Could the Minister give us any indication as to how long it will take to establish the board? Will it take two, three, or four months? Has the Minister any idea when the board will be established?
Committee on Finance. - Horse Industry Bill, 1970: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I would think there is a degree of urgency in the setting up of the board.
I think this should be dealt with under section 4. The establishment day is mentioned in section 4.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Is it the Minister's intention to pay directors of the board? Will they be paid?
There is no provision in the Bill for anything except members' expenses.
They will not be paid £500 or £1,000 a year?
Not as I understand it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister give us any idea of the date when the Bill will come into operation?
The Deputy will be aware of the preliminaries necessary in order to ascertain the suitability of people to constitute the board. I cannot give any reasonable idea of it except to say that I feel that the establishment of the board is a matter of some urgency and the sooner we get on with it the better.
I am not enamoured of the word "suitability" from experience in the past when we found men who were genuinely entitled to membership of boards ousted by Fianna Fáil touts. The Minister knows that he could have co-operation from the existing organisation to expedite the setting up of this board.
This deals only with the establishment day.
This is a standard argument which came up on Second Reading.
Section 4 deals with the appointment of a day to be the establishment day.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1) (d), lines 34 and 35, to delete "(if requested by them)".
My object in seeking this amendment is to emphasise to the Minister that there must be consultation with these organisations and that they should not have the choice as to whether there will be consultation or not. As it stands at the moment I read it that the organisations can request consultation and they will have to be listened to. In view of the fact that this deals with the choice of competitions and the composition of teams, the Minister should have power to insist that he shall be heard and that what he says shall be listened to. As it stands the Minister can consult with the organisations about competitions or the composition of teams only if requested to do so by the organisations. The Minister should be in a position to have the consultations without first being requested to have them.
I appreciate the Deputy's point on this. I think that it would be unwarrantable interference with the right of the various horse organisations to pursue their own objectives without obligatory reference to the Minister or to Bord na gCapall. Deputy Cooney's amendment could readily lead to a situation where the existing horse organisations would be thrust into a sort of secondary position. This might adversely affect the position of the board. They might have the role of big brother thrust upon them in the bad sense of "big brother". I appreciate Deputy Cooney's point but I think it is outweighed by the necessity there is to maintain the present position of the existing horse organisations and not to thrust upon them the necessity to refer to the board at all times.
I cannot agree with the Minister. Everybody in this country wants the best possible team to represent us abroad. Twenty-five to 30 years ago Commandant O'Dwyer, Commandant Corry and others brought international fame to Irish horses and riders. When one picked up the paper the next morning the tricolour was flying for Ireland and her horses. We all admit that there has been a decline in the standard of our team during the last 15 years. I do not think those organisations would resent the State interfering. I do not look upon it as interference. I look upon it as co-operation with and consultation between the State and these organisations. I agree with Deputy Cooney that the board should consult and advise those organisations so that the best team, whether it be from members of the Army or members of the general public, can be picked to represent the country. I cannot imagine those organisations looking upon it as the big brother trying to put something down their necks. Those words should be deleted and the organisations should be consulted.
I agree with nearly all that Deputy L'Estrange has said. The whole purpose of this Bill is to get a better international team and a better horse industry. Deputy L'Estrange spoke about the necessity for mutual help and co-operation in this regard but we ought not start off by telling existing organisations that they must consult with the board. Rather should we say to them that Bord na gCapall is here for the purpose of helping them and would be very pleased if they would avail of this help. When this idea is accepted and understood it will be far better at that stage to insert the amendment proposed by Deputy Cooney to this particular section. The amendment introduces a rather harsh note of compulsion which I feel is totally unnecessary. In fact, I would go so far as to say it would damage the Bill. At the end of it all Bord na gCapall cannot help these organisations unless they ask for help. These organisations cannot have help thrust upon them and if such a situation obtained it would have a damaging effect. It is not terribly serious but I think the Bill is better the way it is.
I appreciate the danger to which the Minister has referred. We are really discussing this as if the onus to consult is on the equestrian bodies but the onus to consult is, in fact, on Bord na gCapall. When we realise the onus is that way the exercise of that onus without the necessity for a request for its exercise will adversely affect relations between the board and the various equestrian bodies.
The Deputy would agree that the equestrian bodies might tell the board to mind its own business.
If, when that situation arises, the board can be told to mind its own business then the whole Bill is a waste of time. I understand the idea of the Bill, beyond having regard to the general theme of the survey report, is to set up a body which will have control of the horse industry in all its facets. It must have some teeth to it.
By common agreement, I should hope?
Yes.
Deputy L'Estrange hit the nail on the head when he said the whole essence of this Bill is co-operation between the various people. If we start by requiring people to do things I think it will have a negative effect.
The only people we are requiring to do something is the board itself not the equestrian bodies. All we are saying is that the functions of the board are to consult with the relative equestrian organisations as the Bill at present says "if requested by them". If those words are left in the Bill, the board might never be able to consult with, for example, the Irish Olympic Horse Society, the Irish Show Jumping Association or the Master of Foxhounds Association. If the request for consultation does not come the board is out as far as that particular equestrian organisation is concerned. I should like to see the board with the power to go to these various equestrian organisations and consult with them.
If we stipulate that consultation should be from the board to the equestrian organisation in that one direction does the Deputy not think that this one direction consultation will naturally invoke consultation in the other direction as well? I still think the Bill, as drafted, is better. My note here says that if the board are unqualifiedly to be obliged to consult with the equestrian organisations the latter would have to be obliged to consult with the board and this would be quite inappropriate.
As the Bill is drafted there is no obligation on the Minister to appoint a person from any of the organisations referred to. The report of the survey team recommended that Bord na gCapall should have representatives on it from different bodies; in fact, some of them were specified but, as the Bill is drafted, the Minister is entirely free to nominate from the bodies or take nominations or appoint people from outside the bodies. If, as the survey team recommended, some nominations at any rate should be taken from these bodies the selection would have been left to the Minister and this might have involved automatic contact. I do not know if the Minister at this stage feels in a position to indicate whether it is proposed to draw membership from some of these bodies or not?
It would seem normal.
It would seem normal, but it is a departure from the recommendations made by the survey team. It may be a wise way to do it.
I appeal to the Minister to agree with the suggestion made by Deputy Cooney. If there is a difference of opinion in regard to the selection of the team who is going to clarify it? We all know the best teams were not always selected due to snobbishness and class distinction. In fact, Tommy Wade was unfortunately passed over. If someone wants to pass over the Army team in future the board will have no power to do anything about it, whereas all we are asking for is consultation. As far as co-operation between this board and the Department is concerned it all depends on the formation of the board and the people put on the board. If the Government continue to do as they did in the past and choose people for political reasons——
I hope we are not getting away from the section.
I hope the Government will appoint people who have given voluntary and outstanding service in the past.
The Deputy is moving on to discuss the personnel of the board which would arise on section 8.
Perhaps I should read the Bill as it stands at present since I think we are becoming confused about the effect of this amendment. It says that the functions of the board shall be "to consult with the relevant equestrian organisations (if requested by them)..." That states what the board is to do; it is not stating what the equestrian organisations are to do.
It cannot state that.
No, but it does not follow, if the board is told: "This is one of your duties" that, as the Minister seems to suggest, the same onus falls on the equestrian organisations. If it is to be a function of the board to consult it should have the right to consult without a request. That is all.
In the next subsection we find that the State may be assisting by money or otherwise in the holding and running of such competitions, preparing teams, et cetera. If they are, the least they should have is consultation on the selection of teams. This is in reference to subsection (1) (e), line 46.
In the case, say, of the selection of a team and failure to reach agreement between equestrian associations I should think these associations would recognise that there was a readymade Horse Board which could be called in and told: "We have a problem here. We want your help".
But they may not unless the Minister agrees to Deputy Cooney's suggestion and in any case I take it that if these people were doing their work reasonably well the Minister would not ask to interfere with them. But the amendment does give the Minister the power to consult and if everything was all right the Minister would simply say so.
Would the Minister say if any arrangements are to be made whereby necessary money can be made available because, as the Minister knows, many teams in the past few years fell down not because of horses or riders but because the people selected could not afford to travel——
This is dealt with in the Bill.
Is the Minister satisfied that it is adequately dealt with?
The Chair does not wish to hamper the debate but are we not going ahead of the amendment which is under discussion at present?
There is no point in consulting people if, after consultation, those selected are unable to travel because they cannot keep up the standards required financially.
I do not think that is relevant on this section.
When you come to deal with it in practice you find it is very relevant.
Would the Minister not agree to look into this point between now and Report Stage?
All we want is that the board which, having regard to the tenor of the report, is to be the superior body in the horse industry should have the right to consult without having to be first requested to do so.
It is not directing. It only means consulting. Would the Minister agree to look at it again?
I have already stated my views as best I can about this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill".
I can see some difficulty in regard to the functions of the board vis-á-vis the Racing Board which does not come under the aegis of the Minister. Nevertheless, I think this matter must be tackled at this stage as otherwise we shall be in the daft position of Bord na gCapall having very extensive functions in regard to the horse industry and not having its relationship with another very important board adequately defined.
Section 7 (1) (a) (i) states as one of the functions of the board to advise the Minister "in relation to the breeding, sale and export of horses and associated activities". I think there cannot be any argument about the racing of horses being very much an associated activity and the body that controls the racing of horses is, willy-nilly, brought into contact with the functions of Bord na gCapall. The present exercise by that other board of its functions in regard to the racecourses which it has threatened with extinction leaves a lot to be desired. Whether this board will be able to say to the Racing Bord: "You cannot withdraw the subsidy from Kilbeggan because we, Bord na gCapall, think Kilbeggan racecourse deserves to be maintained as a racecourse" is the question.
Will Bord na gCapall have authority to say that, bearing in mind that Bord na gCapall will know that Kilbeggan racecourse has a long and honourable history and is a racecourse which is on the way up having been in a difficult financial position? By means of voluntary work it has put itself on a sound financial footing. It has improved its track immensely and it attracted over 200 runners at its last meeting. Ostensibly, according to the Racing Board, the reason for threatening the withdrawal of subsidy is that it was costing money but the Kilbeggan executive have not been able to find out from the Racing Board how much, if any, Kilbeggan course is costing. The other courses under sentence of death may be those that are costing the money. Kilbeggan does not think it is costing money because the number of bookmakers betting and paying levy and the tote turnover have been on the increase to a considerable extent.
We seem to be getting away from the Bill and on to the activities of a body set up under a previous Act of the Oireachtas.
With respect, I am only pointing out that you cannot separate one from the other and that one very important thing which the Minister will have to face is to define the status of Bord na gCapall in relation to the Racing Board. Which of them will be in control of this very important aspect——
The Chair will allow the Minister to comment on that aspect of the matter but, as already pointed out, all that pertains to racing and the Racing Board was dealt with by a previous Act of the Oireachtas.
Is the whole Bill not concerned with horses?
About a particular kind of horse. Does the Deputy want to talk about Dundalk?
No—later, and Navan and Laytown also.
This Bill does not deal with racing or the thoroughbred industry.
With respect, thoroughbreds are not excluded. They are only excluded so far as their sale is concerned.
Surely the Minister understands that halfbred horses and horses that certainly come under this Bill race in places like Kilbeggan. In fact, those are the places the small farmers patronise, Kilbeggan, Dundalk, Laytown. There are many hunter chasers at those meetings and I think they should be encouraged.
The Chair will allow the Minister to make a comment on that matter but otherwise we cannot discuss matters apertaining to the Racing Board.
Section 7 deals with the breeding, sale and export of horses——
It will look fairly well in the local paper.
(Interruptions).
The Chair will allow the Minister to comment briefly on what the Deputy has said but we must not go into the affairs of the Racing Board on this Bill.
We might get more out of appearing in the local papers than the Minister will give us.
I do not know that a great deal of comment is necessary from me. I think Deputy Cooney, Deputy L'Estrange and Deputy Tully all have their tongues slightly in their cheeks. Deputy Cooney spoke about the excellence of Kilbeggan but I do not think that the relationship between Kilbeggan and Bord na gCapall and the Horse Industry Bill now before the House is very strong. I have no particular objection to Deputy Cooney putting in a plug for Kilbeggan.
Section 7 (a) (1) relates to the sale and export of horses and paragraph (h) relates to the organisation of sales of horses other than thoroughbred horses. I am sure the Minister is well aware of what has happened in the past. The people who buy horses for international jumping do not seem to have the necessary finance to purchase the best horses to compete for Ireland. The horses are bred and trained here but when they come up for sale they are bought by the Italians, the Germans, the English or the Americans, who come back and defeat our team. Is it the intention of the Minister to set up a body like Bord na gCon, who buy dogs? If it is, I certainly do not want to see the scandal and the corruption we have in Ireland today in regard to the purchase of greyhounds where there is at least one southern buyer of greyhounds and also members of Bord na gCon who will not buy dogs unless they receive £50 or £100 as a "backhand". We should not stand for that kind of corruption. If the Minister is appointing a board I hope they will be men or women of honesty and integrity. I know of a greyhound purchased for £600 by a well-known member of Bord na gCon and sold for £1,000. Nobody in this House should stand for this type of racket.
I hope that when this board is set up horses bought either for the Irish Army or for resale to America, England, France or anywhere else will be bought by public auction or, if not, that the purchaser will have to sign a form indicating from whom he purchased the horse, the genuine price for which it was bought and what he got for it when it was exported. This is a very important industry and it would be a sin if racketeers and chancers were allowed to grow fat on the hard work of honest-to-goodness farmers who breed horses. It is also unfair that buyers whether they are British or any other nationality should be fleeced. I have no objection if the breeder gets the money but I certainly object to a man buying a greyhound for £600 and selling it for £1,000 in the circumstances I have outlined. I want the Minister to get men of integrity. Unfortunately in this materialistic age they seem to be in short supply. However, the Minister should ensure that anyone who engages in this malpractice will be lodged in Mountjoy, because that is where some of those who are buying greyhounds for export should be.
There is nothing in the Bill about greyhounds.
Does the Minister intend to set up a board to buy horses similar to the board who are buying greyhounds?
I would hope that the prospects of the board's success would not be damaged in any way by Deputy L'Estrange or anyone else imputing to them, before they are established at all, corrupt intentions.
Mr. MacEntee did that with the Horse Racing Bill.
The Deputy must not name people who are not in the House.
Deputy L'Estrange is too precipitate. He is assuming, before the board is established at all, that it will draw its personnel from racketeers, chancers, et cetera. When we are asking a group of men to come together without remuneration to assist the horse industry as it requires to be assisted, it is most unfortunate that they should be branded, before they are named at all, as racketeers.
Section 7 (1) (d) gives the board power to assist teams or members thereof in the following ways: by the provision of money to meet, in whole or in part, the costs of entering and taking part in competitions—at home or abroad presumably—or the provision of horses for use by the teams or members, as the case may be, in competitions. One can see a situation where the board would make a subvention to a team going abroad. That team could be very successful, and a very successful team, in terms of modern day prize money for show jumping, could win a lot of money. In any case where there is a subvention from Bord na gCapall, there should be some recoupment to the board out of prize money won in those circumstances. It might be difficult to arrange in practice, but I think it would be only proper. Furthermore, very often following a good performance a horse can be sold at a very high price. It might be going too far to expect commission on the sale for Bord na gCapall, but I should not like to see Bord na gCapall subsidising teams to go abroad and these teams then making considerable private profit. There should be some arrangement for recoupment. The people engaged in the horse industry are not the most naive section of the community.
In reply to the Minister, I am not branding anyone in advance. If the Minister appoints representatives from any of the organisations already in existence, he will in all probability get people who are prepared to give their free time, because many of those people love horses and have been associated with horses down through the years. However, if he appoints the type of people that Fianna Fáil have——
The appointment of members does not come under this section.
This section deals with the sale and export of horses. How does the Minister intend that horses will be sold or exported? Will the board do it or will the board employ people to do it? Where will the horses be purchased? Will they be purchased at private sales or at open sales such as the Ballsbridge annual sale or the Curragh Breeders' sale? We are entitled to know how the Minister proposes that the purchase, sale and export of horses are to be carried out.
The main purpose of the board, as the Deputy probably knows, is to promote the sale of horses, to assist other people to sell horses profitably.
Will the board employ people to do it as in the case of Bord na gCon?
I must confess total ignorance of any relationship between Bord na gCon and this board.
It is the system.
It is the system we want to get at. We want to find out whether the board will employ people to buy horses, whether the horses will be bought in their names, whether the horses will be bought at sales where everyone will know the genuine price of the horses, or whether those people will go down the country buying from their friends and relations. We want to ensure there are no loopholes.
I would refer Deputy L'Estrange to subparagraphs (h) and (i):
(h) to promote the organisation of sales of horses other than thoroughbred horses;
(i) to promote and develop the export trade in horses other than thoroughbred horses.
Does it mean the board will act only in an advisory capacity?
And a promotional capacity.
There are two things involved here. The board will be promoting the sale and possibly arranging the sale of non-thoroughbred horses. What Deputy L'Estrange is getting at is the power contained in subsection (d) whereby the board can assist a team by the provision of horses. That may involve them in purchasing horses, and Deputy L'Estrange is anxious to ensure that the purchase of horses will be entirely above board.
Surely what is envisaged here is that members of the board will be using public money to buy horses for people. We want to ensure that whatever is done in that way by the board will be above board.
As Deputy L'Estrange said earlier, one of the main purposes behind the establishment of this board is to enhance our reputation abroad. The board may consider it appropriate to buy horses so as to provide a better international team. In such circumstances they will be empowered to buy horses if they want to.
That is what I am interested in, the enhancing of our reputation abroad. I want to make certain that if the board buy a horse for £600 for somebody that horse will show a profit.
They will buy the horse themselves, not for somebody else. They will buy the horse to own the horse themselves. The board can own horses.
That is not correct. The relevant provision states that money will be provided to meet in whole or in part the cost of the provision of horses for use by the team or by individual members of the team. The Minister has told us already that the team need not even consult with the board. At the same time, though it is not necessary for them to consult with the board, the board are to be enabled to buy horses for the team or the individual members of the team. We want to ensure that this will all be done above board.
It is not envisaged that the board's normal practice will be to engage in horse trading in the literal sense, but if the board think it necessary to do so they may buy a horse for a jumping team.
The Minister knows as well as I do that under the Bill he can make regulations and that he will make regulations.
They must be laid before the House.
I want to make sure that the regulations the Minister makes, even if they involve only one horse, will ensure that the horse is bought at sales or that the board must state the price.
That would be necessary, of course, in the ordinary accounting of the board.
Section 33 is referred to in this section——
This is an important matter but it should be worked out in the normal way. Why does Deputy L'Estrange always assume in advance that there will be sharp practice or corruption?
Because I know of the sharp practice in Bord na gCon which is a scandal and a disgrace in the country. If we are to end the corruption we must attack it at the beginning. There is too much of this going on and certain people are getting away with it.
I did not hear the Minister reply to my point about the recouping by the board of prize money.
This should be worked out between the team and the board. Appropriate discussions could take place between the team or individual members of the team and the board as to how the allocation of prize money or enhanced values should be done fairly.
Paragraph (1) provides for the undertaking by the board of such other functions as may be transferred or assigned to them under section 33. Section 33 (1) states:
The Minister may from time to time, if he so thinks fit, by order transfer to the Board any function conferred on him by this Part or assign to the Board such functions (in addition to the functions conferred on it by this Act) in relation to the breeding, sale and export of horses, equitation and matters connected with the matters aforesaid as he thinks fit.
The Deputy has now gone to section 33.
The section we are discussing refers to section 33 and it, therefore, arises.
This can more appropriately be dealt with when we come to section 33. It is an enabling section—to enable the Act to be worked properly.
I agree. It will enable the Minister to set up an agency to buy and export horses.
But not without acquainting the House of it.
It says "The Minister may by regulation..."
Regulations must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is required of the Minister to inform the Houses of any regulations he is going to make.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 17, after "Board" to insert "who shall be Irish citizens".
The effect of the amendment is to ensure that the members of the board will all be Irish citizens. I move it without any apology to those who might suggest that I am being provincial. I have no doubt that in the organisations associated with the horse industry there are ample and adequate people to make up the membership of the board. The horse industry is so important to the economy of the country that it is most desirable it should be controlled by Irish citizens. I think the Minister will agree it is necessary that only Irish citizens should be in control and will accept the amendment.
Again, it is quite true that normally the people of this country have above average competence in the matter of horses and that the likelihood of people who are not Irish citizens becoming members on the board is rather slight. The amendment is somewhat inhibiting in that one can conceive that a person with exceptional qualifications in the matter of horses might not be an Irish citizen but the board might like to use his ability and expertise. I think, therefore, that it would be an unnecessary provision deliberately to exclude such a person.
Everybody's inclination would be to have Irish citizens on the board whereever possible but I do not think we should slam the door totally on such a person as I have been talking about, a person with exceptional competence in the matter of horses who would be of real value to the Irish horse industry. The proposed amendment would exclude such a person. I do not know if Deputy Cooney has any particular anxiety in this matter. I think he will agree it is conceivable that people who are not Irish citizens but who have great competence in the matter of horses have established themselves here but have not become Irish citizens. I do not think they should be excluded by the Act itself.
I have no particular reason beyond that of principle. This will be the superior body for a very Irish industry and the body should be composed entirely of Irish citizens. If any person with the expertise to which the Minister refers should come along and there is a wish to avail of his services there is ample provision in the section for setting up committees. That person might serve much more adequately and more aptly on a committee than as a member of the over-all governing body.
The Deputy must concede that it is slightly xenophobic?
I can see that it might be interpreted like that but for this industry it would be unduly sensitive to interpret it like that.
I do not know about that but the acceptance of this amendment will impose an inhibition —it would be slight but it would be there—and it would be restricting the choice, and forever, without real cause. Any Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would be just as enthusiastic as Deputy Cooney is to see that wherever possible, first of all, that the best people would go on the board and, secondly, that if possible they would be Irish citizens. There is nothing wonderful about this; this is perfectly natural.
If the Minister accepts my amendment it might relieve the Minister of a possibly embarrassing situation. Naturally, the Minister would consult with the various equestrian organisations before appointing the board to see who they might have in mind and it could happen that a name suggested might happen to be that of a non-Irish citizen who would be very acceptable to the equestrian body concerned but not to the Minister.
The Minister is the fellow who will do the deciding. The Minister can and will consult with the competent people about the constitution of the board but the choice eventually will be for himself. It is for him to determine whether it would be desirable to have a non-national on the board or not. Generally speaking, and all other things being equal, it would be better to have an all-Irish board and that is probably what we will have. Non-nationals should not deliberately be excluded.
I could see more validity for the Minister's argument if this board were going to deal with the thoroughbred industry which is much more international than what will be dealt with by the Horse Board. Then you could hardly avoid having non-nationals but when their main function is confined to the non-thoroughbred industry——
Deputy, I think you will agree with me that international show-jumping is becoming much more international. There is a greater mobility in the people who participate in it. You may have at some time in the future, because of the increasing mobility of these people between Britain and here and the Continent and here, the possibility of very special horse people deciding to establish themselves here, people who would have very special qualifications, and I do not think we should shut the door on them. We should just watch the door and examine very carefully to see if, in fact, they have the qualifications looked for.
And that their main interest is the Irish horse industry and not their own horse business. I would be afraid of non-national experts from that point of view.
As Deputy L'Estrange said, you could have opportunists of the native breed as well.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill".
As Deputy Cosgrave has already stated, the survey team recommend that the organisation be allowed appoint members to the board but subsection (2) states:
Before appointing a member of the Board, the Minister shall consult with such organisations (if any) as he thinks appropriate in relation to the appointment.
This very important board will have a very onerous job to do. The Minister stated that only men with outstanding qualifications could hope to be on the board. We have voluntary organisations associated with horse breeding who have done very valuable work over the years and the time has come when we should trust those voluntary organisations. I can think of many offhand and the Minister if he is appointing 11 members should allow at least six members to be appointed by those organisations. We have national farmers organisations who represent the majority of farmers who breed horses; we have the different breeders organisations, the different stallion organisations, the different show pony societies, the different show-jumping societies throughout the country on the committees of which there are small farmers, business people, townspeople who do very valuable work——
The Deputy has already named more organisations than there are places on the board.
I have not. I have named five or six.
But they were all plurals.
Yes, but they can come together as has often happened in the past. There is no reason why the Minister should not ask all the show-jumping societies to come together and nominate a person; there is no reason why all the breeders could not be asked to come together and nominate somebody, or the NFA, or all those training jumping teams. As I said earlier, the Minister and his Department will be judged by the type of board set up.
That is right.
People on it should be selected for their knowledge of and their work on behalf of the horsebreeding industry. They should be men of integrity et cetera. Let us admit that in the past such positions have been havens of rest for ex-Fianna Fáil Deputies and supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party. In reply to a question which I tabled last week I learned that on the board of Irish Shipping we have Deputy Blaney's aide-de-camp who is drawing £500 a year. We remember Deputy Corry in this House. We know what happened when a letter was read out in this House and we know the corrupt practices he had indulged in. Afterwards he was appointed a director of the beet board. That is scandalous.
The Minister is a new man coming to this important position of Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and I hope he starts on the right foot. His predecessor set up a National Agricultural Council but he did not take the advice he was given; he put his own stooges on the council and refused to co-operate with the voluntary organisations and afterwards the council proved to be a failure and it is now dead. This is of such vital importance that it behoves the Minister to start on the right road. It is not enough to consult with those people. Even at this late stage the Minister should have faith in those organisations which have done such valuable work down through the years. Many of those people in those organisations love horses. They are dedicated to the horse breeding industry, let it be breeding horses, show-jumping or hunting, or whatever it may. They have done valuable work and we should recognise that and at least say to those people "I will allow you to appoint six, or, perhaps, seven or eight members" and the Minister could appoint the remainder.
The Minister has the full co-operation of everybody on this side of the House. We are all interested in the horse breeding industry and we know how desirable it is that it should prosper. It needs help and advice but much depends on the board the Minister will set up. Instead of saying that he will consult with the organisations, the Minister should ask them to nominate six, seven or eight people and appoint three or four people himself.
(Cavan): The object of this Bill is to establish a board to be known as Board na gCapall which will discharge important functions in relation to one of our major industries. The horse breeding industry is a major industry from the point of view of the money it produces for the breeders of thoroughbred and other horses and it is important because it is one of the shop windows of this country, it is one of our prestige industries.
I welcome the idea behind the Bill. I had occasion during a debate on the Department of Defence some time ago to say that I thought not nearly sufficient money was being injected into the Army jumping team and that enough money was not spent on the provision of the best horses for the team. All Irish people are interested in and proud of Irish horses, whether they are competing in the Derby, the Grand National or any of the other great races or at the international show-jumping fixtures. Like so many other Bills——
Is the Deputy discussing the Bill or section 8 which deals with members of the board?
(Cavan): I am dealing with the Bill and very materially with section 8 because this is the operative section of the Bill. I have made my remarks by way of general introduction and I was about to say that, like so many other Bills, in recent times, this Bill is operated through regulations made by a Minister—in this case by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—and by a board to be set up by the Minister. This Bill will operate through section 8: if it is a success it will be so by virtue of the people who are appointed under this section; likewise, if it is a failure it will be so because of the people who have been appointed under section 8.
I make a special appeal to the Minister to ensure, if he is in office when the members of the board are appointed, that people with the highest qualifications are appointed. While it is true that in certain technical spheres we have a shortage of technical know-how and quite often we have to seek experts from abroad to advise us on industrial matters, in matters relating to the horse industry we can export to the rest of the world. In this field, the best knowledge and skills are held by Irish people and it is well known that wealthy people from abroad come to us for advice on matters relating to the horse industry. It would be a great pity if any consideration other than that of the highest possible qualifications would influence the Minister in appointing members of the board under section 8.
It appears to me that subsections (6) and (7) of section 8 deprecate the appointment of politicians to the board and, by and large, I agree with that. Those subsections state that active politicians should not be eligible for appointment or retention on the board. It would be nearly impossible to get people with no political affiliations but it would be wrong to appoint those whose main qualification appears to be that they are supporters of the Government in power.
Both the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Minister objected to references to Bord na gCon. With all due respect, I think references to Bord na gCon are relevant in this discussion because, in relation to the Bill we are now discussing, the most comparable board that has been set up in this country is Bord na gCon. That board has come to be regarded as the preserve of politicians: the first chairman was a former Member of this House, although admittedly he was interested in the greyhound racing industry, and the executives under him were too closely associated with the Government party. Such appointments are calculated to lead people to believe that the best brains are not being used, and that the vital qualification is the political one. If that happens in this board it would be a great mistake.
It is well known or it is said that Bord na gCon have operated on a political basis, that there is serious and objectionable political bias in the appointments and in the administration of that board. If that is so and if people say that, it is hard to blame them when the first chairman of the board walked out of a Government bench in this House and became chairman.
I do not think this is in order. A reference to Bord na gCon is not out of order but to go into detail on the matter is not in order.
(Cavan): I do not want to be disorderly but I think it is relevant to point out that what happened in the case of appointments made to Bord na gCon should not be repeated here and to say why, in my opinion, the appointments of members of Bord na gCon were objectionable.
I repeat that we have in this country unequalled brains, unequalled experience and unequalled traditions in the horse breeding industry which should be availed of, and whatever Minister is in power at the time should go out to select the best possible brains for appointment to this board.
Reference has been made to certain organisations. While I have taken an interest in horse jumping and horse racing and dog breeding and racing I do not hold myself out as an expert but there are well-known organisations in this country in the sphere of horse breeding, horse jumping and horse racing and I feel it would inspire confidence in the operation of this Bill if the Minister were to shed some of the authority for appointing members and hand at least some of that authority over to those organisations who have the experience, the know-how, the knowledge and the skill in the fields covered by this Bill.
I hope I have not been extravagant in anything I have said. I feel very strongly about this and I believe that the Minister, in making these appointments, shall appoint people on merit and on merit alone. In making appointments not alone must they be made on merit but they must appear to be made on merit if they are to give satisfaction and instil confidence. I believe that if the Minister operates section 8 of this Bill as it should be operated he will have done a lot to improve the horse racing and horse jumping industry. On the other hand, if he, or whoever is in his place, just appoints political party hacks to this board he will do nothing but bring the board and its operation into contempt and ridicule.
The section as drafted gives complete freedom to the Minister to appoint a board not exceeding 11. The survey team, as I understand it, at paragraph 33 of their recommendations, recommended a controlling body on which certain named organisations or societies would have representation. The Minister has not indicated any particular reason why that part of the recommendation was not adopted. It could be argued that it is impossible to cover all the organisations or bodies but as I understand this particular recommendation—they refer to the Royal Dublin Society, the Equestrian Federation, the Show Jumping Association of Ireland and some others—the total number, including the Department of Agriculture, that was recommended by the body would have come to nine, according to this report.
Has the Minister considered the desirability of specifically mentioning the major organisations and drawing from them, say, a single representative and then nominating the rest of the board from any appointees he might consider? In that way these major organisations would be represented. The selection of the nominee from the organisations could even, in fact, be left to the Minister but it would ensure that the bodies that had done so much would be represented. Most people recognise that within the limits that were available, financial and otherwise, and realising that in every case, with the possible exception of one or two persons appointed to carry out executive duties, all the members of these bodies gave their services voluntarily, over the years they made a very considerable contribution.
Leaving aside a long-established body like the RDS, to take a more recently established association, the Show Jumping Association, which came together, as it is now known, something over 25 years ago, it undoubtedly raised very considerably the standard of jumping and the standard of fences and regulations and judging and the whole running of shows and gymkhanas throughout the country. By their work they have contributed to a very considerable extent to the growth of interest as well as the numbers participating from the civilian section of the community. So far as this is concerned, we need not take into account the Army Equitation School because it was already there and was part of the structure of the Army, but the provision of facilities such as fences, the recruitment or the arrangement of panels of judges, the improvement in the standard required and generally the organisation and running of shows and gymkhanas throughout the country are due to a great extent to the work of these bodies.
I am not talking of the major shows like the RDS, or Cork, or Limerick, but the general increase in interest and the success of these shows generally is due in great measure to the voluntary work done by members of these bodies, particularly the Show Jumping Association. They have been assisted. Through their own exertions they attracted sponsoring by a number of firms which contributed in no small measure to a general improvement and made the whole exercise financially more attractive. But, without the initiative of these people and without the effort they made, much of the success that has attended show jumping in recent years might never have evolved. The survey team recommended that these bodies should have some representation while, at the same time, continuing to operate as independent units. As the Bill is drafted, this aspect of the recommendation has not been included in the Bill. The Minister might consider amending it in order to give some representation to the major organisations concerned. Such representation would ensure that their voluntary work and their efforts were recognised. It would also ensure their goodwill and co-operation.
The Bill does not for good and sufficient reason refer specifically to any organisation. The survey team did recommend giving representation to some of the organisations. One argument I would advance against the inclusion by name of any organisation is that such inclusion would assume their performance and their willingness to participate as members of their societies. Two organisations have already indicated that they are not willing to serve on the board.
Rural Deputies will be aware that a large sector of the horse industry is totally unorganised and it would be unfair to those in that large sector to allot special places to people who belong to organisations of one kind or another and thrust them into a position of secondary importance simply because they did not belong to organisations. It was pointed out by several speakers on Second Reading that those who are most concerned in producing horses are very small operators indeed. They are commonly people with only one mare. They do not belong to any particular organisation.
The inclusion by name of societies or organisations would also, I think, give rise to unnecessary jealousy. There are a great many of these organisations. If any one which did participate decided at a later stage to withdraw, for some reason or other, the board would be deprived of possibly one or more members. In view of all these arguments it is right, I think, that the Minister should retain the power of selecting the members of the board. He should also be able, if he so desires, to consult with such organisations as he thinks may be of assistance to him in the setting up of the board. It is the Minister's business, and his alone, to see that the board that is selected is the best possible board. If a measure is introduced which compels him to give ex officio places on the board to certain organisations then his power would be inhibited. I do not think it should be done in that way.
When speaking on Second Reading I said that the success or failure of this piece of legislation depended entirely on the quality of the people appointed to this board. The Minister has the job of piloting through this House a piece of legislation for which he himself was not responsible. Consequently, he must do the best he can and he is, I suppose, reluctant midway through to change the Bill or to say that he does not agree with everything that is in the Bill.
I disagree entirely with the case made by the Minister. He says this is an industry which is completely unorganised. I agree with him in that. As Minister for Agriculture and fisheries, it is his job to encourage organisation in every branch of the industry so that, when he appoints someone to the board, that someone will not be speaking for himself but for a group of people engaged in this type of production.
The Minister makes the point that some of these organisations might disappear with the effluxion of time. All things can disappear with the effluxion of time. We have to deal with circumstances as we find them at any given time and we are now proposing to set up a board to run the horse breeding industry, particularly the half-bred industry, and we must, I think, throw the maximum responsibility on those who are engaged in that industry. I am very fearful—I am sure the Minister appreciates this angle—that if the Minister handpicks these people, no matter how good they happen to be, the same faith will not be reposed in them as would be were they appointed by those directly concerned in the industry. We all know the faith that was reposed in one famous—should I say infamous?—body set up by a Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the NAC. It was doomed to failure from the word "go" because the people on it were handpicked. Let me admit straight away that there were some excellent people on that body. There were others who were picked for specific reasons and who could not be expected to give a good performance ever.
The Minister has a responsibility to the organised bodies. All these groups have been listed in the survey team's report and many of them have been doing excellent pioneering work while the Minister's Department was doing the very minimum by way of encouragement to the industry generally. These people have been doing excellent work with very little assistance. They should be given some credit for this, some credit for their experience and for the amount of effort they have put into their work. The suggested recognition is the obvious recognition. I have no doubt but that, when the Minister is selecting his board, he will have regard to these facts and will pick people who have been engaged in these organisations but, unless they are the selections of the organisations themselves, they will be speaking as individuals and not on behalf of their organisations. That I would regard as a major defect and something which must inevitably militate against the success of the board.
The case made here by previous Ministers was: "If I select people I am responsible for them: I have to come in here and answer for them." That is quite so. The Minister must come in and answer for them, but he can always say he could not get better people; they were the best he could get. That is the answer. It is not a good answer. We want these organisations to appreciate that the part they have played over the years is being recognised. We want to encourage all who are interested in this industry to organise and get together.
In all efforts of this kind it is our desire that the people should come together in bigger groups. One might as well say, for instance, that there are large areas in the working population that are not organised. Nevertheless, we recognise the trade unions and consult them before making any particular move and whenever boards are being set up.
Hear, hear.
Invariably, representatives are appointed from these recognised workers' groups who have been working intimately with the particular industry for a number of years.
A very strong case can be made for the recommendations of this survey team. This team was set up because they were regarded as being experts on the industry. They have done a good job and they have produced a good report that has been left lying for far too long. We should recognise the interest and the efforts that they put into the production of their report and we should proceed along the lines they suggested. We must accept that they exercised great care in the preparation of this report and that they had due regard to all the interests and sections of the industry. The importance of this should be borne in mind when appointments to the board are being made. The Minister should say to any one organisation: "Give me three or four names and I will pick one but I will be confined to those three or four" so that these organisations will be represented. This should be carefully considered by the Minister before reaching a decision.
In so far as the organisations are concerned, they should be represented, but I would not go the whole way with Deputy Clinton. The Minister might as well be given the right to nominate members as to be given three or four names from which to choose. That would be putting temptation in his way. We have had experience of this before. If an organisation has the right to nominate they should nominate a certain person and that person should be their representative. Neither do I go the whole way with Deputy Clinton on the question of the trade unions being fully represented because one of the strongest cases against the Minister's attitude in this is what happened with regard to the Agricultural Wages Board, which is also under the aegis of this Department, when we had the famous case of a workers' representative who was working as a builders' labourer in Birmingham. The Minister elected that person and re-elected him for a number of years in spite of the fact that he could not attend meetings or do anything about the question of the wages of farm workers in this country. We have a situation at present where small farmers who have never worked for hire are acting as workers' representatives on the regional boards. Perhaps at the time of re-election the new Minister will take note of this.
I have no hesitation in saying that these people are appointed for political purposes. One may ask what does it matter but it is a question of some fellow being able to say that he was on some national organisation and apparently that is good enough for some of the people who still vote for Fianna Fáil. I do not wish to introduce a note of acrimony into this debate but it would be wrong to have a situation in which the Minister could select from some people who would be recommended to him because we could guess from where the recommendations would come. The people who are at present taking an interest in the industry should be the people to select the representatives. The Minister rightly says that the industry is not a well organised one. I agree with Deputy Clinton in that the way to ensure that the industry is well organised is by arranging that certain organisations already involved in it and doing a good job would have the right to nominate representatives. If they should not nominate the best men at first there would be other opportunities to do so at the times of re-election.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House but I must say that it would be for better if the Minister were to decide to put in a provision to the effect that the organisations representing the industry should at least select a fair number of people for the board. I am sure that the Minister will not assume the post of chairman.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision. Deputies on all sides of the House are anxious that the best possible board be established. We wish for co-operation with people who are already involved in the industry—people who, by their work and voluntary efforts down through the years, have succeeded in sustaining the horse breeding industry. The Minister's argument against the suggestion is a weak argument. He has stated that there are many unorganised sections within the industry and he has mentioned that there are those people who may keep only one mare. I would remind the Minister that the majority of those small farmers are at least members of the NFA or of some other organisation. For that reason, the NFA should be allowed to nominate somebody to the board.
The Minister has spoken of unnecessary jealousies in relation to the nomination of people. I do not see how this could be so if they are grouped together and asked for a nominee but there certainly will be jealousy if the Minister picks one or two people from certain organisations. With all due respect to the Minister, the members of these different organisations know more about the ability of the particular people whom they would nominate than could any Minister of State. Because of the valuable work done by these organisations down through the years the Minister should allow them to appoint half the members.
The survey team did excellent work. In all fairness to the Minister I must say that it is not he who is departing from their recommendations. It was not he who drew up the Bill. We should all like to see a new look in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. For too long, we have had arrogance and a dictatorial attitude in that Department. We should thank the members of those organisations who have done such valuable voluntary work and the Minister, since he is new to the Department, should endeavour to sweep the carpet clean. We remember the little Napoleon we had in the past and his friend who could not stay on his own horse, but both of those have now gone from the political scene. This Bill was drawn up by one of them. Perhaps it was drawn up by both.
The Deputy should stay on the Bill.
It is the same line. Perhaps the new board might teach people how to stay on their horses and not to go too near walls or to hold on to beams. Because of the valuable work done by the various interests involved in the horse breeding industry in the past, I put it to the Minister that if he wishes to have their co-operation in the future and if he wishes to make a success of the board he should give them the authority to nominate at least half the members.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 3:
To delete subsection (1) and to substitute the following:
"The Board shall, at its first meeting and also at every annual meeting, elect one of its members to be chairman of the Board."
If the Deputy agrees, we could take amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together since they form composite proposals.
The section, as drafted, provides that:
The Minister may from time to time as occasion requires appoint a member to the Board to be chairman thereof.
We have had a long debate on the importance of having personnel of a certain standard appointed to the board. Having read the Minister's reply on Second Stage, I have no doubt that he is very conscious of this necessity, but it seems inconsistent that he would not allow people who would be of that standard to appoint their own chairman. Perhaps insulting is too strong a word, but it is what I have in mind. The people who would comprise the board should be allowed to appoint their own chairman.
There is a precedent for this in the Act which deals with the Racing Board. The Racing Board Act provides that the board shall appoint their own chairman and I have not heard any criticism of that system. I would strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment. The other amendments are of course consequential. I do not think there is anything I could say on amendment No. 4 except that the chairman acts for a year and is reappointed at an annual meeting. Casual vacancies within the board will also be appointed by the members of the board and in the event of equality of votes the post of chairman will be filled by drawing lots.
The Minister is dealing with an industry where the personnel as I have already described them are not the most naive section of the community. The very opposite can be said about the people engaged in the horse breeding industry. They are people of very determined mentality. "Ruthless" is too strong a word but certainly they are not sentimental. They are very independent-minded and it could set a wrong tone for the Minister to say who is to be the chairman. If the personnel are right they must elect a proper chairman from among themselves. The Minister has indicated he realises the importance of the personnel being right so it is only logical that having appointed the right personnel he would show initial confidence in them by allowing them to elect their own chairman.
Would the Minister be able to say whether or not the reason he has suggested that the Minister should select the chairman is that he wants to have someone who would have continuity over a number of years and eventually would receive a stipend? It has happened with minor boards that the members are not paid but the chairman receives a certain payment. Is that the idea at the back of it or why should not the members of the board be entitled to elect their own chairman, somebody they would be able to trust and who would have the trust of those working under him? One of the worst possible positions is where the members of a board do not trust the chairman. When I was speaking a few minutes ago I asked about this. The Minister has no idea that he would assume the position of chairman? There is a precedent for that in the board which Deputy Clinton referred to which unfortunately could have done good work but because of the fact the wrong chairman elected himself it fell to pieces and was not able to continue. In the case of the Agricultural Wages Board, the chairman is a quorum. Could the Minister ensure that in this case it would not happen that not alone would you elect a chairman but you would in fact elect a dictator and if a meeting was called the chairman would be a quorum and decisions could be taken in the absence of members? This is the sort of thing which can flow from a handpicked chairman being put in there by a Minister for the purpose of carrying out a job. There would be far more trust in this board if the board had the right to elect their own chairman.
Since the Minister will nominate the members of the board it would appear to me to be logical that he should therefore nominate the chairman also. I simply do not apprehend what Deputies mean when they speak of lack of trust between the chairman and the members of the board. I do not think that, because the chairman would be nominated by the Minister, there would be a likelihood thereafter that an absence of trust between the chairman and the members of the board would arise. I think, too, that the Minister, since he eventually will be responsible for the effectiveness of the board, ought to be entitled to nominate the chairman whom he would think best and the most likely to give the co-operation between him and the chairman that would be absolutely essential for the working of the Bill which is now before the House.
I do not think the arguments that have been advanced are in any way substantial. As I say, since the Minister himself is eventually responsible for the functioning of the board, the Minister should then be entitled to nominate his chairman.
The Minister, in effect, is saying that the chairman should be a conduit pipe between him and this independent board. That is terribly dangerous. If the chairman is there to reflect the Minister's views to the board he is not a chairman in the true sense. That was the impression I got from what the Minister said. The Minister indicated that is the way his mind is running. He has not indicated any reason as to why the board should not be allowed to select their own chairman. He says because he selects the members of the board he should go a step further and select the chairman. He has not dealt with the point I made that the Racing Board, an analogous body, selects their own chairman and there has not been any complaint about the chairing of the meetings of that board.
I only want to make one comment and it is that I also do not consider that the Minister has made any argument against the right of the board to elect their own chairman except the one argument which he did not come right out with but which was at the back of his mind. I interpret the Minister as saying that he wants a chairman to do what he and the Government want done.
On the contrary.
If the Minister did not mean that what did he mean by saying that they might not do what was best? His own words gave the impression that he felt a chairman elected by the other members might in fact do what they consider to be best for the industry but which would not be the point of view adopted by the Minister or the Government of which he is a member. He felt therefore that the person who was acting as chairman should be somebody handpicked by himself, or himself, who would in fact do what the Government wanted done. That is the way the Minister put it across. He has been less than fair to himself if that is not what he meant. I would suggest that we could get more clearly from the Minister what he meant. I have an open mind on this.
I cannot be responsible for the interpretation which Deputy Tully puts on what I said.
Recently I was very glad of that.
It is up to the Minister to consult with groups and individuals which he may consider to be such as would give him good advice in this matter. It is up to the Minister to see that the choice of chairman which he makes will be acceptable to the members of the board.
There is a danger that caucuses will be created within the board.
I do not think so. I do not see all these hidden dangers in this proposal that the Minister should nominate the chairman. I merely rose to see if I could enlighten Deputy Tully on the point which he seems to think I made.
I look on this as an abuse of power by the Minister. The Minister stated he cannot be responsible for what Deputy Tully says or thinks. Surely the Minister should be responsible for what he himself says. The Minister stated that the choice of chairman which he makes should be acceptable to the board. I think it is far from logical that if the Minister nominates the members he should nominate the chairman. If the Minister nominates the members of the board and if he trusts them and has faith in them, if he puts in the proper type of man who is interested in horse breeding, it is more proper to leave it to those people to select their own chairman than it is for the Minister to appoint a political hack who will do his bidding. We have had far too much of this by the Minister's predecessor. Many of the boards have been complete failures in the past. We appeal to the Minister not to adopt the same arrogant, dictatorial attitude as his predecessor adopted in this House in answering questions and in the appointment of boards. Surely if the House has agreed that the Minister will nominate the members and if the Minister has trust and faith in those members and if they are people who have been associated with the horse industry and have built it up it is better for those people to appoint their own chairman.
(Cavan): One of the principal objects of the board to be established under section 8 of this Bill is to advise the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. If advice is to be worthwhile at all it should be independent advice. If advice is to be of any value to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that advice should come from fresh minds and from clear thinking on the problem on which the Minister wishes to be advised. Otherwise the advice will not be worth the paper it will be written on, if given in writing, or the breath used to convey it, if given verbally.
The Minister has successfully resisted the suggestion that members of the board should be nominated by organisations engaged in the horsebreeding, racing or jumping industry on the grounds that it would be unlikely that if he were to accept that nomination a fair cross-section of the industry would be represented because, as he says, there are many small breeders who are not organised and who would not be represented.
The Minister has succeeded by the force of numbers in carrying that argument. If we are to have an independent board that will be at all worthwhile, it should be given some authority. We all know that elected bodies of one sort or another have as their principal function, and their big moment each year, the appointment of their chairman. When a member of an elected council or of a board or a golf club or of a creamery committee attends the annual general meeting he feels on that occasion he has some authority which he is entitled to exercise in choosing the chairman for the year. The Minister, having got his way and being entitled as the Bill stands to appoint 11 members, is not prepared to entrust those 11 members of his own appointment with the function of deciding who will preside over their deliberations. Does the Minister want an independent board to give him worthwhile, independent advice or does he want a creature of his own making? In section 8 subsection (9) the Minister is bringing into existence a creature of his own who will have no independent mind but will be manipulated by ministerial strings. This is very unfortunate.
The Minister made an extraordinary statement when he said it was necessary he should have authority to appoint the chairman because he would be able to ensure that the chairman would be acceptable to the members. This is an extraordinary proposition. I cannot accept it and I do not think any Member of the House can accept it. The fact that the Minister appoints the chairman will only ensure that the chairman will be acceptable to the Minister. If the Minister leaves the appointment of the chairman to the 11 members of the board he will at least ensure that the chairman so elected will be acceptable to six members of that board because it will take a simple majority of the board to elect the chairman. If the Minister appoints the chairman, the chairman might not be acceptable to anybody. So far as the other ten members of the board are concerned he would be the sore thumb, the odd man out, the man who was not acceptable to any of them, who was planted there by the Minister. I do not think that argument will hold water. It cannot stand. If I had my way, and if we were a perfect society and if we could legislate in detail in the House, I would be against ministerial regulations and ministerial boards but I am prepared to concede that in this day and age it is not possible to write everything into a Bill. In the interests of democracy and in the interests of maintaining public interest in the affairs of the country let us give boards which are appointed as much authority as possible. Let them feel they have some say. Here we have, immediately we appoint the board, a situation where we take from them the first function that one might expect the board to perform.
It is not clear from the Bill whether the chairman is to be remunerated or not. I think the balance of probability is that he is not to be remunerated. It says in some other section that the members of the board may be paid expenses. It does not say anything specifically about the chairman.
They have always been paid on other boards.
(Cavan) Section 8 (9) of the Bill says:
A member of the Board or of any committee established by the Board shall be paid, out of the funds at the disposal of the Board, such allowances for expenses as the Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, considers reasonable.
By and large, that confines the thing to payment of expenses but it does not say anything about the chairman. Leaving that out of the argument—I am not making the case that the Minister has a sinister idea in appointing a chairman and later paying him a salary —I am making the case very strongly that if the board are to be worthwhile and if the advice which they give is to be worthwhile they must be a self-respecting board. It must be a board which believes it has some authority and some independence. Whatever independence the board might have under section 8 is taken from it by section 9. One could conceivably have the situation where there were 11 members on the board nine of whom believe that A would be the best possible chairman and possessed the best qualities for chairmanship of the board but because the Minister thought B should be appointed the other nine members would be frustrated. That is fundamentally wrong.
Reference has been made to the National Agricultural Council. I know the Minister cannot appoint himself chairman of the board, but I think the example of the National Agricultural Council, which was set up to advise the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, shows how absurd we can get and how devoid of common sense Ministers can become. The NAC was set up on the advice of the Minister. Who did we then have as chairman of that organisation? We had the Minister himself. I quote that instance merely to show the absurdity to which parliamentary measures can be reduced. I appeal to the Minister, in the name of common sense, to let the members of that board appoint their chairman. Under section 8 the Minister will be able to appoint his 11 men to that board but I appeal to the Minister to let the members appoint their chairman, otherwise he might as well have no board and no chairman.
I am quite satisfied that no matter how long we argue and no matter how good a case we make the Minister has made up his mind, like his predecessor, that not a single line in this Bill will be changed and not a single amendment will be accepted by him. I have seen this attitude ever since I first came into this House. I cannot ever remember one amendment being accepted by a Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
The first argument put forward by the Minister in opposing the amendment put down by Deputy Cooney is that since he has decided to hand pick every single member of this board it would be totally illogical for him not to hand pick the chairman. If the Minister does what we consider wrong in the first instance he must be consistent and do the wrong thing in the second instance. The second argument he makes is that since he is responsible for the performance of this board it is right he should hand pick the most important man, namely, the chairman. This attitude arises from a complete misconception of his responsibility as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. We are all familiar with the misconception that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries must be a dictator. I do not share that view. The Minister's responsibility is to provide the conditions under which producers can organise and run their own business. It is not his responsibility to act as dictator. It is obvious the Minister wants to dictate policy from the top through the chairman of this new board. The Minister wants to be able to tell the chairman what he wants. There is no doubt that at some stage this position will be a big or a small plum. I am not against giving a reasonable allowance to a chairman who is going to put a lot of work into the organisation. In fact, I think it is right he should get an allowance because if he does not get an allowance the selection is confined to a certain number of people who can afford to give up their time to take up that office and, as everyone knows, time is money nowadays.
I have no doubt that this is going to be a plum. I have no doubt if the Minister persists with his present attitude it is going to be a hand-out as well. We want to resist this and it is for this reason Deputy Cooney put down this amendment. It is quite obvious from the Minister's attitude that we are going to have a continuation of the attitude to which we have become so accustomed from Ministers for Agriculture in the past.
I cannot understand why the Minister will not agree to allow these 11 individuals to select their chairman. The figure 11 seems to be cropping up frequently these days. I do hope those 11 have not the same powers as another 11 individuals may have in the Government party.
. The amendment.
We are all anxious to help and co-operate with the Minister but the Minister seems intent on digging in his heels. Surely Fianna Fáil do not claim to have a monopoly of the brains of this country. They may have a monopoly of the arms in the country at the present time but they certainly have not a monopoly of the brains. The Minister should yield to the pressure being brought to bear on him from this side of the House and agree to the very fair amendment which has been put down here by Deputy Cooney.
When Deputy Haughey—who does not know as much about horses as he thought he did—set up this body he told them that he wanted them to approach their task in a bold and imaginative way. We want the Minister to approach the task before him now in the same way. The setting-up of an important board depends largely on the chairman. We do not want to see this board tainted with politics, as we know it will undoubtedly be if it L'Estrange because he revealed a is left in the Minister's hands. The Minister has authority from this House to select the 11 members of the board but we feel they are entitled to select their chairman. We do not want the Minister's puppet on a string in this situation. The new Minister should forget politics and forget the political touts who are waiting in the byways to be given a job at £1,000 a year not because of their loyal service to the horse-breeding industry but because of their loyal service to the Fianna Fáil Party.
We want to see an end to that kind of thing in this country because that is not what the men of 1916 died for; they spoke about cherishing all the children of this nation equally. Deputy Haughey told those members that if we want to develop we must be as enterprising as possible within the limits dictated by the circumstances of any given situation. We want the Minister to be as enterprising as possible and breakaway from the precedent set by his predecessor. If the Minister has faith in the members he is going to appoint to this board he should allow them to select their chairman. Certainly the chairman should not be a puppet of the Minister or the Government.
I am very disappointed that the Minister will not accept this amendment, because I think it is a most reasonable one. I am astonished at the trivial reasons which the Minister has produced for refusing to accept it.
For the third time I want to mention the position of the Racing Board which is analogous to this board and whose chairman is elected by the members of the board. Apparently, that has not caused any dissatisfaction to the Minister's colleague in Finance. So far as we know he has not been worried by the conduct of the chairman of the Racing Board nor have the members of the Racing Board ever indicated that they are dissatisfied with their own chairman. If they are, they have power to remove him. That is not possible in this case.
The Minister being human, can err like anybody else—I am sure he choice that would be unfortunate from the point of view of members of the board. The chairman might have an abrasive personality, might lack diplomacy, might be unaware of procedure or of the finer points of the industry. I have no doubt the Minister will set out to appoint a suitable person but the Minister is human and might err. If the Minister did err in making his appointment, the chairman's faults would be apparent, not to the Minister but to the members of the board who would not be in a position to remove the chairman. The efficacy and efficiency of the board would be highly impaired. I would ask the Minister to indicate if the experience of the Racing Board is so unsatisfactory in regard to the appointment of a chairman that he has found it necessary to draft this Bill as it stands and set his face so firmly against this amendment.
I am disappointed that the Minister would not accept an amendment that is reasonable on its face and when subjected to examination must be seen to be reasonable. The amendment cannot take from the efficacy of the board or diminish the Minister's powers vis-à-vis the board because, obviously, it is an independent board to which the Minister will not attempt to dictate. He has even said that. I can see no reason, beyond the warped logic of the Minister, why, having appointed the members, he should then appoint the chairman. He has given us no reason of substance as to why he will not allow the members of the board, adult, mature men dealing with a very important industry, to appoint their own chairman.
There are many examples of boards where this does not apply. The one that comes immediately to mind is An Bord Bainne which has a nominated chairman. Deputy Cooney seeks to suggest that I have found something wrong with the Racing Board because that does not happen there. This does not follow. What all the opposition speakers have failed to demonstrate is that the way suggested in the Bill is not a perfectly reasonable and tried method of procedure. In an odd way the House should be thankful to Deputy will admit that—and could make a certain type of opposition thinking. He spoke of puppets on a string and Fianna Fáil touts and made the usual type of L'Estrange contribution——
I am sure the Minister meant Deputy L'Estrange.
I beg your pardon. I thought I said "Deputy".
I was not a double agent, anyhow.
It reveals the underlying suspicion and readiness to believe before anything is done that the wrong thing will be done and that there will be puppets on strings and political touts. If the Deputy were logical and pursued his earlier argument that the board will consist of touts and political hatchet men, I do not know how he could proceed from there to suggest that these touts and hatchet men should then elect from their number a chairman. If his first argument is tenable the least the Minister could do is to try to put some semblance of respectability on this board of touts and puppets and hold on to the appointment of the chairman and see if he could get at least one person who would have some degree of reliability.
(Cavan) As an Opposition we have a duty to deal seriously with this matter and in detail. I have said, and I repeat, that legislation by regulation or through boards, if it can be avoided, is undesirable and, where it cannot be avoided, the Minister piloting such legislation through this House should show the greatest consideration for arguments put forward by the Opposition. This is not a political Bill. It is a Bill in which the Minister virtually asks for a blank cheque and in such a case any Minister in a democracy should endeavour to meet reasonable suggestions for the improvement of the blank cheque which he seeks.
Here we have a non-political measure dealing with a most important industry in the country and one of the most important sections of that industry, being steamrolled through the House by the Minister who will not listen to anything. I hope I am not being unreasonable when I say I find it rather unreasonable when Ministers of the Government wax indignant and eloquent when anybody from this side of the House approaches with suspicion anything they are doing. In the broad daylight of this Parliament I make no apology for asking, in the full realisation of what I am saying, could anybody be blamed for being suspicious of anything that any member of the present Government would put forward or suggest?
Or do?
(Cavan): Am I being unreasonable under existing circumstances, in asking that question in the light of recent events? Yet, several times within the last three weeks, I have heard the Taoiseach saying “Will you not take my word?”
The Chair must point out that we are getting into a general discussion rather than discussion of the amendment.
(Cavan): I am dealing with an amendment which suggests that the appointment of a chairman should be given to the board and taken away from the Minister and I am dealing with the fact that the Minister complains when any finger of suspicion is pointed at him or at the Government. I am saying that we are entitled to be suspicious and cannot be blamed for being suspicious. I do not think that the humblest or the most exaulted citizen would blame anybody at present for being suspicious of the Government or any member of it.
The Chair must point out to the Deputy that we are getting away from the amendment before the House.
(Cavan) I consider that I have sufficiently dealt with that point. This Bill was drafted and was introduced in this House on 8th April last by a Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who streamrolled through this House the Livestock Marts Bill which was subsequently held to be unconstitutional.
The Chair cannot permit a general discussion like this on the amendments before the House.
(Cavan): The Bill gives a blank cheque to the Minister. If I cannot criticise the Minister in regard to the performance of previous functions, I cannot adequately deal with the amendment or put forward the arguments I wish to make against it.
The two amendments before the House are specific. They deal with the appointment of a chairman.
(Cavan): one amendment, with all due respect to you, Sir, is that the chairman shall be appointed by the board rather than by the Minister. I am advancing to you in this House the arguments for the chairman being appointed by the board and not by the Minister.
The Chair is prepared to listen to arguments on that basis but not on the basis of a general discussion.
(Cavan): I am giving the reasons why I cannot trust the sentiments behind this proposal: because the Bill was introduced by a man who piloted through the House the Livestock Marts Bill, which was held to be unconstitutional, because it was introduced by a man who suggested that the best type of National Agricultural Council was the one provided by him and which turned out to be a fiasco, and because it is a Bill which was proposed by a Minister who is not now a member of the Government and who did not resign from that position.
Before the House there is a section to which these two amendments have been moved. The amendments are specific and the Chair is not concerned as to who introduced the Bill. If there is a general discussion then we are getting away from the amendments.
(Cavan): I believe I am relevant in arguing that the chairman of this board should be appointed by the members of the board and not by the Minister, because I would not trust a Minister for Agriculture of the present Government to appoint the best man. If I am to develop that argument I have to discuss Ministers for Agriculture; otherwise I might as well sit down. The Minister has brought this type of discussion on himself because he introduced this Bill to the House and will not yield an inch to anything. He will not listen to the arguments of Deputy Cooney who himself and whose people before him are steeped in the horse breeding industry and who has long and valuable experience in it. Does the Long Title of the Bill not recite that the function of the board shall be to advise the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries? If that advice is to be worthwhile it should be independent advice. We tried here for a considerable time in your absence, Sir, to get the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to agree that at least some of the 11 members should represent organisations experienced in the horse breeding industry. The Minister could not see his way to accept that suggestion because he thought that certain regions or sections of the country might not be represented if appointments were confined to any large extent to direct nomination by organisations associated with horse breeding, jumping or racing. He scored there by virtue of numbers, as far as we know.
Now it comes to the appointment of the chairman, and I have been making the case that if this board is to give any worthwhile advice to the Minister it should be independent advice. Independent advice can be given only by a self-respecting board, and I fail to see how a board can maintain their self-respect if they are to be disfranchised, if they are to be deprived of the most elementary function that any committee, elected or nominated, business, political or cultural, can have, that is, the right to appoint their own chairman. The principle of the Bill has been accepted after a Second Reading debate. We are now in Committee and if the Minister does not agree to have second thoughts on this it is obvious that for one reason or another he is not prepared to listen to reason; he is not prepared to improve the Bill.
Could it be that he does not want to let down or appear to let down or to embarrass the man he is succeeding? If that is his attitude on this it is not a worthy one. It is a matter that we in this House must take into consideration at this time. It might be different if we were reassembled after a general election, but in the conditions prevailing here I apologise to no one either inside or outside this House for being critical, for being suspicious and for fine-combing and delving into every measure that is brought into this House by any member of the present Government.
I want to add my support to the arguments put forward from this side of the House on Deputy Cooney's amendment, which is a reasonable one. Speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill I made the point that the success or failure of Bord na gCapall will depend on the board to be appointed. The Minister has power to appoint a member of the board and I cannot see why the ordinary democratic process could not operate whereby the members of the board would have the power and the right to elect their own chairman. I am in favour of this amendment because I believe it would lead to a much more effective board. It would lead to greater harmony and co-operation.
Another factor is that the chairman of the board will have a very important function, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, to act in an advisory capacity. If the chairman is appointed by the Minister then it will be difficult for him, human nature being what it is, to offer totally objective and independent advice to the Minister. On the other hand, if the chairman is appointed by the members of the board he will be in a much stronger position to offer objective advice to the Minister, which I believe is necessary for the efficient working of the board. I appeal to the Minister to consider the arguments that have been put forward in favour of the amendments. I am satisfied that if the Minister accepts these amendments he will be doing a good job and taking a major step forward in ensuring that the board will work efficiently.
The Minister has given a real slap in the face to the body who issued this report. The survey team met on many occasions at their own expense and they recommended that the members of the board should elect a chairman from within their own number. They also suggested that it would be desirable that the directors should be unpaid, voluntary workers. There is a report from dedicated men who knew what they were talking about, who during the years had given their services free— men who were prepared to co-operate with the Government and the Minister in an unpaid capacity and who continued to work in the interests of the horsebreeding industry.
I wonder is there any reason at all left in the Minister? Everybody seems to be out of step but our Jim. I think it was Carson who said: "Not an inch." We would expect more co-operation from the Minister. He is filling the shoes of an arrogant man and he should not continue in the same arrogant, dictatorial manner.
The Minister has stated that there are many examples of the Government or the Minister appointing chairmen of boards. We know there are many examples, too many examples. You have Fianna Fáil touts appointed not because they have knowledge of the industry but because this was another plum for the boys. That is what we want to get away from. The Minister mentioned the chairman of Bord Bainne. That is anything but a fair comparison. He is a State official who is paid £5,000 or £6,000. Of course, he is another good Fianna Fáil appointee.
The Deputy must not criticise in the House in this fashion people who are not here to defend themselves.
I was in error when I mentioned the chairman of Bord Bainne. That Fianna Fáil hack, as the Deputy described him, is elected.
(Cavan): On a point of order, it seems to be very difficult effectively to argue this amendment if we are to be precluded from discussing paid appointments made in similar circumstances and conditions. I know of the golden rule that you must not discuss anybody in the House who is not in the House, but it is possible to make effective argument impossible——
The Deputy equally will appreciate the position that on an amendment such as that before the House previous legislation cannot be discussed at this stage. We cannot have a general discussion on legislation or on the records of previous Ministers. These matters are not before the House.
(Cavan): The net point here is whether this chairman is to be appointed by the board members or by the Minister. I argue that it would be highly relevant if I can point out, or if any other Member can point out, that on previous occasions when similar power was vested in a Minister he exercised bad judgment—I use that terminology so as not to offend anybody—in making that appointment and that the appointment would have been much better left in the hands of the board. If we cannot argue along those lines we might as well go home.
The Chair has allowed the Deputy, or any other Deputy, to air his suspicions, but the Chair cannot allow a general discussion on these suspicions in relation to a specific amendment to a specific Bill.
We are all anxious to have the best possible board elected in the interests of the horse industry and in the interests of those concerned with breeding, training and exporting horses. However, if the board are to be successful they must have a chairman in whom the board have faith and trust; there must be a chairman in whom those engaged in this industry have faith and trust. The Minister wants to ensure that he will have a political tout, a puppet on a string, responsible to nobody but to the Minister. If there is any reason in the Minister he will allow his own 11 nominees to appoint a chairman. The Minister is the last man in the House who should talk about suspicion. It is said that suspicion haunts the guilty mind. They are annoyed when we tell them the truth.
Is the Minister now suspicious of the people he is about to appoint on the board? Is he so suspicious of them that he is not prepared to allow them to elect their chairman, or have things become so bad among Fianna Fáil and their supporters that they cannot trust each other?
(Cavan): The Taoiseach said the other day that he cannot be sure of anybody.
It is not unparalleled treachery to allow those 11 Ministerial nominees to appoint a chairman from among them. They have been vetted and vetoed by local cumainn and appointed by the Minister to the board. Surely the Minister is not so suspicious, or is the word "suspicion" going through his mind all the time to such an extent that he cannot allow those 11 men to come together and elect a chairman? The Minister spoke about my imputing corruption. Unfortunately, it would be much better if I were not correct. I am sorry that so many of the things I have said during the past six months have been proved right.
Would the Deputy keep to the amendment before the House?
The Minister need not talk about suspicion.
The Deputy must keep to the amendment.
The Minister still has not dealt with the point I made about the Racing Board. I suppose one can imply that he is satisfied with the system because he did not make any allegation against it. The Racing Board constitute a better analogy than Bord Bainne. Then, if this system works for the Racing Board, where the same type of work is being done by men of similar qualifications, why will he not allow the same system to operate in respect of the board we are now appointing? The team who made the survey and issued the report by common agreement very thoroughly investigated the industry and recommended that this board should elect their chairman from among their own number. If the Minister has accepted so much of their report—this Bill is entirely made up from their recommendations—why will he not accept this point and allow the board to elect their chairman?
I cannot understand the Minister's refusal. If it is a point of principle to concede nothing, then that is an empty and barren principle. The Minister has said nothing which suggests that that is the reason. The thinking behind this piece of legislation seems to be that a Bill as drafted, representing the initial ideas of a Minister, is from that moment sacrosanct because no sensible reason has been given by the Minister for his refusal to accept the amendment. I have been trying to search in the Minister's replies for some reason which would show that it would be a matter of commonsense; which would show that the board appointing their own chairman would mean that the board would not work efficiently, or would disagree over the appointment, or that they would appoint a chairman who would not know his business—that it is something like that which influences the Minister in thinking that the work of the board would be impaired and that is why he is so steadfast in his refusal to accept the amendment.
I should like the Minister to say if he is satisfied with or if he has heard any complaint about the working of the Racing Board. This is the most apt comparison we have. That board deals with horses and the people connected with the industry and I cannot see why if the system has worked there it would not work equally well with this board. The Minister has given us no reasons to show that what we suggest might impair the efficiency of the board and therefore he cannot blame us for becoming suspicious about why he wants to covet this power to himself.
It is perfectly relevant that we should examine his motives and his reasons. The first thing we must consider is who introduced this Bill. It was the Minister's predecessor and I understand from my colleagues that his attitude to any Bill which he introduced was that not a single comma would be changed and that it would have to be steamrolled through. One possible explanation is that this Minister feels he owes it to his predecessor to continue with that mentality. It is not a very convincing explanation but the Minister has not given us any convincing explanation and he cannot blame us if in seeking an explanation we find explanations that are not convincing.
Another explanation put to me by my colleagues, and to which when it was first put up I was inclined not to give much weight, was that for political reasons or for some other improper reasons the Minister wanted to retain this power. The Minister can tell us that there is no such reason for wanting to retain this power but if he wants us to believe that he must give us bona fide commonsense reasons. To my mind, all the arguments are in favour of this board appointing their own chairman. The board will be composed of sensible men, experts in their own field, to look after a very important industry and to be appointed after the recommendations of a survey team. That that board should not be capable of appointing their own chairman is beyond comprehension. It is beyond comprehension that the Minister should want to take away this elementary function. As I said before, this industry is run by hard-headed business people and the Minister could very easily cause antagonism in the industry by keeping this power to himself. The Minister should be very careful to ensure that no action of his would set this new departure in the horse breeding industry off on the wrong foot. I am very much afraid that if he persists in this attitude he could set the board off on the wrong foot and annoy the members. The people in this industry are very independent minded people and, by and large, a tough bunch of people; and the Minister is taking a grave risk in showing such a lack of faith and trust in the body he is setting up to control this industry.
The Minister has denied my suggestion that the chairman would be merely a conduit pipe between himself and the board to reflect his views to the board. I have not heard any reason from the Minister which would justify his attitude to this amendment. I am anxious to hear him deal with why something which is acceptable in the structure of the Racing Board is not acceptable in Bord na gCapall.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present.
We gave the Minister an opportunity to explain why he is refusing to accept this amendment. The arguments that have been put up by speakers on this side of the House are overwhelming. The survey team recommended that the board select their own chairman; we on this side of the House have also made this recommendation and we believe it is a fair recommendation. We cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment. If it is not a plum for the boys, for some of those Tacateers or others who have subscribed to the party down through the years, then why would the Minister not say that it is not his intention to appoint a Fianna Fáil man for this important position, that it is not his intention to appoint a puppet on a string? Will the Minister say it is his intention to allow the board to appoint as chairman a person who, throughout the years, has been interested in fostering and building up the horse industry?
Mention has already been made here of a man whom the Taoiseach would not allow to stand for the Fianna Fáil Party and who shortly afterwards was appointed director of a State company and the Taoiseach said they could not get a better man. We should get rid of the "plums for the boys" attitude. The fact that the Minister is acting in the same arrogant and dictatorial manner as his predecessor, adopting Carson's attitude of "not an inch", is proof that this post has already been promised to "one of the boys." The Minister is not compelled to behave as his predecessor did. He was arrogant and we see where he is today.
The Chair has already ruled the Deputy should keep to the amendment and not refer to previous holders of offices.
Can the Minister give one good reason why he wants to retain this prerogative of appointing the chairman? According to section 8 the Minister appoints the members of the board. The survey team established by the Minister recommended, after lengthy deliberation, that the members of the board should represent the various organisations. Many people in those organisations have done sterling work for the horse industry, very often at financial loss to themselves. For example, there are excellent horse shows held in Mullingar and Athlone and much of the work is done voluntarily by local people who are interested both in the horses and in helping their town.
The survey team consulted with the following organisations: All Ireland Polo Club; The Bloodstock Breeders' and Horse Owners' Association of Ireland; Bord Fáilte; BBA (Ireland) Limited; British Equine Veterinary Association; Connemara Pony Breeders' Society; Córas Iompair Éireann; Córas Tráchtála Teo; County committees of agriculture of the following counties: Carlow, Cavan, Clare, Donegal, Dublin, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Louth, Meath, Offaly, Sligo, Tipperary N.R., Waterford, Westmeath, and Wicklow.
The survey team further consulted with the Curragh Stud Farmers' Association; Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; Department of Defence; Department of Finance/ Revenue Commissioners; Department of Transport and Power; An Foras Talúntais; Messrs. R.J. Goff and Co. Ltd; The Hunters' Improvement and National Light Horse Breeding Society; Irish Masters of Foxhounds Association; Irish National Stud Company, Limited; Irish Olympic Horse Society; Irish Pony Club Advisory Board; Irish Show Pony Society; Irish Shows Association; National Farmers' Association. Although the Minister stated that they had not an organisation to represent them, I claim that the NFA represent many, if not all, farmers who breed horses and this board will have jurisdiction over them.
The survey team also consulted with the Racing Board; the Royal Dublin Society; the Show jumping Association of Ireland; Stallion Owners' Association of Southern Ireland; Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau (U.S.A.); University of Dublin, Trinity College; University College, Dublin, and the Veterinary Council of Ireland. All those organisations have a thorough knowledge of the industry and have done much to help it.
After consulting all the organisations, the survey team submitted their recommendations regarding the setting up of the board. They recommended that the members of the board should elect the chairman from within their own number. It must be stated that the people on the survey team acted in a voluntary capacity; they were not speculators, Tacateers; they were not interested in working for gain. They further recommended that in the team's view it was desirable that the directors of the new body, including the chairman, should be unpaid voluntary workers. We have here a group of men who performed voluntary work recommending to the Minister that the chairman should be selected from the members of the board and should be an unpaid voluntary workers. In this materialistic age there are very few people inclined to do voluntary work; all want to get as much as possible with the minimum of effort. We should, therefore, be properly appreciative of the contributions made by the survey team and by people in the organisations connected with this industry.
From the beginning our party have said we did not want politics to come into this matter and we were prepared to co-operate fully with the Minister in seeing that a first-class board was set up. We wanted a board of men of integrity who would act in the best interests of the nation. We argued that the various organisations should nominate the members but the Minister would not accept that. Now it is agreed that the Minister himself will nominate the members of the board but we find that, even with this power, the Minister is so suspicious that he cannot trust his own nominees to elect the chairman he wants.
Is that not the position? The Minister has the power to nominate the members. He may, if necessary, consult those bodies. He may consult the bodies that down through the years have done this excellent voluntary work. In any case he appoints the 11 members. Now he tells us, after getting authority from this House to appoint the 11 members, that he is so suspicious of the 11 members that he will not allow them to appoint a chairman.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.