of the pockets of the Irish people.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
Perhaps it might be as well for me briefly to repeat, for the information of the Deputies who have just come in, a matter to which this debate has reference. As far as we can discover from this Bill before the House the National Stud has placed upon it no obligation to circularise to the members of the House any statement of annual accounts as is done, to give one instance, as far as Bord na Móna is concerned. I feel members of the Fianna Fáil Party will be at one with me in the view that this organisation known as the National Stud should have that responsibility and should be made to discharge it in common with bigger and more important projects such as Bord na Móna. There is no requirement whatsoever in Section 3 of the Bill that members of the House should have access even to the accounts. It is stated that the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance may direct what way the accounts be kept, but even therein there is no reference to the fact that the State should have the right to supervise, to examine or even call in question here in the House the manner in which these moneys are to be expended.
This is not a matter of a few hundred pounds being placed at the disposal of a State company. It is big business. We have entered into competition with the money moguls of the world. We have outbid the Americans and have captured for ourselves a racehorse of which we do not know whether it will ever be fit to produce a colt that will win a race. However, we have donesomething, according to the Minister and his Party, to raise the prestige of the country. That remains to be seen. A lot of people think the whole business of racing—I am not one of them—is not one which adds to the prestige of a country. I take a different view from that but I emphasise the need that exists to have in the future, now that we have capitalised the National Stud to the extent of £500,000, the annual statement of accounts circulated to Deputies. I do not think that is asking too much.
Mr. Walsh
The section introduced into the Bill is merely a book-keeping section. At present you have a stock account. The proceeds of sale of stock, and so forth, have to be placed in this account. The directors of the company are not permitted to spend that money without the sanction of the Minister for Finance. The suggestion here in the section is that in future that sanction will not be necessary— in other words, that the directors will have authority to spend any moneys that may accrue from the sale of bloodstock or the general business of the stud. What is asked for in this section is that they be permitted to spend their own moneys. Section 26 of the National Stud Act, 1945, requires the company:—
"To maintain a fund to be known as the Stock Replacement Fund.
There shall be paid into the Stock Replacement Fund the net proceeds of any bloodstock purchased out of capital and disposed of by the company, all moneys received from time to time by the company on foot of insurance of bloodstock so purchased, and such moneys as the company may from time to time allocate to the said fund out of surplus net revenue."
That is all that is being asked for: that they be given that permission. Regarding the circulation of audited accounts, provision has been made in the 1945 Act for submission by the Minister for Agriculture of the accounts.
Section 25 (4) states:—
"A copy of every balance sheet,profit and loss account and report furnished to the Minister for Agriculture pursuant to this section shall be laid by him before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after such balance sheet, profit and loss account and report are so furnished to him."
So that provision is already made for the audited accounts of the company to be laid before each House. In my opinion, if the Deputy is interested in the National Stud, he should be expected at least to take the trouble of going down to the Library where the balance sheet is available and perusing it there. I do not for a moment agree that it would be of any material benefit to a Deputy to have the report circulated. Certainly it would mean more expense to the National Stud and it would entail more administrative trouble. Somebody must be employed, presumably, to have all these balance sheets circulated and, once the thin end of the wedge is inserted, it would mean, I suppose, that we must have somebody to look after the correspondence. Deputy Dunne has cited the case of Bord na Móna, but surely Bord na Móna bears no relation to the National Stud whatever. It is necessary of course that in an undertaking of the magnitude of Bord na Móna the report should be circulated, but in the case of the National Stud there should be no necessity to do that. Every Deputy who is interested in the National Stud, it is reasonable to expect, would go to the Library, where he could inspect the audited accounts.
The Minister says that there is no comparison between Bord na Móna and other State sponsored bodies and the National Stud. There is not, perhaps, in the amount of money which they handle each year or the extent of the activity in which they engage but why is it that some State sponsored bodies such as Bord na Móna, the Sugar Company, E.S.B. and C.I.E. circulate their reports to Deputies?
Mr. Walsh
Because of their size.
I do not agree with the Minister when he says that thecirculation of the balance sheet would involve the employment of extra staff. I do not think so because I understand the usual machinery for circulating such balance sheets is that a number of them are sent into this House and they are included in a Deputy's post in the ordinary way just as the daily Order Paper for the Dáil and Seanad is. The circulation of the report and balance sheet of the National Stud would not involve an additional expenditure of £1. It would mean only that about 300 or 350 extra copies would be sent in here to be distributed in the ordinary way amongst Deputies and Senators by the staff. We get copies of the daily debates and of various other documents and if additional copies of the balance sheet of the National Stud were made available, it would simply mean sticking them into the envelopes already provided.
Mr. Walsh
I feel sure that if everybody is so interested and wants to get a copy, there will be no difficulty in getting it.
I am not raising the point whether they are interested or not. The point is that some State bodies circulate their balance sheets while others do not. Why draw a distinction between the National Stud and other State bodies by merely requesting the National Stud to lay the report on the Table of the House?
Mr. Walsh
There must be several other smaller bodies which are doing the same thing as the National Stud.
It has grown fairly hefty, now that £250,000 is being provided for it.
Mr. Walsh
If the Deputy wants to see a copy of the report he has only to go to the Library.
I know that I am notified on the Order Paper when it is laid on the Table of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
On a point of information,have we reached the Report Stage yet?
I assume that the Report Stage will be taken this week or next week. I indicated at the beginning of the Committee Stage that I wished to put down an amendment to the Title of the Bill on the Report Stage.
Acting-Chairman
We have not reached the Report Stage yet.
I just want to make it clear that any steps taken now will not prejudice my right to propose an amendment to the Title on the Report Stage.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
Mr. Walsh
Immediately.
Am I not entitled to a certain period after we get the Bill through Committee? Is there not a four-day period before the Final Stage is taken?
If agreement to the contrary has not been reached in the House.
Mr. Walsh
What is the nature of the amendment?
I will give the Minister full details of it later.
Acting-Chairman
At the moment the only question before the House is that the Title stand part of the Bill. If the Deputy wants to have an amendment on the Report Stage, he should have something in by now.
The procedure, as I understand it, in regard to amendments on Report Stage is that should there emerge from the discussion on the Committee Stage an indication of a desire to put down an amendment in regard to any section on the Report Stage, that right must be given to a Deputy. That is my understanding of the situation.
Acting-Chairman
The Deputy has made his reservation. Could we now finish the Committee Stage?
I have no objection to the conclusion of the Committee Stage, but as I say, I want to see that you do not prejudice my rights in regard to the Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Acting-Chairman
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
Mr. Walsh
Immediately.
This is another attempt by the Government to steam-roll this Bill through the Dáil.
Mr. Walsh
These are the obstructionist tactics which you have been pursuing for the past few weeks.
We are within our rights to discuss this Bill for as long as we think it needs to be discussed and in every aspect in which we think it needs to be discussed. I think the Minister is now making an effort to rob me of my democratic privileges as a member of this House.
Mr. Walsh
To speak for the tenth time on this Bill.
There should be a certain time lag between the Committee and Report Stages unless there is agreement to waive that time lag. In this case, there is no such agreement.
No amendment——
There can be no amendment to the Report Stage until the Committee Stage has been concluded.
You cannot move it on Report Stage.
Under Standing Orders, an amendment of a certain kind can be moved on the Report Stage.
Acting-Chairman
Is the Minister pressing the motion?
Mr. Walsh
Yes.
Acting-Chairman
Then will the Minister move it?
Mr. Walsh
I move that the Report Stage be now taken.
On a point of order. Has the Minister the power to deprive members of this House of the right to move an amendment?
Acting-Chairman
It is now a matter for the House.
That deprives a member of the House of the right to submit his amendment on the Report Stage.
Mr. Walsh
It deprives a member from speaking for the tenth time on this Bill.
I submit that the Chair should look into Standing Orders and see if the Report Stage can be taken without full agreement of the House and without this matter being put to a division.
I regret that this should happen just at the moment when the Chair is not occupied by the Ceann Comhairle. If the Minister tries to attempt to steam-roll opposition to this pet Bill of his by moving that the Report Stage be now taken—which, in my view, would, if accepted by the Chair, be contrary to the procedure of this House and to democratic practice anywhere—then we shall have something else to say. As a Deputy, I claim my right to hear the views of the Ceann Comhairle on this matter.
Mr. Walsh
I suggest that these obstructionist tactics have been pursued for long enough by Deputy Dunne and should now terminate.
The Minister has made a statement to the effect that his motion is for the purpose of preventing further discussion on the Bill.
Mr. Walsh
Obstructionist tactics.
I pin the Minister to that statement. He said he wanted toprevent Deputy Dunne from speaking for the tenth time on this Bill. I submit that that is a stifling of discussion in this House. The Minister will stand over that statement.
Mr. Walsh
A Deputy is entitled to speak once or twice.
Acting-Chairman
The Minister has moved—as he is entitled to move—that the Report Stage be now taken.
Is the Minister, under Standing Orders, entitled to move that motion?
Acting-Chairman
Yes.
In other words, this is a closure motion.
It is a closure motion, and nothing else, to prevent further discussion. It is not to prevent obstruction but to prevent further discussion on the Bill.
We are not going to accept that from the Minister or from anybody else.
Definitely not.
What is the Minister's hurry in running to the Aga Khan with £250,000 of the Irish people's money?
If the Minister had said that he wanted the Bill to-night, we would do everything to help him.
What is the Minister's hurry? Is there some hidden commitment, of which we are not made aware, which requires the Minister to get the Bill through the House to-night? Why should we not have the same right as is accorded in every other case when legislation is passing through the House? Why is the Minister denying the Labour Party, in particular—and, in fact, every Deputy of the House— the right to speak further on the Committee Stage of this Bill by moving that the Report Stage be now taken? What hurry is on the Minister to run out of this country with this £250,000? What is the need for all this hurry?
He wants the horse for Baldoyle.
Why should the Minister trample on our rights in order to go running to the Aga Khan with this present of £250,000? I am not clear now as to what position we have arrived at. It seems, Sir, that you have accepted a motion from the Minister that the Report Stage be now taken. Has that ever happened before? I see you nod your head in assent. As I understand the position, it has been the custom and, in fact, it has been the Standing Order that only in the case of agreement is the Report Stage taken immediately after the Committee Stage. I repeat again that that happens only where there is agreement. How can the Minister justify taking this step? I do not think it can be justified and I will oppose it. I am sure that every Deputy with any sense of responsibility as to his rights in this House will oppose this further effort of Fianna Fáil dictatorship. The Minister states that because I have spoken ten times on this Bill—which I did not—
Mr. Walsh
Nine or ten times.
If I spoke 50 times, I am still entitled to speak that number of times. I have not transgressed the rules of order in relation to the number of times a Deputy may speak in this House. I submit that the Minister was wrong. It is a very poor thing for the Minister to say that he will try and kill discussion now because he is sick and tired of hearing about Tulyar. No wonder he is sick and tired.
Hear, hear!
He has only heard the half of it. Wait until he goes to Carlow, Kilkenny and other parts of the country. Then he will hear all about it. We are going to talk about this national scandal so long as we deem it necessary, and we are determined to use our rights as members of this House in the matter. In these efforts of dictatorship by the Minister——
Acting-Chairman
There is a motion by the Minister before the House—a motion on which the Deputy isspeaking. May I remind the House that we are no longer in committee and that Deputies may now speak only once.
Motion agreed to.
On a point of order. I think it is a matter for regret that the Ceann Comhairle is not in the Chair. I apologise to you, Sir, for these embarrassments. They are not intentional. At the same time, it is unfair that we should now be told that a Deputy is entitled to speak only once and that we are out of Committee. As I understand it, we have passed the Committee Stage of the Bill. We have not yet taken the Report Stage. At what stage of this Bill are we at the present moment?
Acting-Chairman
There is a motion by the Minister that the Report Stage be now taken.
We are at no stage now. On a point of order. The question that is before the House is whether or not the Report Stage be taken now. Is that not right?
Acting-Chairman
That is correct.
On a point of order. Has the Committee Stage been concluded? I submit that we are still in the last phases of the Committee Stage.
Acting-Chairman
No. The House agreed——
Can the motion be debated, Sir?
Acting-Chairman
Yes; that is, if anybody wishes to debate it.
I wanted to know whether or not it could be debated.
Whenever a Minister may, for reasons of urgency or otherwise, desire to get all stages of a Bill my experience in the ten years in which I have been a member of thisHouse is that the Minister always asks for it and tries to get agreement on it. In this case, the Minister moved a definite closure motion when he moved that the Report Stage of the Bill be now taken. I submit that this is a most unusual step. The Minister has made his position very clear. He has given his reason why he wants the Bill reported this evening: he said that Deputy Dunne had spoken ten times. Apparently, ten times is the limit, in the Minister's mind. I understood that if a Deputy had spoken one thousand and ten times it did not prevent him from speaking again and that it did not exhaust the privilege which every Deputy of this House enjoys of speaking as often as he likes on the Committee Stage so long as he keeps within the rules of order and so long as his remarks are relevant. I submit that the Minister has no right to move this motion. I submit that, for the taking of the Report Stage now, the Minister must have the agreement of the House. I submit that a simple closure motion such as that which the Minister has just moved is completely out of order and cannot be taken by the Chair. I submit that the Minister has acted in a very dangerous manner. The Standing Orders clearly lay down that a closure motion should only be applied when the matter has been fully debated, and the Ceann Comhairle agrees that such a motion should be put. Now, seeing that this closure motion——
Acting-Chairman
It is not a closure motion.
The Minister said to Deputy Dunne that he had spoken ten times and that he would see that he would not speak further. I submit that this is a closure motion, and that it is only the Ceann Comhairle who can accept such a motion even from a Minister.
Acting-Chairman
I have not accepted a closure motion. I have accepted the motion that the Report Stage be taken now according to Standing Orders.
The Minister made itperfectly clear to Deputy Dunne that his motion was a closure motion to prevent him speaking the eleventh time on this Bill. I submit that is a closure motion.
Acting-Chairman
I am only concerned with Standing Orders.
If Deputy Dunne moves an amendment on Report Stage. as he indicated he would, will the Chair be prepared to accept it?
Acting-Chairman
No amendment has been produced. I would first have to see the amendment.
Is it not the normal practice, when a Deputy indicates that he wants to put an amendment down for Report Stage, that sufficient time be given to him to put his amendment before the House?
Acting-Chairman
That may be, but I am only concerned with what is in order. I have had no amendment from Deputy Dunne.
I want to ask whether it is reasonable, having completed the Committee Stage, that it should be announced to Deputies that they may now put in amendments for immediate discussion? I submit that is not a proper procedure. I think we have the right to be able to peruse to-day's debate, and should be given a reasonable time to do so, to see if there are any points which call for amendment on Report. To say to a Deputy that he should now put in an amendment for immediate discussion is not, I think, a proper procedure. In fact, I am sure it is not. Otherwise, why should there be a time limit between Committee and Report Stage?
Acting-Chairman
There is nothing in Standing Orders to prevent the Chair receiving the motion. The House may not agree with the motion, but that is not the concern of the Chair.
Is it not correct to say that a period of four days is allowed between the Committee and Report Stage of every Bill?
Acting-Chairman
I will read Standing Order No. 94 dealing with the Fourth (Report) Stage:
"On the order of the day being read for the consideration of a Bill on Report, the Dáil shall proceed to consider the same unless a motion is made to re-commit the Bill either wholly or in respect of certain sections: Provided, however, that a motion to re-commit may be made at any time during the consideration of a Bill on Report."
Does "the order of the day being read" not refer to the Order Paper which was circulated to all of us this morning? Number 9 on the Order Paper says: "National Stud Bill—Committee." I always understood it to be the order of the day.
Acting-Chairman
The House has reported the Bill from Committee, and is now considering when the next stage of the Bill will be taken.
That is not the question that I asked. What does the phrase "on the order of the day being read" mean? I take it that what I hold in my hand is the order of the day.
Acting-Chairman
The position is that the Committee has reported the Bill to the House. The Minister has moved that the next stage be taken now. That is the question that is before the House.
If the order of the day is read for the consideration of the Bill on report, then I can understand the position, but until that is done I cannot understand it.
Surely when the order of the day is published it is open to any Deputy to put in an amendment if he wishes.
Acting-Chairman
I have not received any amendment.
The Chair could not receive it until the order of the day is published.
Acting-Chairman
For the Deputy's enlightenment, I shall read Standing Order No. 93:
"When the preamble (if any) and the title of a Bill shall have been considered in Committee, the Bill shall be reported with or without amendment to the Dáil, and an order shall be then made for its consideration on report."
The Standing Order says "on the order of the day being read."
Acting-Chairman
We are not considering the order of the day.
Are amendments for Report Stage not accepted by the Chair until the Committee Stage has been concluded?
They could not be.
Acting-Chairman
The Committee Stage has been concluded.
I did not ask that. I asked: Can the Chair accept amendments for report before the Committee Stage has been concluded?
Acting-Chairman
I am afraid I cannot answer the Deputy's hypothetical question.
It is not a hypothetical question but one that comes within the Rules of Order.
Would I be in order in moving that the question be now put?
(Interruptions.)
Would it be possible to get an answer to my point of order —what is "the order of the day which is being read"?
Acting-Chairman
It has been read.
No order has been read. This, the Order Paper, is the order of the day.
The whole trouble with the Deputy is that he does not understand the difference between "the order of the day being read" and the Order Paper. He should takeelementary lessons on that, and if Deputy Sweetman will go outside I will advise him.
The Deputy likes to take advice that comes from a decent quarter and he would not get it there. Sir, can I have an answer?
I want to draw attention to that remark. It is a filthy, foul remark, typical of Deputy Sweetman. Deputy Sweetman should not make a remark about anybody in that fashion, in decency.
Acting-Chairman
I did not hear any remark.
I am glad you did not. It was a foul, filthy observation.
It is a very adequate one for the Deputy.
Can an amendment for report be accepted by the Chair before the Committee Stage has concluded? That must be a thing that crops up in the Ceann Comhairle's office every other day. Can it be accepted?
Acting-Chairman
An amendment for Report Stage can be handed in. It is not necessarily accepted.
Is it not a fact that if Deputy Dunne or any other Deputy wants to put in an amendment for the Report Stage of any Bill going through the House, that amendment cannot be circulated until the Committee Stage has concluded? Is not that correct?
Acting-Chairman
Yes.
Very good. If any Deputy wanted to put in an amendment to the Report Stage of the National Stud Bill he could only do it a few minutes ago, when the Committee Stage concluded?
In other words, I have three minutes. I may point out—I am sure you are appreciative of the fact— that I have three minutes in which to write out amendments between the time the Committee Stage concludedand the time the Minister wanted the Report Stage to come in. That, of course, is the typical Fianna Fáil attitude. He is not going to get away with it here.
Acting-Chairman
I am now going to put the question that the next stage be taken.
Before you put that question, I just want to say, in regard to it, that the matter that is under discussion in regard to this motion seems to me to be of some importance and it might have been dealt with, perhaps, in a sensible kind of way. In the course of the discussion that took place, I drew the Chair's attention toan observation which the Chair says it did not hear. I want to say this, and to say it very bluntly, that Deputy Sweetman, who protested so violently against the discontinuance of God Save the King as the national anthem in Trinity College, will not be permitted to make such an observation about me.
That is untrue and is typical.
There are witnesses.
That is untrue.
Question—"That the Report Stage be taken"—put.
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 61; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Duignan, Peadar.
- Fanning, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Dunne, Seán.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Madden, David J.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Leary, John.
- Everett, James.
- Finan, John.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies Kyne and D. J. O'Sullivan.
Question declared carried.