Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1970

Vol. 247 No. 6

Horse Industry Bill, 1970: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete subsection (1) and to substitute the following:

"(1) The Board shall, at its first meeting and also at every annual meeting, elect one of its members to be chairman of the Board."

—(Deputy Cooney.)

Mr. Cosgrave

The purpose of this amendment is to allow Bord na gCapall to elect its own chairman. The suggestion in the amendment is reasonable, more especially when account is taken of the similarity between the terms of this Bill and those of the Racing Board Act of 1945. In that Act the board is entitled to elect its own chairman from among its own members. There does not appear to be any reason for the different procedure adopted in this legislation and the procedure which has operated since the establishment of the Racing Board in 1945.

This new post is not a whole-time position and the person appointed will not receive any remuneration. It is difficult to see what policy applied in the drafting of the legislation or to avoid the conclusion that it has been drafted on an ad hoc basis and a uniform procedure is not in operation. In respect of Bord na gCon the chairman is appointed by the Minister and the same is true regarding the National Stud Act. In regard to the legislation now under consideration a Member of either House of the Oireachtas is disqualified from membership. That does not apply in respect of the National Stud Act nor of the Racing Board Act and in two specific cases a Member of this House and also a Member of the Seanad served on those boards.

I strongly support the views advocated by Deputy Cooney and others, particularly in a case such as this where the person is not a full-time officer and where the chairman does not receive any remuneration. This proposal has evolved on lines somewhat similar to those on which legislation for the Racing Board was drafted. On an earlier section the Minister argued that certain bodies might not continue in existence. The same is true of any voluntary body but, in so far as the post of chairman is concerned, it is a reasonable arrangement that the members of this board should elect a chairman each year from among their members. When the legislation appears to conflict in some respects and to accord in other respects with previous legislation it is difficult to understand the precise policy adopted. If there was a uniform scheme of legislation applicable to similar boards one could understand it, but in the cases I have mentioned there is no uniformity and no principle, merely ad hoc preparation of legislation. The number on this board is the same as that on the Racing Board and it is reasonable to assume that the same procedure might be adopted.

Mr. L'Estrange

This is a most important board and its success depends on the co-operation of many people. It depends very much on those who are engaged in the horse breeding industry, in show jumping and so on. Our party are prepared to co-operate in every way with the Minister. However, the Minister was like the Rock of Cashel last night: he was not prepared to give way on any point. The Minister's predecessor was a very arrogant and dictatorial person and I would appeal to the Minister to be more co-operative.

The amendment put down by Deputy Cooney is a very reasonable amendment. It is one which any reasonable Minister should accept. On page 21 of the report the survey team stated that the board of directors should be constituted of the bodies mentioned in paragraph 33 and that the members of the board should elect the chairman from within their own members. We had a long argument last night about rights and we appealed to the Minister to allow these bodies to nominate the members. The Minister advanced a very poor argument, but he had his way. He would not agree to any of these bodies. Despite what they have done in the past the Minister was not prepared to allow any of these bodies to nominate members to this board. He said he was the Minister in charge and he would perform this function.

Under section 8 he has the right to appoint this board of 11 members. It is a little peculiar to discover now that, having appointed the 11 members, the Minister is so suspicious of his own appointees he is not prepared to allow the board to come together and select their own chairman from among the 11 members. We are bound to be suspicious about this because we know what happened in the past. We know that too many political touts were appointed chairmen and directors of different boards and semi-State bodies. When Deputy Haughey, as Minister for Agriculture, appointed this survey team he asked the members to approach their task in a bold and imaginative way. We would appeal to the Minister now to approach this matter in the same way. The arguments the Minister advanced last night were very, very poor indeed. At column 200 of volume 247 of the Official Report the Minister, in his speech introducing this Bill, said:

It will be evident that the board will have a very onerous job to do. Only men with outstanding qualities could hope to do it.

Those are the Minister's own words. I agree with the Minister that they will have a very onerous, and important, job to do and, from that point of view, he should select only those people with vast experience of the horse breeding industry. Only men with outstanding qualities could hope to do the work: I take it the Minister intends to remain true to his own statement and that he will appoint only people with outstanding qualities. If he appoints only those with outstanding qualities, can the Minister give us one good reason why he could not allow these 11 people of outstanding qualities to sit down and select their own chairman? As was pointed out here last night, even if it goes to a vote and six vote for A and five vote for B, we will at least know that six members of the board have confidence in their chairman. Despite the fact that these will be men of outstanding qualities, according to the Minister now he cannot trust them but, if the Minister appoints the chairman, there is no certainty that even one member of the board will have any confidence in him. He may be the Minister's stooge.

I would appeal to the Minister, even at this late hour, to reconsider his decision or else give us one good reason why he has to be so obstinate. The survey team made this recommendation. They also recommended that the members be not paid. Every Deputy here wants to help the Minister. Every Deputy here wants to see a board in which the people will have confidence and in which those engaged in breeding, show jumping, and everything else, will have confidence. We want the board to elect a chairman in whom all can have confidence. We do not want the office of chairman, as has happened so often in the past, treated as a plum for some Fianna Fáil supporter. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. Keating

I support Deputy Cooney's amendment. It relates to the nomination of the chairman as distinct from the nomination of the entire board. Many of the arguments put forward last night in regard to the board operate equally in this case. Though, superfically, it is not a central political issue, it raises the absolutely fundamental question of the nature of democracy and the way in which democracy is involved in development. We have become accustomed to think of democracy simply as meaning elections to local councils, elections to Parliament, and then, by certain historically evolved mechanism, Parliament chooses Minister with executive power, but the whole trend of development over much of this century in some places, and in the last quarter of a century in this country, has been that democracy means vastly more than that and, in fact, elective processes and processes connected with the devolution of power now exist in all organs of the State. From the Labour Party point of view we want to see this, for example, in relation to the universities, schools, the civil service, factories and so on. The whole concept of democracy is that in which the participants have the right to decide who shall be their spokesmen and these spokesmen, when chosen, have the right to choose their own chairman and their own senior officers. In an odd way, it is on a seemingly, not trivial, but off-the-main line sort of Bill, as this Bill is, that this central issue comes up.

I do not want to take up the time of the House reciting the inadequacies of some of the personnel of boards related either to the Minister's own Department or to other Departments. Probably the incidence of boards filled with people totally without qualifications and as a result of considerations other than technical expertise is rather lower than is generally believed. Very often though there have been flagrant and scandalous examples which have brought the whole system into disrepute. The Minister should set an example in this case at a time when all sorts of institutions are becoming more open and more democratic; he should set an example in the devolution of power.

I feel that the bodies with specialist interest in this case ought to have the right—although this is not directly the subject of the amendment-to nominate to the board and, having done so, then to elect to the board. I understand that the Minister has ruled this out as being impossible. Since my contribution on the discussion on the main part of this Bill, as a result of talking to someone in a specialist agency, something has emerged that had not occurred to me, quite an important thing, in regard to the inspection and licensing of riding schools which would be extended to the inspection and licensing of pony-trekking organisations and also of the holiday caravan organisations which——

An Ceann Comhirle

This amendment deals with the appointment of a chairman.

Mr. Keating

I was giving this as an instance of a case where the special point of view and the special knowledge of a specialist body—in this case, an animal welfare society—was able to bring out something of profound importance. I feel that, if one is to pick the best person from each of these specialist bodies, the people to choose the best person are surely the persons in closest contact. I say this as someone associated with a number of specialist bodies in the agricultural industry and in the veterinary profession and also in university teaching. The relationship between senior civil servants and specialist bodies is rather odd.

Senior civil servants frequently are inclined naturally to gravitate, in their contacts with members of specialist organisations and with members of professions, to the most generally conservative and "orthodox" reliable people that are to be found. One does not blame because one understands the motives. We are at a time in this industry—as is the case in many other industries—when the powers of vision, courage, innovation, of taking a fresh view, are precisely the qualities needed. These are not the people likely to commend themselves to the political consideration of a Minister in nomination or to commend themselves to the consideration of senior civil servants making recommendations to a Minister.

I am absolutely convinced that if we are to get boards of this sort, specifically this particular board, to work as efficiently as possible, and to draw on all the powers of innovation in the country, then we must trust them. We must allow them to make their own decisions in regard to personnel. We must make arrangements for the possibilities that some innovators, some unorthodox people, some people with a courageous new vision, the sort of people who are continuously troublesome to civil servants but nonetheless who are the salt of the earth in terms of changing the ways in which things traditionally have been done will find their way not just to the board but that there will be the possibility of their being elected to the chairmanship of that board.

Even if we grant that the Minister is in a position, through the specialist advice emanating from two sources, (1) political and (2) the public service, to select the people in the whole country best suited to discharge this very important task—I do not grant him that but, for the purpose of making the present point, I want to consider it as if it were so——

An Ceann Comhairle

This should have been discussed on section 8. The Deputy is continuing the subject of section 8. The amendment before the House concerns the appointment of a chairman by the board. The qualifications of the board at this point do not arise.

Mr. Keating

I submit that the relevance of what I have said will emerge in the next sentence. The persons in question would be persons of considerable intellectual talents, of considerable vigour, of considerable individuality and with a considerable sense of their own worth. Does one seriously expect that these people will work with the greatest efficiency and harmony under a chairman whom they have not been permitted to select? If you were doing this with very young and inexperienced people—because, traditionally, we treat the young as if they did not have enough wit to make their own decisions—it might conceivably work. However, to treat people of the eminence of those who ought to be selected for this board as if they were not capable of deciding among themselves who best among them should be the chairman is to set out by indicating a lack of confidence in them and is in fact guaranteeing that the board will function with less efficiency, harmony and vigour than it ought to do. This is to guarantee that the energies of these eminent people, the responsibilities of the board and the public finances, the expenditure of which will be involved in the work of the board, will function with far less efficiency, innovation and vigour than ought to be the case.

This is not a frivolous amendment. It relates, in the first place, to the basic democratic devolution that is occurring in all the institutions of our society and, secondly, it is fundamental to ensuring that when a group of people is brought together and made responsible for important areas of public decision and the expenditure of public funds it be done in a way in which they can do their task with the greatest possible vigour and efficiency and, indeed, in a situation where they may innovate.

In the horse industry, as in every industry, the constant and ever-pressing problem concerns change: it is an industry which is changing very rapidly. The requirement is not one of maintaining the status quo. The requirement is of having a chairman with a sense of his own authority, with the courage, vigour, trust and support of his colleagues on the board; that he will, in fact, even at the risk of getting into conflict with some of the senior civil servants in his Department, have the courage to force through progressive measures when they are necessary. It is perfectly natural that senior civil servants, in advising a Minister in a context such as this, would opt for a quiet life. To the extent that they have chosen the public service, they opted for a quiet life earlier in their career. I do not say that as a criticism.

One of the primary objectives in the public service is to avoid trouble. In a matter of this sort, there is no way of avoiding trouble, if we want the sort of person as chairman who will be prepared to fight his corner, even if it leads him into conflict with the Minister and some of the senior people in the Department of Agriculture. We want a man who is his own man; who is courageous, vigorous and who enjoys the support of his colleagues. You were much more likely to get that person had the previous amendment been accepted. But, even if it has not been accepted, if we want a chairman who is a real person and his own man then we are much more likely to get him strong through enjoying the confidence of his peers on the board if he knows he is their choice and not a ministerial nominee. I shall await the Minister's reply with interest.

It is very difficult to see that a Minister can give any rational and serious answers to the arguments put forward in favour of this amendment other than simply to say: "I have the power to do so; I have the votes behind me to do so; I will it so; it shall be so." There is no argument in reason, in justice, in commonsense, in equity or in the most efficient possible working of the board for doing it. Therefore, I urge very strongly that the Minister should listen to the seriously-intended suggestion in this proposal that he should, in his strength, see fit to make an alteration in the direction of the suggestion that has come from across the House.

Mr. Clinton

The most objectionable and the most disappointing aspect of the Minister's attitude to this amendment is that it represents a continuation of the dictatorial attitude that this House and the country have had to stand from Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries for far too long.

Mr. L'Estrange

Hear, hear.

Mr. Clinton

I dealt with this last night as well as I could and I intend to go a little further today. I said last night that it arises from a complete misconception of the role of a Minister in Irish agriculture, from a complete misconception of his responsibilities and the way he should carry on and act as Minister. He should create the conditions within which the people in the industry can best function. They know their job. He should give them the means to do it. For far too long the attitude has been to dictate every move, and this is a further step in the same direction.

What we want to do for farmers today is to give them initiative, not take it away from them. If we decide who is to fill every position, what move they will make next, we might as well give up before we start. If this is to be a board of enthusiastic people trying to do something for the industry, they must have a say in who does what, and everything should not be dictated to them by the Minister. The Minister says he is responsible for the performance of this board and, therefore, it is right that he should appoint the chairman and the members. As I said, he is responsible for creating the conditions within which they can work— neither more nor less.

Surely the Minister has a very big responsibility in relation to the agricultural advisory services but he does not appoint the chairman. He does not attempt to appoint the chairman or decide who he should be, even though it might perhaps be more relevant that he should do so in that case than in the case of a specialised board of this type dealing with an industry that requires an immense amount of experience over a long number of years and contacts with the various aspects of the industry, with the breeding, with the feeding, with the breaking, with the selling and everything connected with the industry including the promotional work that is necessary to bring about better sales.

In my view this is not a matter in which the Minister should interfere. He made a grave error when he did not accept the recommendations by the survey team set up by one of his predecessors in office. He is making a further mistake now when he decides: "I will appoint the chairman as well as all the other members." He is killing this legislation before it comes into being. That is what he is setting out to do. I am afraid he came into this House determined to do that. That is the attitude which has been fought and opposed by organised farmers for years. We have had every representative of organised farmers thrown off every farming board in the country. This is a continuation of that attitude and we will have more opposition to it.

Mr. Cooney

I want to make one point to the Minister. In considering this amendment, has the Minister considered the mechanics of making the appointment? The board will be comprised of 11 members. I have no doubt that to get these 11 members the Minister will seek people of the highest possible quality, people who are experts in different facets of the industry. The board will have the highest status in the land in relation to this industry. The people engaged in it are a very independent-minded body of men. They are very self-sufficient. They do not want to be told their business by any outsider. That will be the mentality of the majority of the members of the board. They will be men with determined minds. They will be experts in their business.

The Minister then will have the invidious task of choosing one to be the chairman from among that galaxy of talent. I suggest that the Minister is placing on himself an undue and unfair burden in having to make such an invidious choice. I make that suggestion, not because I am sorry for the Minister—far from it—but because I think that any Minister should not put himself and his Government, and Parliament ultimately, in the position of having to make an invidious choice as between citizens of the status of the members of this board. There will be 11 people and he will have to make his choice from amongst them. How does he propose to make that choice? Where will he get the advice to enable him to make that choice between 11 distinguished people who are strangers or semi-strangers to him? Will he have a caucus? I am quite certain that the Minister will want to pick a chairman who will assist in the smooth and successful running of the board.

In his reply to the previous Stage of the Bill the Minister indicated that he is conscious of the fact that, if the board are not successful, the responsibility and the blame and the ignominy will be his. Consequently he will have to be extremely careful in his choice of chairman. How will he decide which of the 11 distinguished people comprising the board is best fitted to be chairman? In my opinion he can only do that by making discreet inquiries amongst those who might be supposed to know. This society of ours is too small for any inquiries of that nature to remain discreet. Once it gets out that these inquiries are being made—and names must necessarily be mentioned in the course of these inquiries—and once that becomes known to the members of the board and the people in the industry, it is inevitable that there will be a backlash of some sort against the person appointed, particularly having regard to the fact that the members of this board will all be persons of the highest status in the industry and experts to the last degree.

The Minister is taking on himself a most difficult task, a task he should avoid, a task he need not take on himself, a task he will find it impossible to fulfil satisfactorily in my opinion. Built into the carrying out of that task is the very grave risk of antagonising some, if not the majority, of the members of the board, leaving the chairman in an impossible position. I urge the Minister to consider the mechanics of this appointment, what it will involve him in, and the risks attached to it. I urge him to avoid taking that risk and to pass the responsibility on to the board. Then there can be no complaint from the board about the chairman, and no complaint of ministerial interference or ministerial caucuses within the board, with all the unpleasant consequences that would result.

There is a very real danger that these things will happen if the Minister appoints the chairman. I cannot see how he is going to obtain the knowledge in advance without consulting with what I might call horsey circles. Because we are a small confined society —and the horsey society is smaller and more intimate—even a discreet inquiry by the Minister will be noticed and some people will get hurt and others will be antagonised. The Minister may not feel this is an onerous task that he is imposing on himself; in fact, he might be willing to carry it out. I have no doubt he will be. I hope the Minister has considered the points I have mentioned regarding the difficulties of carrying out that task. I think they of themselves have sufficient validity to enable the Minister to accept the amendment apart from all the other strong arguments that have been put forward.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. We are dealing here with one of our greatest industries. Irish horses have been better ambassadors abroad than many of our politicians. The Minister should accept this amendment because it will relieve him of the difficulty of choosing between these men all of whom are experts at their job. The Minister may have qualifications which he might consider very important when choosing a chairman but on several occasions when chairmen have been chosen by Ministers it has been found that they have not been impartial. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment as it would be of benefit to the horse industry.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. J. Gibbons)

When an amendment such as this is moved by Deputies the onus rests on them to demonstrate that the course which they advocate is in some way clearly better than the one they seek to have set aside. For a long time-last night and again today an assortment of reasons have been put forward by Deputies from Fine Gael. They have raised a lot of hares and they have postulated that the course advocated in the Bill is fraught with many unseen dangers which have, in fact, been shown not to exist. Coupled with that we have the extraordinary divergence of approach between Deputy L'Estrange on the one hand and Deputy Cooney and Deputy O'Sullivan on the other. Last night Deputy L'Estrange said repeatedly that it was the Minister's intention to provide the personnel of this board from Fianna Fáil hacks while on the other hand Deputy Cooney said that the men to be selected would be a galaxy of talent.

Mr. Cooney

They should be.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I want to point out to the House that under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries a large number of boards, similar to this board which we propose to set up, exist and are presided over by chairmen appointed by the Minister. I think there is general agreement that they carry out their functions properly.

Mr. Keating

That is questionable. I want to record my dissenting opinion. I think many of them work very badly.

Mr. J. Gibbons

If for a minute we accept that what the Deputy says is correct—and I do not for one minute agree that it is correct—what everybody has failed to demonstrate is that this method of appointing a chairman to the board is in some way intrinsically better than appointment by the Minister which is proposed under the Bill. Bord na gCon are presided over by a chairman appointed by the Minister. Coras Beostoic agus Feola are presided over by a chairman appointed by the Minister and so are the Dublin and Cork District Milk Boards, the Dairy Disposal Company and the National Dairy Publicity Council. An Foras Talúntais is presided over by a chairman appointed by the Minister. An Bord Gráin, the Inland Fisheries Trust, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Wool Council all these very effective boards are presided over by chairman appointed by the Minister.

Far from producing the dire and terrible effects predicted by Opposition Deputies it is fair to say that by and large these boards and their chairmen have done work for this country for which we should be grateful. I do not think it should be said that because the chairmen of all these boards to which I have referred were appointed by the Minister ipso facto as it would seem from listening to Opposition Deputies there is something sinister, wrong or ineffective about them and that if these boards freely selected their own chairmen they would, by virtue of some unexplained phenomena, be better. The Opposition have failed completely to demonstrate this fact.

Deputy Clinton seems to equate the office of chairman of a board with the office of a dictator. He suggested that if the Minister appointed the chairman of the board this man through some unexplained process becomes a dictator who will deprive the members of the board of any voice of their own. This argument is groundless in my opinion.

Deputy Cooney wondered how the Minister would contrive to make the selection because many of the people would be strangers to him. Is it not far more likely when 11 men gather in a room for the first meeting of Bord na gCapall that they will be total strangers to each other? There may be one or several men there who might well make an excellent chairman of Bord na gCapall but because they are strangers their talents will be totally unknown to each other; they will not, however, be totally unknown to the Minister because he will have acquainted himself with the merit of the people before he put them there in the first place. I, therefore, think that Deputy Cooney's argument falls. I cannot and do not see any particular point of principle in this. To accept the Opposition's argument that there is some intrinsic benefit in the course they advocate would be tantamount to admitting that all those other boards which I have named are in some way deficient because the chairmen have been appointed by the Minister. On the contrary, all the boards which I have named are doing admirable work. Perhaps I should point out again, because it seems to have been forgotten, that these people will not be paid for the services they provide. Presumably it would carry even very little gratitude. In all the circumstances I think the course advocated in the Bill is the best one.

Mr. Cosgrave

The board that most nearly corresponds to this board is the Racing Board. The numbers are identical. The members are drawn, not exclusively, but to the extent of six members from two existing bodies. The recommendation made here is that a certain number of named bodies should be represented and that from those bodies some members of the board—I think the number mentioned was nine—should be taken. The recommendation went on to say that the members of the board should elect a chairman from within their number.

Whether a chairman is elected by lot or selected and appointed by a Minister is no guarantee that he will be a good chairman but if the members have the right themselves to elect a chairman they can change him either at the end of one year or any other subsequent period. If appointed by the Minister the chairman is there for the term of the appointment and the only person who can change him, no matter how unsatisfactory he may be, is the Minister. I freely admit a person might be highly experienced and qualified in the horse industry from a variety of angles and might be a very bad chairman of a board because he would normally have no experience of presiding over a board.

The boards the Minister mentioned bear almost no comparison with this board. In almost each case the chairman is a paid, full-time officer. One of the strange anomalies of all these statutory bodies is that the body which deals with the largest amount of money are a voluntary one. The Racing Board are a voluntary body, the chairman and members being voluntary, but Bord na gCon and the other boards the Minister mentioned, deal with far less money because of the nature of the industries with which they are concerned. The fact is that the Racing Board distributes and is responsible for collecting through the totalisator and through levies on horse betting substantially more money than Bord na gCon. Nevertheless, the chairman and members of the board have never been paid and that is the board which most closely corresponds with the board we are discussing here.

To deal with an aspect which the Minister mentioned—I do not want to mention names—I know from experience and contact with one board, all the members of which were appointed by the Minister's predecessors, that at a subsequent date a new member was appointed by one of the Minister's predecessors and it is common knowledge that the new appointee, although they had all been appointed by the Minister's predecessors and there was no political question involved, expressed the view, and it was known to the other members of the board, that they were doing things entirely wrong until he arrived on the scene: the policy being adopted was the wrong policy. Undoubtedly, there is no absolute guarantee, no matter how a chairman is appointed, that he will be the best chairman. It often happens that the person best qualified in regard to experience and contact with the industry is not the best chairman.

Prior to the establishment of the Racing Board a great many people responsible for the industry did not look forward to their establishment. Many of them resented them because I remember representations made here when the Bill was going through. They resented the idea for a variety of reasons—people have not sufficient resources, some are cast in a particular mould and they are satisfied if the system works reasonably well. A number of those associated with jumping and the horse industry generally have shown tremendous enterprise and initiative. The converse is true of many others in the industry. For one reason or another they operate in the same old way as did their fathers or grandfathers, their view being that what was good enough for their predecessors is good enough for them.

Most people, however, recognise that where £sd is concerned progress means change and innovation and they must keep up with the times. This board are intended to be representative of a variety of interests involved in the horse breeding industry, show jumping, eventing and so on. Some of these bodies have a longer history than others. Some are more progressive and some have been more successful but in the main they have been formed from particular sections or groups within the industry anxious to co-operate, consult and work together in order to promote the welfare of those they represent.

The survey team recommended certain things some of which we have already discussed. They also recommended that the board should act as advisers to the Government on matters affecting the industry, co-ordinate efforts to improve the situation and so on. They recommended specifically that the members of the board should elect a chairman from their own numbers and they said it was desirable in their view that the members should not be paid. This legislation most closely resembles that which established the Racing Board in the sense that, for one reason or other, the other bodies mentioned, either in regard to number, or the fact that they are paid —certainly the chairman is paid in most cases and some fee is paid to the other directors—did not correspond so nearly.

Here, the number is exactly the same as in the Racing Board and the board are designed to cater in the main for another section of the same industry and to a considerable extent all this has evolved or developed from the same approach in one way or another. In this case, therefore, with such a large board, I think they should appoint their own chairman.

In a very small board, whether a chairman is competent or not does not matter to the same extent. It may make a great difference but at least it involves only a certain number. If a board of 11 are meeting and it happens that the chairman does not possess in himself the qualifications that make for a good chairman, the proceedings of the board can be protracted and they can be inefficient and create an impression among the members that a great deal of time is being wasted and, in fact, time may be wasted. If members elect one of their own members as chairman —and he does not have to represent or be drawn from the bodies I mentioned; it could be that four or five of the bodies are represented and the other members are selected by the Minister for any reasons he likes—and the members of the board see that a particular person because of his contribution on the board is more suitable for chairman they can make a change. Then, even if the original chairman is changed, it will be done because they have found that he was not as capable of making a contribution or presiding over the deliberations of the board as somebody they subsequently selected.

Therefore, this is a reasonable amendment. It is entirely in line with the procedure and terms laid down in the Racing Board Act, which is the piece of legislation that most closely compares with this in numbers and in the type of work it will be expected to perform.

Mr. L'Estrange

In the course of his remarks the Minister referred to the statement Deputy Clinton made last night about the chairman becoming a dictator. Surely the Minister can bring his mind back to when the National Agricultural Council was set up? The Minister for Agriculture had the right to appoint a chairman and he went there himself and acted as chairman. He was presiding over a body that was to report to the Minister for Agriculture. In other words, the Minister for Agriculture could sit down and write himself a letter. I think even the present Minister would have to admit that the then chairman was a little dictator. We on this side of the House want the best possible man to be appointed. We want a man of ability and integrity, a man not appointed for his political affiliations or for what he may have done for the Fianna Fáil Party in the past, a man who will be genuinely interested in this branch of agriculture which is so important to our economy.

The Minister mentioned many boards. Deputy Cosgrave has given him his answer in that regard. As regards Bord na gCon, we all know the scandalous example of corruption and malpractices. The chairman knows they are going on, because one of the men associated with him is one of his best friends, a southern buyer of dogs who has to get £50, £60 or £100——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.

Mr. L'Estrange

I have no trust in the chairman of that board. We do not want to see a similar type of man appointed to this board. We want a man of ability and integrity who will see that the members of the board carry out their duties as they should be carried out. We have talked before in this House about the drift to anarchy, people breaking the laws of this country with impunity. That is happening and unfortunately the lead is being given by many of our State and semi-State bodies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting into a general discussion and not keeping to the amendment.

Mr. L'Estrange

My argument is that we want to see a man appointed here who will not stand for the flagrant abuse of the Irish taxpayer's money, as is happening through boards set up by this House, and many of them by the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

The Minister said the members will be unpaid. I have heard this before on Bills going through this House. Let me quote section 8 (9) which reads:

A member of the board or of any committee established by the board shall be paid, out of funds at the disposal of the board, such allowances for expenses as the Minister with the approval of the Minister for Finance, considers reasonable.

There is nothing to stop the Minister saying: "I consider £1,000 per year allowance for expenses is a reasonable sum." Will the Minister tell this House he is prepared to agree to the recommendation made by the survey team that the chairman and the members should be unpaid, voluntary workers, or will we find that in a year or two when we put questions here that the chairman is being paid an allowance for expenses which the Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance considers reasonable, an allowance of say, £1,000 per year? Can the Minister make a categorical statement that that will not happen? I want to say bluntly that this appointment is lined up for a member of Fianna Fáil. He has been promised the job already and therefore the Minister cannot budget. We shall find in a year's time he is being paid at least £1,000. Many of those people have been appointed to State and semi-State bodies, and the time has come to say: "Thus far shalt thou go and no further".

Mr. Cooney

I just wish to reply to the points raised by the Minister. He dealt with the argument I put forward about the difficulty of choosing a chairman from 11 strangers to him. He suggested it would be equally difficult, if not more so, for them to make the choice from among themselves. In making that statement the Minister is showing a lack of knowledge of the circles that comprise the horse industry. It is a confined, closed society and everyone within the industry knows everyone else engaged in it. The Minister admitted that he will have to make inquiries. Once he has to make inquiries he will cause hackles to rise and he will offend people. He cannot make discreet inquiries in such a closed society as the horsey circles in this country. It is a small, intimate society and the 11 people will instinctively know their chairman. I do not think the Minister answered that argument.

Then the Minister mentioned a list of bodies who have chairmen appointed by him, but that of course begs the question. That in effect is to say: "There is a body. It has a chairman appointed by me. He is a good chairman. Therefore all bodies should have a chairman appointed by me." That is not logical. I could say: "There is a man. He is wearing a red tie. It is nice. Therefore all men should wear red ties." That is the kind of syllogism the Minister is offering to this House as logical, and the illogicality of it is patent. It is a common fallacy.

In his reply the Minister ignored the point which was raised by Deputy Keating and which is fundamental to this whole question, that is the democratic aspect of this. We hear nowadays of the importance of communication, of the importance of dialogue and listening to other people's point of view and the dangers of imposing a point of view. Undoubtedly this is important to the idea of democracy. The Minister will strengthen that idea of democracy, of the people themselves being involved in their own business rather than Big Brother in the Government knowing best all the time, if he concedes this point and lets this board of responsible citizens, experts in their own industry, appoint their own chairman.

If the Minister arrogates to himself the power to appoint the chairman he is doing an act which is fundamentally undemocratic, and the more acts in which Big Brother is involved the more little people will be antagonised the more dissension and squabbling will result and the more dissatisfaction there will be with the idea of Parliamentary Government as it now exists. Any Minister should be very careful not to do anything that might damage the idea of Parliamentary democracy. The Minister has here in a small but significant way an opportunity of saying to the people he is appointing, the experts in this industry: "I trust you gentlemen to appoint your own chairman. I wish you well and I shall give you the funds you need for your activities." Instead of that, the Minister wants to control what is possibly the key appointment. Whether it is a bureaucratic desire or a political desire, I do not know.

There is another point with which the Minister has not dealt. Three times yesterday I asked him specifically to say why the system that suited the Racing Board, the most analogous board to this present board, cannot suit this board. Twice today Deputy Cosgrave repeated that. That is five occasions on which the Minister has been asked to say why the system that works so well in the Racing Board will not work for this board. By inference he accused us of being critical of boards with chairmen appointed by him because of our opposition to the principle here. We can say, going on the same reasoning, that he is being critical of the Racing Board by refusing to follow the system used for the Racing Board. I should like the Minister to say categorically that he is completely satisfied with the operations of the Racing Board and that——

Mr. J. Gibbons

I have no responsibility for the Racing Board.

Mr. L'Estrange

But the Minister is setting up a similar type of board.

Mr. Cooney

They are exactly similar to that board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

They are not.

Mr. Cooney

They are going to be a semi-State body dealing with the horse industry and administering State funds.

Mr. J. Gibbons

They are not administering State funds.

Mr. Cooney

They will be financed and——

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Racing Board?

Mr. Cooney

No, this board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

This is the board we are discussing, not the Racing Board. I am saying there is no similarity between the Racing Board and the Horse Board and I am saying further that the Horse Board will be under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the other board are under the Department of Finance and to reason that because the Racing Board have one system of working every other board set up in another Department should have the same system, is, to use the Deputy's own words, totally illogical.

Mr. Cooney

That is not the reasoning. The reasoning is that this is the most analogous board to the Horse Board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The only analogous bit is that they are both dealing with certain animals and apart from that they are quite different. They are operating under a different aegis altogether. The analogy between the Racing Board and the Horse Board is quite without foundation.

Mr. Cooney

Then even more so is the analogy between the Minister's board and Bord na gCon and the livestock board——

Mr. J. Gibbons

These are all Department of Agriculture and Fisheries boards.

Mr. Cooney

If the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are the only connection it is equally valid that horses are a valid reason for connecting the other two boards. I should like the Minister to say if he is satisfied that the Racing Board work well, if he knows, but, perhaps, he does not because they are under a different Department.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think I am called upon to comment on the Racing Board when discussing this amendment.

Mr. Cooney

We are not commenting on the merits of——

Mr. J. Gibbons

What I have said is that the Racing Board do not arise for discussion at all in this case.

Mr. Cooney

Does Bord na gCon?

Mr. J. Gibbons

As I am not responsible, as the Deputy has said, for the Racing Board no comment from me is called for.

Mr. Cooney

It is analogous in the sense that they deal with horses and the people comprising the board are dealing with the horse industry. This is the point. They are going to deal with another facet of the industry.

Mr. J. Gibbons

We are dealing with a completely different aspect of the horse industry and the people involved are quite different people and well the Deputy knows it.

Mr. Cooney

They are not; they are people involved in the horse industry. However, it is rather fruitless to argue the way we are arguing.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I am glad the Deputy sees that it is quite fruitless because——

Mr. Cooney

Because of the lack of logic——

Mr. J. Gibbons

——frankly I do not think the Deputy is being sensible by seeking to bring the Racing Board into the argument on this amendment as to whether the chairman should be appointed or elected by the members of the board. I cannot see why a board with totally different functions and operating in a totally different way, under a different Ministry, should be used as a headline. It is far more sensible and far more logical to look at the other boards operated in a somewhat similar way by the same Department.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): On a point of order, Sir, surely it would have been much more satisfactory for the Minister to have dealt with this on his feet than by prolonged interruption?

Mr. Cooney

The Minister made the point that the boards he has mentioned are more apt for mention than the Racing Board but the only reason that that could be so is that they are within his Department. Their functions and personnel have nothing to do with horses. The Racing Board at least have that merit that the end product of their activities are horses, the same as this board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Horses of a different kind.

Mr. Cooney

This board must deal with thoroughbreds also. However, the Minister has made it very clear that he will not accept any argument that is put up and that he will twist it and use it to suit his own book. He does not think he will have any difficulty choosing the chairman. He is content because the system has worked for other boards within his Department but which do completely different things, the chairmen of which are paid, or possibly are full-time chairmen, and with civil servants members of the boards, and he thinks all these things justify his stand. He has not dealt with what I said was the fundamental point, the question of democracy, to let the people have some control over their own affairs and not arrogate to himself every last function or duty.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The Minister's recent intervention has completely puzzled me. As I understand it, this Bill is to improve and augment the half-bred horse industry but it was also specifically stated by the Minister that this was complementary to the thoroughbred industry and how the Minister can say that the functions of the Racing Board have nothing to do with the new board is beyond comprehension. It shows the total inflexibility of the Minister. It also shows— and this is the most dangerous thing of all—the attitude and mentality that is developing in relation to this Parliament. I have no doubt the Minister's advisers advised him to keep control of this board. At least that is what is conveyed to me listening to the arguments here. The simple fact is that this board will be appointed in their entirety by the Minister. He is free to appoint anybody he likes. Those are the powers that will be given to him. The leader of the Opposition and those who support him suggested that this board should be allowed to appoint their own chairman. It shows a total lack of flexibility on the part of the Minister or else he is adhering entirely to the advice given to him by those who, perhaps, are qualified to advise him and he has no mind of his own.

On Second Reading we supported the Bill and the idea behind it as being necessary for the horse industry. We accepted that this Bill would help the half-bred horse industry and make them available for the numerous purposes for which they are required. We also accepted the fact, and the Minister accepted it, that this was associated with the thoroughbred industry. If one is to argue about how the chairman should be elected surely the parallel is the Racing Board even though it is under a different Minister. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was at one time Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. Therefore, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, he must have had some knowledge of the functions and the general conduct of policy by the Racing Board. To argue that we should create parallel conditions between Bord na gCon, which deals solely with greyhounds, and the horse industry is nonsense.

The Minister is new to the high office he holds. He has got all possible help and co-operation from this side of the House in discussing this Bill. He is being asked to accept one minor amendment but I suspect he has been advised that if he does not appoint a chairman there might be some question of the State losing control of this board. Surely when the Minister has appointed the members of the board he should be satisfied to allow those people to elect a chairman. Two thoughts come to mind: is it going to be a Fianna Fáil hack, or, even worse, is the board merely going to be a kind of civil servant? If that is the case, this will be a semi-State controlled body with no freedom to act as a board fully conversant with the horse industry should act. If the Minister accepts this amendment he will not lose face but will show he has flexibility and it will make for better understanding, a more effective board and be of greater assistance to the industry.

Mr. Cluskey

I find it difficult to understand the rigid refusal of the Minister to accept this amendment. Surely, while the Minister has the right to appoint all the representatives on this board he will grant them the right to elect their own chairman? This amendment asks for a very small concession and the Minister might be wise to grant it because there is a danger that the people he appoints will resent having a chairman imposed on them. The Minister should have sufficient confidence in his own nominees in the matter of electing a chairman.

One can but wonder what is motivating the Minister in the rigid attitude he has adopted. Deputy L'Estrange suggested that it might be a question of political patronage. As the Minister has been newly appointed to his office, perhaps, he was handed this Bill and does not now consider that he should change it. It would be advisable for him to reconsider his attitude and give the right to members of the board to elect their own chairman. They will be the people who must work under his direction and if they resent the man whom the Minister appoints we will not have the best results. Therefore, even at this late stage, I would ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude and to accept this amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): We have been discussing this amendment in the name of Deputy Cooney for some hours. The object of the amendment is to enable members of the board appointed by the Minister under the previous section to appoint their own chairman. At first glance it might appear that we are wasting time but I do not so regard it. The trend in recent years has been to legislate through regulations and operate Acts of Parliament through boards. The object of the section enabling the Minister to appoint the chairman of this board is to secure a tight grip on the board, to make sure that it can operate only within the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. This trend has been apparent here for some years but when it eventually develops it will deprive Parliament of their functions and hand over the running of industry and of the Departments completely to the Departments concerned.

If this trend had been apparent in 1898 or if a Minister were now drafting the Local Government Act of 1898, perhaps, he would solemnly decree that the chairman of every county council in the country would be nominated by the Minister for Local Government. That, of course, would stultify the growth and operation of the local government system as we know it. Perhaps the Minister if he were drafting the Local Government Act of 1898 would claim the right to nominate and appoint a number of people to county council and local authorities in order to load them in such a way they became the creatures of the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Cluskey

Do not put ideas into their heads; they are quite capable of doing this.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): In effect, that is what we are doing here. No matter how long this House spends in debating this amendment if we ventilate and highlight these dangerous trends we will have done a good day's work.

The Minister obviously thought over this matter since last night. Perhaps he got some briefing because when he was speaking on this amendment last night his argument was that in order to ensure that the chairman would be acceptable to the members of the board he would have to be appointed by him. However, that argument does not hold water.

The Minister's argument today was that, if we are to succeed in this amendment, we must satisfy the House that our suggestion is better than the Bill as drafted. I do not agree with the Minister in that argument. There is an onus on the Minister to justify every provision in the Bill. The onus is on him. We criticise the proposal to confer on the Minister the right to appoint the chairman because we say that detracts from the independence of the board. It could mean that a politician would be appointed as a member of the board. If he is a political friend of the Minister he will implement the Minister's thinking and, if he does that, he will not be bringing a fresh mind to bear on the activities of the Department in this particular field. If he is a civil servant he will be slow to move from the policy of the Department. He will be careful not to do anything which might lead to a mistake or anything that might fail. He will proceed like a careful, traditional civil servant in a careful, traditional way.

The Minister is prepared to accept Bord na gCon as a guide but he will not be influenced in the slightest degree by the Racing Board. The Racing Board are, in my opinion, analogous to the board we propose to set up here. The Racing Board deal with racing. The board we propose to set up will influence racing and also deal with show jumping. The Racing Board and Bord na gCon are comparable. Bord na gCon operate greyhound racing tracks and control the racing industry. The Racing Board operate horse racing and control horse racing tracks. They play a big part in the control of horse racing. I have had some considerable experience, perhaps, from the wrong end, of both horse racing and greyhound racing. I have never heard any serious criticism of the Racing Board. They seem to be accepted as a board who are doing a good job. Their decisions are respected. On the other hand, Bord na gCon have been criticised freely in this House and outside it.

Mr. L'Estrange

Hear, hear.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Bord na gCon have been freely criticised largely because those who operate the board have been positively and publically identified with a political party.

Mr. L'Estrange

Hear, hear.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Now, not alone must things be done fairly and squarely, but they must be seen to be done fairly and squarely. Why is the Minister not prepared to follow the example of the Racing Board rather than the example of Bord na gCon? The Minister purports to be seeking advice; actually he is doing everything he can to make sure that that advice will be as biassed as possible in his direction. He will establish the board in such a way as to render them unlikely to be completely independent. Candidly, I would have difficulty in deciding which would be less desirable as chairman of this board—a civil servant with a few years to serve in the Department or a person who had no qualifications other than political qualifications. I have no doubt the civil servant would act honourably and honestly to the best of his ability and in the best traditions of the Civil Service. Civil servants appointed to boards like this are senior civil servants; senior civil servants blaze no new trails. A senior civil servant will behave cautiously and prudently. He will start no hares which might lead to trouble. On the other hand, if the chairman is, as he is in the case of Bord na gCon, a well-known politician he will not command the respect a chairman should from all sections of the community.

The Minister has precedent for appointed chairmen. There are much sounder precedents for elected chairmen. It is only on boards appointed by the Government that we have these appointed chairmen. By and large, this has been a constructive debate. On principle, the Minister should accept this amendment. If the nominees on this board are, as he says they will be, men of outstanding qualifications he should have no fears in allowing these 11 members to decide who shall be their chairman. If the chairman subsequently turns out to be a failure I am quite sure he will not be reappointed. If the Minister accepts this amendment he will create confidence in the board and he will convince people that the board are not there merely to echo his thinking but that they will bring fresh minds to bear on their work. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment.

I appeal to the Minister to give us an assurance that he will rethink the matter between now and the next Stage. I agree with Deputy Esmonde that probably the advice he has been given by the civil servants is, in effect: "For goodness sake, these boards are all right if you keep control of them but, if you let them get out of hand, they will create endless trouble". That is the sort of advice a Minister would get from a long established civil servant who did not want any intrusion whatsoever into the preserve of his Department. As Deputy Keating said so well, what we want now is not backward-thinking or hindsight but people who will look to the future. In the days of Mr. Seán Lemass, 1970 was to see the end of our troubles: I wonder what he thinks now. I urge the Minister to re-think the matter and to come down on the side of a liberal approach rather than a closed, civil service approach.

Mr. L'Estrange

Has the Minister deliberately set out to mislead this House and the survey team that did such excellent work? When concluding his speech, the Minister said that a deep debt of gratitude is due to those people. I accuse the Minister of deliberately trying to mislead the organisations and the people who have done so much valuable work in this context. It is certainly not the case that their recommendations are being adhered to. Did the Minister deliberately tell a lie——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not accuse the Minister——

Mr. L'Estrange

Did the Minister come here to mislead the Members of this House and to mislead the representatives and the members of all those voluntary organisations who, down the years, have done so much valuable work for the horse breeding industry? He has demonstrated his idea of the "deep debt of gratitude" due to these people by deliberately flying in the face of their recommendations.

The Minister also states that what he has done is acceptable to the various organisations concerned. I challenge him to name one organisation which has agreed with his suggestion to appoint the chairman. I do not want to bore the House by naming the 17 organisations I listed here last night. Does even one of those organisations know that the Minister intends to appoint the chairman himself? Do the members of any of those organisations know that the Minister is to nominate the 11 members? I accuse the Minister of deliberately misleading, to use his own words, "a body of men to whom all concerned with horse breeding in this country owe a deep debt of gratitude." In far too many instances at present, we are getting half truths from this Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must keep to the amendment.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister should demonstrate his appreciation of the "deep debt of gratitude," of which he says all concerned with the horse breeding industry should be conscious, to the people concerned by acting according to their recommendation.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 48.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Blaney, Neil.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Foley, Desmond.
• Forde, Paddy.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Loughnane, William A.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Carty, Michael.
• Colley, George.
• Connolly, Gerard C.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Thomas.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Des.
• Power, Patrick.
• Sheridan, Joseph.
• Sherwin, Seán.
• Smith, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl.

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Browne, Noel.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Coogan, Patrick M.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cott, Gerard.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan, Patrick
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Malone, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Paddy.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Taylor, Francis.
• Timmins, Godfrey.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and Bruton.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. L'Estrange

A few minutes ago I asked the Minister a question which he refused to answer. I would again like to ask him why he deliberately misled the House in his speech when he introduced this Bill. At column 230 of the Official Report of 27th May, 1970, the Minister said:

This then is the Horse Industry Bill and I recommend it to the House. It is based on the recommendations of the survey team on the horse breeding industry, a body of men to whom all concerned with horse breeding in this country owe a deep debt of gratitude. It is also acceptable to the various organisations concerned.

I charge the Minister with deliberately misleading this House and the members of the survey team who have given their service voluntarily. I also charge him with trying deliberately to mislead the different organisations throughout the length and breadth of this country who for many years have worked voluntarily to do all they possibly could to help the horse breeding industry prosper. The least the Minister can be accused of is giving only half the truth. On too many occasions we are not getting the full truth, but the people are entitled to the full truth. Any Member of this House, who read a copy of the Minister's speech or read the Minister's speech in the newspapers the next day or read the Minister's speech in the Official Report, would immediately assume that the Minister agreed with the recommendations made by the survey team. To use the Minister's own words he said:

It is based on the recommendations of the survey team on the horse breeding industry, a body of men to whom all concerned with horse breeding in this country owe a deep debt of gratitude.

How is the Minister showing his deep debt of gratitude to those people? He is showing it by deliberately misleading them.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is wrong for the Deputy to say that the Minister is deliberately misleading the House. The Deputy should phrase his sentence in another way.

Mr. L'Estrange

Can the Minister tell us why he came into this House and from a prepared script deliberately informed Deputies, the public in general, the survey team and all the bodies and organisations connected with horse breeding, horse racing and show jumping, that his recommendations were the recommendations and I quote:

... of the survey team on the horse breeding industry, a body of men to whom all concerned with horse breeding in this country owe a deep debt of gratitude.

The survey team recommended that the board of directors should be appointed by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on the nomination of the bodies mentioned in paragraph 33. It further recommended that the board of directors should elect a chairman from within their members. It was in the team's view desirable that the directors of the board, including the chairman, should do unpaid voluntary work. The House is entitled to be informed why the Minister made this statement. This statement is not true because the survey team recommended that the directors be appointed on the nomination of the bodies mentioned in paragraph 33 and that the members of the board should elect a chairman from within their own members. If the Minister is going to nominate the eleven members and also the chairman it is definitely misleading for the Minister to come in here and inform this House that the Horse Industry Bill is based on the recommendations of the survey team who, according to the Minister are:

... a body of men to whom all concerned with horse breeding in this country owe a deep debt of gratitude.

The Minister's way of repaying that deep debt of gratitude is to mislead them. We are entitled to ask if it was the Minister's intention to mislead those people by making this statement because they would not see this Bill or know what was in it until it was passed by the Oireachtas.

The Minister also informed us that it was acceptable to the various organisations concerned. There are at least 20 organisations. I challenge the Minister to name even one organisation he has asked if the Bill is acceptable to them. If the Bill does not carry out the main recommendations of the survey team, then it cannot be acceptable to them. I further challenge the Minister to say on what authority he made the statement that the Bill was acceptable to the various organisations concerned.

Mr. J. Gibbons

May I inquire if section 9 is still before the House?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, the appointment of the chairman of the board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I thought it had been carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

No, the amendment was defeated and it is in order to discuss the section.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It should not be necessary to point out that when I said in my Second Reading speech that the Bill is based on the recommendations of the survey team this is no more than stating the fact. It is a fact. I do not wish to say any more about it.

Mr. L'Estrange

Will the Minister not agree that the setting up of the board to which the members should be nominated by the different organisations concerned in the horse breeding and show jumping industry and that they should elect their own chairman were the main recommendations made? How then can he tell us that the Bill is in line with the recommendations made when the opposite is the case?

Question put and agreed to.

Section 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Cooney

I move amendment No. 5:

To delete lines 30 to 33 and substitute the following:

"shall disclose to the Board the fact of the interest and the nature thereof and shall not attend any meeting of the Board while such contract is being discussed and should he fail to disclose such interest as aforesaid or attend at or fail to withdraw from such meeting he shall be disqualified from continuing to be a member of the Board and shall be guilty of an offence under this Act".

This is a very important amendment having regard to the functions of the board as set out in the Bill and as indicated in the survey team's report. Many of these functions will consist in buying and selling horses. These animals will be extremely valuable. The board will also have the function of buying land and equipping equitation centres and, possibly, generally promoting equestrian competitions. In all these activities substantial sums of money will be involved and it is very important that the board should be above suspicion and be seen to be so. My amendment is to bring the position of members of the board into line with the position of members of local authorities.

I am a member of a local authority and if any person who is a member becomes involved in a discussion or vote on a matter in which he has a pecuniary interest, he stands to be disqualified automatically and is liable to prosecution. It is not asking too much that the members of this board should be put in the position of being above suspicion and seen to be above it. We are asking that they should disclose to the board if they have any interest in any matter where the board proposes to make a contract or any interest in any company with which the board might propose to contract.

All that the section says at present is that the person will then take no part in any deliberation or decision of the board relating to the contract and that the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the board. I want to strengthen that and that is the purpose of the amendment. The amendment makes disclosure imperative but it goes further and prohibits that member from attending the meeting of the board at which this matter is to be discussed. It is important that the person should be forced to withdraw because only in that way can he be seen to be above suspicion.

People in that industry, as I have said, are not the most naive and to avoid any gossip in regard to the activities of the board or its members such as has taken place in the past in regard to one institution under the aegis of the Minister's Department, members of the board as well as the chairman should be under an obligation to withdraw from the meeting. To emphasise and highlight the seriousness of this to the members of the board the remainder of the amendment has the effect that should he fail to do so he disqualifies himself from being a member of the board and renders himself liable to prosecution.

Possibly as worded the amendment creates an absolute offence. I do not like absolute offences and I think that if the word "knowingly" were inserted there it would improve the position. One can imagine a situation where a person might—it is difficult to see it but it could happen—unwittingly commit an offence. The law at present is riddled with absolute offences and the fewer there are of them the better. To avoid that difficulty if the word "knowingly" were introduced, the element of mens rea comes into effect and there would be a question of proving a guilty mind. For these reasons I move this amendment. Members of the board should be in at least the same position as members of local authorities.

Mr. L'Estrange

I entirely agree with the amendment which ends by saying that not only should a man withdraw but he should be disqualified from membership of the board and guilty of an offence under this measure. There should be some penalty. We must protect the taxpayer. The country knows, if the Minister does not know, what is happening in Bord na gCon. They know the corruption and malpractices that exist in that board, especially in regard to some southern buyers. Any Minister interested in honesty and integrity who wants to see that the State's money is not abused by any Fianna Fáil touts on State boards will accept without any argument the reasonable amendment proposed by Deputy Cooney. A similar provision should apply to all State bodies. If we had a similar provision in the Bord na gCon legislation we might not have the present corruption and malpractices there.

The Minister said that the board may employ staff who may be delegated to carry out its functions. Other powers of the board relate to acquiring premises, buying and selling houses, borrowing, making grants or loans, investment of funds, acquisition and disposal of land and acceptance of gifts. We want to ensure that if a horse is bought the breeder whether a small farmer or not, gets full value for the animal. We want to ensure that if the horse is bought for the Irish Government they are not fleeced and we want, above all, to have honesty in the transaction. If a horse is purchased to go abroad for the Italian, the British or the American team, the people abroad will be able to trust the vendors and that it will not happen as happened in Bord na gCon where they bought a dog for £600 and sold him for £1,000. We know the breaches of the law that are taking place in this country and that the Department of Justice for many years have been closing their eyes to them. It is hard to blame the ordinary, struggling person when he knows from transactions or from meeting people that important people in semi-State bodies are carrying on this malpractice and becoming rich at the expense of the public or the people who breed the horses or greyhounds, as the case may be. If the Minister accepts the amendment he will ensure that the same abuses cannot be carried on by this board as are carried on by Bord na gCon.

Dr. Browne

We should like to support this amendment. As has been said, considerable sums of money will be involved in this industry. It seems to me it is a perfectly reasonable proposal that if a person has an interest he should declare that interest and that if he does not disclose his interest in the particular transaction he is open to the charge of using his special position to influence a decision in his favour. This is so self-evident it should not really need to be stated. It is difficult to see how the Minister's section could guard against a contingency of this kind. Incidentally, even if these three provisos are included I do not feel you will necessarily eliminate sharp practice in this sector of our society which Deputy L'Estrange described as a not particularly naive section. It would not surprise me that some of them—not all of them; I am sure most of them are honourable—would find their way around these provisions. However, on the principle of justice being done and being seen to be done, I think it would be worthwhile to consider the inclusion of the proposed amendment.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is necessary at this stage to recall the functions that we require the board that will be nominated by the Minister to carry out. Their purpose is to foster the horse industry. They will not receive any payment apart from the defraying of their expenses for the voluntary service they give to the country. That being the case, this amendment goes too far. If you accept this amendment what you are saying is something like this: "We would be grateful if you would serve on this board and let us have the advantage of your expertise and your knowledge of the horse industry, but we want to warn you we are rather suspicious of you and we want to hedge you around with regulations and if you break them you will be guilty of a breach of the law." This strikes me as being an odd way to approach a person whose services you are asking for and asking for gratis.

I would refer Deputy Cooney to section 11 in the Bill as it stands. Members will be asked to disclose to the board "the fact of the interest and the nature thereof", and they will be precluded from taking part in the deliberations of the board in any matter where a member may happen to have an interest. That provision gives adequate protection to the taxpayer, and is adequate insurance that these people who are called upon to give voluntary service to the country are adequately protected, too, from any suspicions that might fall upon them.

It must be remembered that the board will be required every year to give a full and accurate account of all their expenditure and that the transactions of the board will be available for inspection to Members of the House. That being the case, I would regret that Deputy Cooney's amendment would be accepted because, as I say, it goes a bit too far.

Mr. Cooney

I can appreciate the Minister's difficulty in inviting people and warning them at the same time. However, if the amendment were softened by the deletion of the reference to being guilty of an offence, I do not think anybody could object to the rest of it, that is that people would withdraw from the meeting at which the subject in which they would have an interest was being discussed and if they failed to do so they would be disqualified. I do not think that is going too far. No one could seriously object to that. If a person invited to go on the board could seriously say "This will stop me from acting on the board", then it might be as well not to have that sort of person on the board in the first instance.

It is important if there is an interest that not merely would the person disclose it but that the person would withdraw altogether from the meeting. If, for example, the board were discussing the purchase of a horse to be sent abroad with a team, naturally one of the points to be discussed is the price that would be paid for the horse. You can imagine some very valuable information accruing to a person who might have an interest in the horse it was proposed to buy and who would be entitled, as the Bill now stands, to sit there during the deliberations. Possibly it is far-fetched to imagine the price would be discussed in his presence, but if it could not be discussed in his presence the board would be inhibited in carrying out part of their function. It would be only proper— and it is a situation that could very easily arise—that a person with any interest should withdraw altogether from the meeting. That is not to say he might not hear afterwards what went on, but it lessens the chance of it and would do away with the extraordinary situation of a person having an interest in something being discussed by the board sitting there and hearing the intimate views of the board on that subject.

Dr. Browne

Having myself formed a number of these boards where we were very grateful for the voluntary work done by various people in the past, I can understand the Minister's reluctance to imply that he does not trust the people he is asking to carry out this work. However, if a person who was a member of the board was involved in a deal which was going through the board, would the Minister expect that person to declare his interest and would he then expect him to withdraw from that particular discussion? What would the Minister's feelings be, leaving aside the offence part?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would think that in such a case a member of the board would probably be morally bound to withdraw but in any event the board could deal with that situation if it arose. I expect the normal thing would be that for the person's own benefit, as well as for the benefit of the board, the chairman might direct such a person or ask such a person to withdraw, he having first declared his interest in any particular transaction. Any such person would in almost all cases withdraw but if he did not it would be for the board to ask him to take the action they would consider to be appropriate and it probably would be appropriate. I understand that in the Companies Act, 1963, a director is required to disclose his interest but he is not debarred from taking part in a discussion on the relevant contract. It would be better that the person with such an interest were not present when a matter of that kind was being discussed. I would be inclined to leave it to the chairman and the board to determine what action should be taken.

Mr. Cooney

If the Minister accepts the principle that the person should withdraw it is unfair to put the onus on the chairman to ask the person to withdraw. Why not have it in black and white in the Bill? It could lead to a very embarrassing situation between the chairman and a member, or between a member and other members of the board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

In the one case if you incorporate it in the Bill you are in some way providing against all such cases but in practice if somebody has an interest he will declare it. Most such people would not want to be present when their particular interest was being discussed and they would clear out. I do not think the occasion will arise very often in practice. The members of the board would be spared something approaching an indignity of being more or less warned by the Bill.

Dr. Browne

Would it not help the chairman if he could say: "This is in the Act. I am sorry, but I have to ask you to withdraw"?

Mr. J. Gibbons

With the provision in the Bill as it stands then in such a case the chairman could draw the board's attention to the existence of this and he could ask the meeting to take note of it and put the onus on the person who had the interest to declare it and to do the right thing and absent himself.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is it proposed to have memoranda and articles of association of the board? Most companies in matters of this sort have a requirement either in the memoranda or articles of association that a person who is on the board is obliged to disclose an interest. The phraseology may differ slightly from one set of articles to another but it means directors have to withdraw from any proceedings connected with their interest. As this is phrased it means they take no part in any deliberation or decision relating to the contract. It is not relevant to say that a person on the board is not paid, because it is conceivable that the benefit from a contract would far outweigh any director's fees, if the directors were paid. Is it intended that a person in this position would have to comply with what are the usual requirements of the memoranda and articles of association, that he would have not merely to disclose his interest but withdraw from any proceedings connected with it?

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is the function of the board to deal with this matter. There are no articles of association.

Mr. Cooney

The problem at this stage is to weigh the one end of the Bill against the moral weight of the obligation when the Bill is set up.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is right.

Mr. Cooney

Would a compromise between——

Mr. J. Gibbons

Are you not depending on the collective merit of the board as a whole?

Mr. Cooney

You could have a situation fraught with embarrassment which would arise fairly constantly because of the comparatively small number of people engaged in that part of the horse industry where this would be likely to happen. It is a small society. A possible comparison would be if the amendment were softened and there was just provision for withdrawal.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The amendment, possibly unwittingly, but in fact does cast some sort of shadow on the members we propose to invite on the board. It would be a far more positive approach to ask the board to be responsible for this aspect of their business. You would get better results that way.

Mr. Cooney

We are not doing that; we are relying, and probably can safely rely, on their sense of honour that it will be done but all that is required is a disclosure and if a person is thick-skinned enough he could sit through a discussion on a matter in which he had a big financial interest.

Mr. J. Gibbons

If he is, as the Deputy says, that thick-skinned he is not in any way different from a director of a company who, having disclosed his interests, sits it out as well.

Mr. Cooney

A director of a private company or even of a public company is not in an analogous position.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The real difference between a company director and a member of the board is that the company director is a member of a purely profit-making organisation; there is no great element of public service in it, but there is in this and therefore it would be reasonable to say that the restrictions you impose on a company director by law should be more severe than those you would impose on a person voluntarily serving on the Horse Board.

Dr. Browne

The point is that it could be profit making for the individual.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, but in such a case I would rely on the collective responsibility of the board to deal with this.

Mr. Cooney

The Companies Act has not got enough teeth in it in regard to that position. The Bill as it stands requires disclosure. I do not think it would be in any way a reflection to go just one step further and require withdrawal—omit the provision for disqualification and just go one step further, withdrawal.

Mr. J. Gibbons

In practice it would be quite a simple matter for the chairman to indicate that the meeting would like to have such a withdrawal from the meeting.

Mr. Cooney

If the Minister says it is going to happen and it is desirable that it should happen I do not think anybody could complain if it is written into the Bill. It should ease the chairman's lot to have it written in.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not see it that way.

Mr. Cooney

I do not think it would cast any reflection in advance on the people who might be invited to serve on the board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would expect that without its inclusion in the Bill at all a person so placed would withdraw. If he did not withdraw and had declared his interest the chairman could then ask the meeting whether they would proceed with that particular business when there was a person present with an interest in the business.

Dr. Browne

There is an imputation in the Minister's own provision that the practice should be that a man would disclose an interest. The Minister is imposing a responsibility on him to so disclose. All Deputy Cooney is doing is going slightly further, since the Minister has already introduced the imputation.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I am informed that the board will have standing orders and that the practice in this regard could be dealt with in the standing orders.

Mr. Cooney

I was going to suggest that. The Minister said that, if the individual concerned was so thick-skinned as to persist in sitting in, the chairman could ask the board how they proposed to deal with him. The board could get involved in a procedural wrangle at that stage because it is likely if the person were thick-skinned enough to remain he would fight the issue.

Mr. J. Gibbons

If the board's standing orders required that a person would absent himself I do not think there would be any wrangle about it.

Mr. Cosgrave

Would such standing orders be laid before the Dáil? Have they been presented to the Minister?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Would it not be for the board to draw them up?

Mr. Cosgrave

Are there similar standing orders for other boards?

Mr. Cooney

Perhaps it would be worth looking into this between now and Report Stage?

Mr. L'Estrange

Is the Minister really interested in improving the Bill or is he not prepared to alter even a comma in the Bill? Deputy Cooney's suggestion appears very reasonable.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The question is how does one deal with a person who has an interest in a transaction of the board. The amendment, as framed, is far too harsh.

Mr. L'Estrange

It was agreed to take some of the teeth out of it.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I consider it should be a matter to be dealt with by the board. The board, under their own standing orders, could require a person with such an interest to observe a certain line of conduct, to absent himself during discussion of the matter in which he has such an interest. If that were so the question would be satisfactorily dealt with.

Mr. Cooney

Section 12(6) provides that the board shall regulate its procedures by rules or otherwise. Perhaps it could be added that the rules or otherwise would be laid before the House but that appears to exaggerate the importance of standing orders.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Section 12 (6) gives the board the necessary power to deal with the situation we are talking about in section 11.

Mr. Cosgrave

However, there is no obligation and we cannot see that it is done.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Except the general obligation to conduct business in a correct and proper way.

Mr. Cooney

Deputy Browne has said that the imputation is already there. What is inhibiting the Minister is the danger of casting imputations on the intergrity of the people concerned. However, by virtue of the existence of section 11, that imputation exists.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Section 11 is a standard type section and there is no special imputation in it.

Mr. Cooney

There is a recognition of the danger.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, and also an imposition on the board so to regulate their business that there is no malpractice.

Mr. Cooney

However, we have no guarantee that the board will so regulate their business.

Dr. Browne

The Minister takes the line that this is a matter for the board and that we can trust them. Therefore, section 11 should be deleted.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The function of section 11 is to draw the attention of all to the existence of this possibility and to indicate to them that they are required to provide against such an eventuality. I think they can do it under section 12 (6).

Mr. Cooney

We will not know whether they will do this unless it is provided in section 12(6) that the standing orders be laid before the House. As I have remarked, putting standing orders into that category of regulations appears to exaggerate their importance.

Mr. L'Estrange

Surely the Minister must be aware of the corruption and malpractice that exists in Bord na gCon?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I am not.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on this discussion. We cannot discuss the affairs of Board na gCon on this amendment.

Mr. L'Estrange

We want to put an end to the malpractice and corruption that is taking place in other boards and we want to ensure that it will not occur in this case. We are dealing with the taxpayer's money and we should ensure that it is not abused, as is happening in other boards at the present time. The Minister spoke about standing orders. Certainly, it would be all right if there were standing orders, but when Deputy Cosgrave asked the Minister if the boards had standing orders he was told they had not got them. Too many smart alecs are becoming members of boards or becoming friendly with members and acting for them. Under this section there is nothing to stop the board appointing committees and people to buy horses on their behalf. The Minister should ensure that there is a section inserted to protect the taxpayers.

Mr. Cooney

The Minister's main worry seems to be that he would cast a reflection in advance on the people to whom he would issue invitations to act on the board. I should like to assure the Minister that the people he will invite are not sensitive plants and I do not think they will interpret the amendment in that light. I do not think it would inhibit their willingness to act.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Section 11 is necessary as it stands in that it draws attention to the existence of the necessity to declare interest in any particular transaction. I think it would be most undesirable to set up a board and to assume they would so do their business as to leave themselves open to the possibility of malpractice taking place under their aegis.

Mr. Cooney

I should not like to put them in a position where this might even be suggested. There is another board under the Minister's Department, about whom such suggestions are rife. This is not the board to which Deputy L'Estrange referred.

Mr. J. Gibbons

One gets back to the point where a person declares an interest and crudely insists on remaining. I do not agree this would present a problem especially as the chairman has the weapon of his own standing orders which would include a provision to deal with a situation of this kind.

Mr. L'Estrange

But will he have standing orders? There is no provision in the Bill.

Mr. J. Gibbons

There is provision in the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

Have any of the existing boards standing orders?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I presume they all have.

Mr. L'Estrange

Is the Minister sure? Earlier on he did not say that.

Mr. J. Gibbons

If the Deputy looks at the next section he will see there that——

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall regulate its procedure by rules or otherwise.

Mr. L'Estrange

Could the Minister not say "by rules and standing orders"?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I take it the board rules.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is the same thing.

Mr. Cosgrave

Of course, this need not be covered in the rules.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The preceding section draws attention to the existence of this particular problem.

Mr. Cosgrave

It puts the board on notice.

Mr. Cooney

Would the Minister not accept the amended amendment?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I honestly do not think it is necessary.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is most necessary.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The board should have some freedom of action and some trust too from this House and from the Minister. It is very important that this obvious possibility should be dealt with by the board.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister would not let the board elect the chairman and now he wants to give them what may be a more important function.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not want to say to them in advance: "You are all nice fellows, but I do not quite trust you".

Mr. L'Estrange

But that is what the Minister is saying to them with regard to the chairman: "You are 11 grand lads, but I will not trust you to appoint a chairman". The Minister is now contradicting himself.

Mr. Cooney

I do not think this would connote a lack of trust. These are not sensitive plants. Far from it. They will be the first to see the validity of such a subsection.

Mr. J. Gibbons

They are people who will devote a considerable part of their time, and it may not even be free time, to fostering the horse industry. I hope this will be quite a remarkable public service and, since they will be people of that kind, I think we should have enough confidence in them to say: "Off you go now. There is a matter here you will have to look after".

Mr. L'Estrange

Is the Minister not splitting hairs? If he has confidence in them why does he not allow these bodies, first of all, to nominate to the board and then to select their own chairman?

Mr. Cooney

We would be fairer to them if we put them in a position in which they could say to anybody who might want information about what happened: "Oh, we had to withdraw from the meeting". It would be fairer to put them in a position in which they would be above suspicion.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That has been done for them but if they regulate themselves under section 12 then they do it themselves and I think that is better.

Mr. Cooney

If they do?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes.

Mr. Cooney

Could the Minister tell us if he will ensure that standing orders will contain a provision to that effect—a provision enforcing withdrawal? Information is the important thing, not taking part in the discussion but the obtaining of information.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would hope that the person designated as chairman would be very familiar with all the provisions of the Bill and there would be nothing to prevent me, or anybody else, pointing out this particular aspect of the Bill to the chairman designate.

Mr. Cooney

What would the Minister say if the board drafted standing orders and refused to put such a provision in them?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Presumably it would obviously be impossible to take remedial action then.

Mr. Cooney

That is the danger.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Deputy is all the time assuming the worst.

Mr. L'Estrange

One has to nowadays, unfortunately.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think one ought to in regard to a body of this kind.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister would not agree to let them select a chairman. This is much more important.

Mr. L'Estrange

Who would ever have thought a month ago that the things that have happened in the Government would have happened?

Dr. Browne

The Minister has already indicated he would like the person to withdraw and he will indicate to the chairman that that is the procedure he would like adopted.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes.

Dr. Browne

Why not incorporate that in the Bill?

Mr. L'Estrange

He does not want to change a dot.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Bill as drafted is, I think, adequate and I do not wish to reflect in any way in advance on people who have not yet been invited to serve on the board.

Mr. Cooney

I do not think it could be considered a reflection. This is safeguarding against rumour. The board would be glad of it.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The net point is whether a person, having declared an interest, should continue to sit with his colleagues while the matter in which he is interested is being discussed.

Mr. L'Estrange

Yes. This is most important.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I find it difficult to imagine the type of person who would do this but, if there were such a person, behaviour of that kind could easily be dealt with under the board's own standing orders or directly by the chairman himself.

Mr. Cooney

If the chairman did not have the power and if the person was thick-skinned enough the chairman would not be able to deal with him. We have no control over what the standing orders will contain. The Minister has indicated that he thinks the person should withdraw.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is my personal view. That is the course of action I would take myself. There is, of course, the contra case in which a person, having declared an interest, remains present. That can happen in the case of a company director. In my opinion this whole problem is a problem for the board itself.

Mr. Cooney

Then section 11 should not be there at all.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is the minimum that can be there. It is a routine provision. In my notes the Dairy Produce Act of 1961 and the Agricultural Produce Act of 1958 are both referred to as having this particular provision.

Mr. L'Estrange

Surely what we want now is improved legislation, if it can be improved. That should be our aim in order to safeguard the taxpayers' money. I do not think any honest man would object to Deputy Cooney's amendment. If he would it would be better not to put him on the board.

Mr. Cooney

I think the Minister is unduly worried in case anybody might take offence at a provision asking him to withdraw while the matter in which he is interested personally is being discussed. The Minister says he would expect him to withdraw. Any decent person would ask why should he take offence at this being spelled out in the Bill.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is somewhat different to require it at all times by law.

Mr. Cooney

I do not think so. There is a moral obligation there.

Mr. J. Gibbons

If we provide for it now in the Bill, would it not seem in some way to clash with his legitimate membership of the board?

Mr. Cooney

I do not think so.

Mr. J. Gibbons

But it does inhibit his right to participate in the deliberations of the board.

Mr. Cooney

They are inhibited already by section 11.

Dr. Browne

The Minister has already said he would like him to withdraw in certain circumstances. To that extent, the Minister agrees with the inhibition of his rights.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, by the chairman—but not by law.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mr. Cooney

I move amendment No. 6:

To delete subsection (7) and to substitute the following:

"(7) The quorum for the first meeting and for all annual meetings shall be seven and for all other meetings shall be five."

I think three is altogether too small for a board of 11 members. My amendment seeks to bring this up to five. The Racing Board cannot function without five members. Three is dangerously small.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is far too small. The Minister should certainly agree to this amendment.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I think three is a small quorum but if the Deputy refers to the part of the section where the Minister has power to direct the size of a quorum I think he will agree it adequately takes care of the need for which Deputy Cooney tabled his amendment. One must take into consideration the fact that a lot of these people have a good many irons in the fire. There may be some absenteeism. If it is found that a quorum of three is working out to be too low, a higher quorum can always be prescribed by the Minister. Therefore, the amendment is hardly necessary.

Mr. Cooney

If it reaches the stage, due to absenteeism, that the Minister decides to leave it at three and that the meetings of the board are consistently conducted by three members then the board is a failure.

Mr. J. Gibbons

There is an implied assumption in the Deputy's amendment that the 11 members of the board will be so little interested in their work that they will not show up for a meeting——

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister does that by leaving the quorum at three.

Mr. J. Gibbons

If the people serving on the board are interested in their job, there will always be more than three present.

Mr. Cooney

If you extend that thinking, there is never any need for a quorum provision at all. The Minister may increase the quorum if he is not satisfied. This is legislation by regulation. Where possible, this should be avoided. I cannot see why the Minister wants to reserve power to change the quorum; it seems a very minor point.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister should give way here. He keeps referring to boards which have been successful and his argument is that this is the exact section that applies to similar boards. The Racing Board has been a sucess. Suppose three members turn up at a meeting and agree to purchase land for many thousands of pounds for a national training centre, the damage is then done. At that point, the damage having been done, the Minister might increase the quorum to five.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is as broad as it is long. It might arise that some urgent business required to be transacted by the board and a number of them might not be available.

Mr. L'Estrange

The chairman could call a meeting at holiday time when eight of the members are away and two members plus the chairman, who wanted a certain thing done, could agree to have it done.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It might be necessary for the board urgently to transact some matter legitimately. Deputy L'Estrange always assumes the business they will transact is other than legitimate. A large part of the board might not be available, for one reason or another. The board might suffer as a result of setting the quorum at too high a level.

Mr. Cooney

If the business is urgent, presumably it is important. If it is urgent and important, it should be dealt with by as many members as possible and certainly by at least five.

Mr. L'Estrange

Does that "three" include the chairman?

Mr. Cooney

It does. The chairman and two others would be a quorum.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is ridiculous. That makes the argument worse. There is no sense or reason in that.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I just had a consultation and there is no matter of principle involved. It is purely a question of convenience. When the Minister has the ability to set the quorum at anything he thinks reasonable and fair, I think this is adequate. I confess that I would think a meeting of three would be rather thin, but my advice on this is that it is purely a matter of convenience. For some reason or another they may not have a full complement on the board at any time and, on balance, it is better to leave the quorum flexible and to have the flexibility controlled by the Minister.

Dr. Browne

It seems to me that the Minister adopts a peculiar approach to both these amendments. He appears to agree with the general principles involved. His reply to this proposal is that he agrees that three out of 11 is on the small side. He is accepting it as a matter of convenience, but convenience is not the important factor here. It is that the board shall function efficiently and that it shall be seen to function fairly and justly. Where a board with 11 members is carrying out a business in which considerable sums are involved, it seems fair to suggest that at least five people should be the quorum.

The Minister suggests that if they are interested in their work and in their job they will turn up, but apparently he is presuming that the board he intends to appoint or nominate will not be interested in their job because he is accepting that they will at times hold important and urgent meetings and have only three out of 11 members at those meetings. He appears to be approaching this board with extraordinary delicacy. As Deputy Cooney keeps pointing out, these are responsible people. They deal in a very tough trade, or profession, or whatever you like to call it. They will be handling considerable sums of money. They will be taking very important decisions.

As the Minister said, he hopes the board will change the whole face of the horse industry and improve it. In those circumstances, if they are responsible and if they are conscious of the importance of their responsibilities, he should presume that they will form a reasonable quorum and turn up to meetings, particularly important and urgent meetings. The main point is that the Minister agrees with this provision and yet he is prepared to accept a dangerous figure, or what he implies is, in his opinion, a dangerous figure in the circumstances.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister said that the board may employ staff who may be delegated to carry out their functions so two people plus the chairman can appoint staff to carry out the functions of the whole board. The Minister also said:

Other powers of the board relate to acquiring premises, buying and selling horses, borrowing, the making of grants or loans, investment of funds, acquisition and disposal of land and the acceptance of gifts.

Does the Minister mean to say that if 27 per cent of the members are present they can carry out this business on behalf of the board?

Mr. J. Gibbons

If subsection (7) were amended to read: "The quorum for a meeting of the Board shall, unless the Minister otherwise directs, be five" would that meet the Deputy's wishes? That still contains a degree of flexibility.

Mr. Cosgrave

It still gives the Minister power to reduce it.

Mr. Cooney

I am prepared to accept that, having heard the Minister indicate that he thinks less than five is a bit thin.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is acceptable?

Mr. Cosgrave

"Unless the Minister otherwise directs."

Mr. J. Gibbons

We are changing "three" to "five" in subsection (7).

Mr. Cosgrave

We should send out smoke signals at getting an amendment through like this.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Minister indicate again what the nature of the amendment is?

Mr. J. Gibbons

To delete "three" and substitute "five" in subsection (7).

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it that Deputy Cooney's amendment is withdrawn?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I move:

In subsection (7), page 6, line 6, to delete "three" and substitute "five".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister say has any figure been arrived at or was any estimate made? While it is true that the board can subsequently invest money and possibly borrow money, as prescribed, for capital or current purposes, initially the funds must be provided by a grant. As I understand it, the later sections relate to the operations of the board subsequently, because they cannot do any of these things unless they get money somewhere. Has any decision been reached on what sum it is proposed to provide in respect of grants to the board, or is this being left over until the board is established?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Provision is being made in this year's Estimate for £40,000 for the board.

Mr. Cosgrave

For this year?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister said:

It is not, of course, intended that the State grant shall be the sole source of income of the board. It is expected that the existing organisations which contribute towards the horse industry generally will continue to do so and that the State grant will be related to such contributions.

The Minister wants the co-operation of these people. Can he assure the House that, although he is not allowing these bodies to make nominations, he will nominate people from those organisations? Can he give us any assurance to that effect? If he cannot, I can see difficulties in getting those organisations to contribute to a board to which he would not allow them to nominate members. He is dependent on their goodwill and co-operation. He stated:

It is expected that the existing organisations which contribute towards the horse industry generally will continue to do so and that the State grant will be related to such contributions.

Can he give the House any guarantee that all members of the board will be people who are already doing voluntary work and are attached to those organisations—the organisations he wants to supply him with funds in the future?

Mr. J. Gibbons

To go back to first base again, the purpose for which the board is being set up is to foster the horse industry. It should be apparent to these organisations that, since the board will exist for the same purpose as they wish to serve, contributions from them will assist the board in carrying out their functions.

Mr. L'Estrange

Can the Minister give any guarantee that he will appoint members from the different organisations who have already done voluntary work to this board?

Mr. J. Gibbons

It would be impossible to give any sort of undertaking that all the organisations would be represented individually.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am not saying all the organisations but would the Minister say if it is his intention to nominate say half the members of the board from people who have done voluntary work in the past? After all, the Minister is looking for their money.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I have already declared that it is my intention to see that the personnel of this board is the best available for the job.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is a pity that the Minister has not allowed the various bodies to nominate members instead of taking the function unto himself.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Some of them are not interested in serving.

Mr. Cooney

Will the Minister interpret subsection (2) of section 13 in terms of money? I do not understand its meaning.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The amount will be determined in the Estimate every year. There is at least a hope that part of the board's finances will come from voluntary organisations.

Mr. Cooney

I had suspected that it might mean if any money were received the grant would be reduced by that amount.

Mr. J. Gibbons

No, that is not so. The function of the board will depend to a large extent on the availibility of money. It will have to be provided in one way or another. We hope the horse organisations will provide some of it.

Mr. Cooney

Does subsection (2) mean that the grant will match the income or supplement it?

Mr. J. Gibbons

There will be a relation between the two.

Mr. Clinton

An undefined relation?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. L'Estrange

Section 14 states:

For the purpose of the due performance of its functions the Board may—

(a) provide, equip and maintain offices and other premises,

(b) purchase, take or let on lease or sell horses,

Paragraph 34 on page 19 of the Report on the Horse Breeding Industry states:

All interests in the industry seem to be convinced of the need for a National Training Centre and some of them favour the idea of establishing this centre in the present Army Equitation School at McKee Barracks. Considerable improvements would be required if the School were to be converted into a National Training Centre but the cost of these might be less than the cost of establishing and equipping a completely new unit.

We talked about decentralisation and the possibility of the Department of Lands and the Department of Education being moved from Dublin. I can think of no better place to have this National Training Centre than in Athlone or Mullingar. We breed excellent horses there and we hold excellent shows. As Deputy Cooney pointed out, the best horses in the world come from the midlands.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I am surprised at Deputy L'Estrange. Only an hour ago he berated me for departing from the rigid recommendations of the report.

Mr. L'Estrange

But they did not make any rigid recommendations in this case. The Minister has departed from all their recommendations.

Mr. J. Gibbons

What about Kilbeggan?

Mr. L'Estrange

All right, Kilbeggan, Athlone or Mullingar. There is an excellent military barracks in Athlone and another in Mullingar and there is plenty of land around the barracks which could be purchased and turned into a National Training Centre.

Mr. J. Gibbons

We would be usurping the functions of the board.

Mr. L'Estrange

We all know that the Department of Lands is not going to Castlebar and the Department of Education is not going to Athlone.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

Deputy B. Lenihan has moved into Roscommon and he is not interested in bringing anything to Westmeath. The report stated that the cost of coverting this school into a National Training Centre might be less than the cost of establishing and equipping a completely new unit. I put it to the Minister that the cost of establishing and equipping a new unit could be much more efficently and cheaply accomplished in the midlands, the centre of the horse breeding industry.

The report further states:

The conversion of the School into a National Training Centre would, however, raise problems in regard to control and decision of policy and would also pose some practical problems arising out of the location of the School in part of a military establishment. The space avaliable for expansion would also be very limited.

We all agree that the space available for expansion at McKee Barracks is limited. There is not sufficient land to let the horses out to graze on or to school them and I would, therefore, suggest that the Minister bear in mind Kilbeggan, if he likes, Athlone and Mullingar where all the necessary facilities are available and land can be purchased at a reasonable cost unless some Tacateer gets wind that it is coming and does what was done in Athlone once it was known the Department of Education was going to be transferred there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again, the Deputy is moving away from the Bill before the House.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the National Training Centre were transferred this is the type of decentralisation with which we, on this side of the House, could agree. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.

Mr. J. Gibbons

This is the function of the board.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 14 deals with the miscellaneous powers of the board. The functions were dealt with in an earlier section.

Mr. Clinton

Obviously Deputy L'Estrange is taking a very broad view in relation to the location of this centre which is supposed to be purchased by this board. He is anxious even to take it away from the fringe of my constituency where there was some suggestion it might be set up. Have the ideas and recommendations discussed in this report been developed any further? Do we now have any more definite idea about where such a centre might be located? It is very important that such a centre be set up as soon as possible. The suggestions referred to in section 14 might partly be met by an interim use of McKee Barracks as a training centre. It might not necessarily be the permanent centre for the various purposes that have been described in this recommendation. Can the Minister tell the House anything more about the various premises that may be acquired by this board?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I think this is the function of the board and it would be improper for us now to discuss the selection of particular centres before the board is formed.

Mr. Clinton

Does the Minister intend to give them full power in relation to this matter?

Mr. J. Gibbons

One of the functions of the board is to advise the Minister on the suitability of centres.

Mr. Cooney

I think the board would have power to acquire the centres themselves without reference to the Minister. It can do everything itself.

On section 14, in regard to the powers of the board to purchase or lease these horses, presumably some of these horses will be competing. Would we need a provision there as to whose name they will compete in, whether it will be that of the chairman of the board, or the Minister, or Bord na gCapall?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I understand this is dealt with in section 7 (2).

Mr. Clinton

Has the word "may" in this section both meanings, "may" and "shall"? It says "For the purpose of the due performance of its functions the board may ...." Could that also mean "the Board shall ...."? I notice that we have paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and only (c) is singled out as requiring the consent of the Minister. In the other two cases they can proceed without the Minister's consent or sanction. Is that so?

Mr. J. Gibbons

It means precisely what it says. The board, if they see fit, may provide equipment and maintain offices.

Mr. Clinton

But the Minister will not interfere in (a) or (b)?

Mr. J. Gibbons

No.

Mr. Cooney

In whose name will the horses compete?

Mr. J. Gibbons

The board can decide this. It is their decision.

Mr. Cooney

Would it not be better for us to say that they will compete in the name of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not really know. It is a matter for the board itself.

Mr. Cooney

I think the Minister in his speech dismissed the idea put up by the survey team of having a lottery to raise money to finance the board. Perhaps the Minister would think again of a lottery.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Almost all lotteries in this country are for charitable purposes and the creation of a lottery for this purpose, as I said on the Second Reading, might give rise to some important questions. By and large, as the law stands, a lottery must be for charity. It does not seem fitting to depart from this position in favour of an individual body. If any change were to be made it should be on a general basis, not an ad hoc one. Even if there were no other consideration involved any such lottery for the board's benefit would have to be on a large scale and it seems inevitable that it would be to the detriment of lotteries for charity. All things considered I believe it is best to leave this question in abeyance for the present.

Mr. Coogan

There is reference here to providing equipment and maintaining offices and other premises. Do I take it that premises would be provided where young men could be trained as farriers and so on?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing here with the miscellaneous powers of the board.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister mentioned this in his speech and, according to the survey team report, we have all saddle men no farriers represented. I doubt if there are farriers. It will be a case of locking the stable door when the horse is gone. I should like to know how the Minister proposes to provide for this situation.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It will be for the board to deal with the question of training of farriers.

Mr. Cooney

The Minister will no doubt indicate to the board that he would be anxious to see that this matter would get urgent attention.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, because it was referred to in the report. I also mentioned this in my Second Reading speech. It is recognised as being a matter of some urgency and it is to be assumed the board will also recognise it as such.

Mr. Coogan

It is all right for a board that never——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 7 dealt with these provisions. We are now on section 14, which is concerned with the miscellaneous powers of the board. If we are to go back we shall be repeating arguments already made.

Mr. Coogan

I asked about the provision of premises. You cannot train men on the side of the road.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This section deals with the miscellaneous powers of the board.

Mr. Coogan

Surely the Minister can go further than this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must insist that the matter the Deputy is discussing was dealt with on section 7.

Mr. Coogan

I should like to know——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will not allow the Deputy to discuss this matter now.

Mr. Coogan

We must get to the root of this. I should like to know for what purpose these moneys will be spent. For the sake of a nail the horse was lost and the battle was lost. It is the premises I am talking about. We are back to square one.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are on section 14.

Mr. Coogan

I should like to leave the premises at any rate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would hope the Deputy would not leave the premises.

Mr. Coogan

I should like to know if I were shoeing a horse that I would have a roof over my head. I should like to know what premises will be provided?

Mr. J. Gibbons

This is a matter for the board.

Mr. Coogan

There was mention of mobile forges. Mobility is a very poor recommendation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy wants to discuss a particular aspect of the matter in which the Minister has no function. It is a matter for the board.

Mr. Coogan

But there is a report here that there is not one farrier to drive a nail——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair cannot allow the Deputy go back to farriers.

Mr. Coogan

But we must have the premises before we can get anywhere. I am questioning the Minister on the matter of premises. Can we get any information in this connection?

Mr. L'Estrange

Is the Deputy not entitled to inquire whether the Minister will ask the board to provide, equip and maintain premises for apprenticeship schemes in farriery or anything else?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has already said this is a matter for the board which is being set up by legislation.

Mr. Coogan

It is a matter of concern to the House.

Mr. Cooney

Would the Minister say that he will indicate to the board that he would like to see the board pay some attention to this problem?

Mr. Coogan

That is a way out but——

Mr. Clinton

This will be a completely autonomous board.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Coogan

This section provides that the funds of the board may be used for the payment of expenses incurred by it in the performance of its functions. Some of these expenses will be in relation to the giving of grants to young men for training in farriery. I should like to know how far the Minister will go in giving incentive grants for this purpose?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Again this is a function of the board.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister is setting up the board.

Mr. Coogan

We are passing the buck.

Mr. L'Estrange

We are entitled to know what instructions the Minister will give.

Mr. Coogan

We are asked to pay money out and we should know where it will go.

Mr. Clinton

Could the Minister say why the board are so confined in this section, why they are not empowered to make grants or loans for purposes other than those stated here: "for any purpose that, in the opinion of the Board, is conducive to the promotion and development of the export of horses (excluding thoroughbred horses)"? Could this section be extended to cover prizes or premiums for animals in various grades at shows and so on? Of course, it would need to be stretched quite considerably because it specifically mentions here the export of horses. You cannot export horses unless you breed and rear them. Where can you start these grants and loans? Can you go back further than to the point where they are being exported? It ties the hands of the board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

In what way?

Mr. Clinton

In so far as they are precluded from making grants or loans for any purpose other than the specific purposes mentioned here.

Mr. J. Gibbons

"For any purpose that, in the opinion of the Board, is conducive to the promotion and development of the export of horses." I do not think the board's hands are tied.

Mr. Clinton

How far can this go back? Can the board give grants and loans like those under the heifer scheme?

Mr. L'Estrange

A breeding scheme.

Mr. Clinton

Yes, a breeding scheme. Can the Minister provide inducements of that sort in order to produce horses for export eventually? In fact, they might not reach export; there might be some doubt about it. It strikes me that paragraph (b) is too confined.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The premiums to which the Deputy refers are already paid by the Department itself.

Mr. Clinton

Is it proposed to continue this sort of dual function and divide the resposibility as between the Department and this new board? Where will the responsibilities of the one end and of the other begin? It would be as well for the Minister to clarify for the House whether it is the intention in future to take away the responsibilities that are now carried in part by the Department and hand them over to this board and let them deal completely with this aspect of agricultural production.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That does not arise at all.

Mr. Clinton

Does the Minister think it is a mistake?

Mr. J. Gibbons

No.

Mr. Clinton

Surely there should not be this divided responsibility?

Mr. J. Gibbons

There is no question of divided responsibility. As the Deputy knows well, the function of the board is to advise the Minister on matters in connection with the horse industry, including the breeding of horses. If the board advise the Minister in the matter of the payment of premiums for mares, the Minister can accept that advice if he so wishes.

Mr. Clinton

Is the Minister telling the House it is purely an advisory board?

Mr. J. Gibbons

No.

Mr. Clinton

That is the inference.

Mr. J. Gibbons

No. The Deputy must realise from listening to the discussion on the last couple of sections that the board have several executive functions of their own.

Mr. Keating

I wish to refer to subsection (b) of section 15 in connection with what must be a difficult matter of clarification. It says: "Excluding thoroughbred horses." The difficulty there is that I can think off-hand of at least one very good three-day event horse that was a thoroughbred. I take it the distinction intended is between race horses on the one hand, which are not the responsibility of this board, and pleasure horses of all sorts on the other hand which are their responsibility. The wording could be waived but it still seems a pity to have a drafting which might be found to violate the Minister's intention expressed clearly by the word "thoroughbred". Would some other formulation meet the situation better?

Mr. J. Gibbons

The thoroughbred industry is already well catered for. As I said in my Second Reading speech, the pupose of this board is to develop the non-thoroughbred horse.

Mr. Keating

There is a real difficulty here because we may find a certain trend where the thoroughbred would be best suited to the direction in which the Olympic three-day event is going. I can think of people who prefer to hunt thoroughbreds even in the the halfbred. If the thoroughbred was found in five years time to be best suited to the requirement of the Olympic three day event, would the board then be excluded, under this form of words, from the promotion of horses of this type because they were thoroughbreds in the sense that they were in the book?

Mr. Clinton

Deputy Keating has drawn attention to a very important aspect of this section. There are thoroughbreds in this country that are ideally suited for this three-day event type of performance and they are well known in many cases to be totally unsuitable as racehorses. I do not think it is the Minister's intention to exclude this type of horse. If it can be shown that a horse never raced, even though it is a thoroughbred, should it not come within the scope of this Bill? There is no doubt that the trend has been more and more towards horses with more thoroughbred blood in them and I think the Bill intends to cover such horses. You will have people trying to hide the identity and trying to fake the pedigree in such a way as to make these horses come within the scope of the Bill, unless the Minister provides otherwise.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The function of section 15 is to avoid overlapping with the Racing Board. If the Deputies who have spoken would look at the Act under which the Racing Board was set up they will see that thoroughbred horses of all kinds are catered for adequately in that Act.

Mr. Clinton

For the purposes of racing.

Mr. J. Gibbons

This Bill is to cater for the other horses which are not thoroughbreds.

Mr. Keating

With respect, there is a real point here. In the Act to which the Minister refers thoroughbred horses for racing, albeit flat racing or racing over jumps, but thoroughbred horses——

Mr. J. Gibbons

Or any other——

Mr. Keating

——with the objective of producing a thoroughbred ideally suited to Olympic events or three-day events or show jumping are not so catered for.

Mr. L'Estrange

I agree with Deputy Keating. If the Minister leaves in those words it will defeat the purpose of the Bill. We all agree that the good thoroughbred is amply catered for but there are thoroughbreds which are not fit to compete on racecourses. They may be used as hunters and run in hunter chases.

Mr. J. Gibbons

They, too, are catered for by the Racing Board.

Mr. L'Estrange

They are not. Chasers are but the thoroughbred horse which has turned to show jumping is not cated for.

Mr. J. Gibbons

He is.

Mr. L'Estrange

He is not. If the Minister wants to——

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would refer the Deputy to section 16, subsection (vii), of the Racing Board and Racecourses Act, 1945, with which he is no doubt familiar.

Mr. Keating

Would the Minister read that subsection? It may be that we are wrong. That Act is 25 years old.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes. It reads as follows:

The Board may apply its funds for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say—

and then there are a number of provisions and subsection (vii) states:

any purposes, approved by the Minister, conducive to the improvement of the breeding of horses or to the development of the export trade in horses.

Mr. L'Estrange

They "may apply" their funds. They may, but they do not cater for jumping and because they do not cater for the bad type of race-horse——

Mr. J. Gibbons

We do not want bad horses. It is good horses we are after.

Mr. L'Estrange

There are plenty of horses which are not fit to run on racecourses but they make excellent hunters and show jumpers and if this section is left in they will be debarred. The Minister should substitute "or racehorses". This is important, otherwise you will have people, as Deputy Clinton said, hiding the identity and the breeding of the horse. It is important that we know the breeding. I think it was Deputy Barrett on the Minister's own side of the House who mentioned horses who were bought in Clare and who became first-class international jumpers in England and they were put down as English bred. Later it was found that they had been bred in Clare but if the owner of the mare had known in time that they had been bred in Clare he could have got excellent prices for the progeny produced after the horse had won at show jumping. The words which the Minister should put in are "excluding racehorses that are running under the rules of the Racing Board at present". There would be some sense in that.

Mr. Cooney

I should like to endorse that. The Minister has read from an Act which obviously was intended to apply to racehorses only.

Mr. J. Gibbons

No.

Mr. Cooney

I am not aware that the Racing Board have ever made funds available for the export of horses.

Mr. Keating

They have not.

Mr. Cooney

They have no need to because, as I already stated, that is a lucrative business and the people are well able to look after their exports. The type of horse competing in what was traditionally a non-thoroughbred sport has changed and thoroughbreds are now competing in it. If it is left as it is and the board want to develop an export trade in pleasure horses then this excludes a substantial proportion of what are now pleasure horses.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Clinton

Could we appeal to the Minister to have another look at this section between now and Report Stage, bearing in mind the opinions that have been expressed on this side of the House in relation to the type of thoroughbred we feel should be covered by the section, and also with a view to broadening paragraph (b) in such a way that it would not confine the board in relation to grants and loans just to this specific export of horses? If he said "conducive to the promotion and development of the industry" instead of "conducive to the promotion and development of the export of horses" it would improve the subsection.

Mr. L'Estrange

I agree with Deputy Clinton. There is a definite mistake in the drafting of this Bill and it ties the hands of the board. You cannot export horses unless you breed them and the encouragement should be given to the breeding of the horses. Anybody can take the narrow view that it is conducive to the promotion and development of the export of horses but I suggest it should be conducive to the breeding, promotion and development of the export of horses, or leave it as Deputy Clinton suggested. But if you put in "the export of horses" you are tying the hands of the board. Where the encouragement is needed today is in regard to breeding this type of horse. The number of horses exported in the last few years dropped drastically. You have small farmers sending mares to the stallions and paying £15, £20 or £30 for the service and they are lucky if they get £50 or £55 for the foal. That is very little profit for them but somebody else may make the profit afterwards. Those are the people who should be helped. We should give grants such as Deputy Clinton suggested, as we have for the heifer breeding scheme to encourage the production of more calves. If you leave this open the grants could be given to farmers to keep mares to produce more foals and then you will have more horses to export and the board would do a much better job.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I fail to see what Deputy L'Estrange's remarks have to do with section 15. He appears to be unaware of the fact that the breeding end of the horse trade is catered for at present by premiums and grants from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. L'Estrange

If that is the case there is no necessity for this board. The Minister knows that the grants do not cover one-third or one-quarter of the cost of the service. They are £5 or £10. The position is ridiculous. This board has been set up because different bodies over the years have failed. Exports have dropped by half in the last five or six years. There is no use the Minister telling us that £5 is an encouragement where a farmer may have to travel 15 to 25 miles, perhaps, pay £5 for a horsebox and pay £25 or £30, or as high as £50 in some cases, for the service and then bring the mare back again in 21 days and again in 42 days. It may cost him £15 or £20 to hire a horsebox and he may not get a foal. The Minister must realise that we cannot have horses for export unless the horse breeding industry is encouraged and the small farmer is given a reasonable profit.

Mr. Keating

I fear that the Minister regards the objections I have been making to his phrase of "thoroughbred" horses as frivolous. I do not know how familiar the Minister is with the horse industry and I am reluctant to explain things to him of which he may be well aware. In this industry there are two sections: first, the horses for racing, whether flat or jumping, and the second group comprises hunters, show jumpers, three-day event horses, Olympic, children's ponies and so on. I assume that the board are concerned to deal with the second group but the way in which the most specialist side, the Olympic and three-day event is developing, is such that there would be thoroughbred horses in that second group. In drafting the Bill the word "thoroughbred" is used as if it referred to the group of horses intended only for racing. If that is the case there is a genuine difficulty and I do not propose to pursue the matter any further at this stage. However, I would urge the Minister to look into this matter.

Mr. Barrett

If what Deputy Keating has said is correct, that thoroughbred horses are entering three-day events and show jumping, this will defeat the whole purpose of the Bill which is to help the breeder of non-thoroughbred horses, horses from half-bred mares by thoroughbred sires. Deputy L'Estrange mentioned the cost of the nomination ticket. I understand it is £7 and there are also foal grants of £25 and £15 for thoroughbred and non-thoroughbred foals.

Mr. Clinton

I understand the purpose of this Bill is to get the best possible type of horse for this work which includes show jumping, three-day events and hunting. If we find a certain type of thoroughbred is more suitable than the half-bred why should we ask farmers to keep away from these horses? We are trying to help the farmers and the industry. I should like to ask the Minister if he intends to accede to our request to have another look at this section before Report Stage? If not, we will put down an amendment ourselves, although I should prefer to leave it to the Minister to do so in order to broaden this section in the way we have recommended.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think this is necessary. Deputy Barrett's contribution clarified the situation more effectively than the contributions made by other Deputies.

Mr. L'Estrange

I do not agree.

Mr. J. Gibbons

By and large, the thoroughbred horses are catered for by the Racing Board. We are concerned here with the small farmer who breeds halfbred horses. As all Deputies know, this is a valuable trade, it requires assistance and this is the purpose of the Bill. If the resources available for assisting the small breeders are dissipated by assisting owners of thoroughbred horses, as Fine Gael appear to want to do, the small farmer who breeds halfbred horses will suffer. Generally the small farmer has one mare and is breeding from her and this is the basis of the pleasure horse trade. If we divert the funds to the owners of thoroughbred horses we will defeat the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister is trying to make political capital.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister should not try to score a political point in this debate. When the former Minister was appointing people to the National Stud board, it was Lord Harrington——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will not pursue this line.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is better to tell the Minister the truth——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is naming people and he must not pursue this line.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister is trying to claim that Fine Gael are only interested in the owners of thoroughbred horses and not in the small farmers. I should like to point out to the Minister that the majority of thoroughbred horses are bred by the small farmers. Fine Gael are just as interested in the small farmers as the Minister's party. In point of fact, his party have not been very interested in the small farmers, they have been more interested in guns——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will keep to the section.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister has said that in present circumstances the best market is for the pleasure horse, the hunter and the show jumper. As Deputy Clinton has pointed out, there are racehorses that make excellent hunters and show jumpers. The racing fraternity generally get rid of them if they are not good enough to win on the racecourse. We claim that owners of those horses should be helped and encouraged. Under the Bill if a person wants to sell this kind of horse he will have to claim that he does not know anything about the breeding of the horse, but if the breeding of the horse could be made known the owner of the mare could make a reasonable profit should the horse win in competitions.

Mr. Cooney

Our object in debating this section is not to encourage one particular kind of breeder over another. The point was highlighted by Deputy Keating that the uses to which horses are put are changing. The half-bred horse, that is, the thoroughbred sire out of a common mare, is no longer good enough in terms of speed to compete in eventing. That is the position and we can do nothing about it. The thoroughbred horse, with a superior foot and stamina, is able to compete more successfully in eventing.

In regard to show jumping, the half-bred horse can be as good as the thoroughbred and vice versa. These are the sports that constitute the shop-window through which we sell all our horses, whether halfbred or thoroughbred. For that reason, the horses that participate in these shop window sports are important and the owners deserve encouragement. Thoroughbred horses are used in larger numbers in these sports because they get results and to suggest that we favour the breeder of thoroughbred horses over the breeder of halfbred horses is quite unfair.

Mr. Keating

It seems to me that what emerges from what the Minister has just said is that he is now presenting this as a choice between the thoroughbred and the halfbred rather than as a matter of breeding the best possible horse. If that is the position then we have lost the battle. At the outset I urged consideration of some of the European breeds which are doing extraordinarily well in these events. This is not a matter of the halfbred versus the thoroughbred. I feel that that is the Minister's approach, though he declines to admit it. This is a matter of keeping all the options open in a rapidly evolving area so that we may have the best possible animals. We must keep our options open about the thoroughbred and the halfbred and pure breeds emerging in Europe. If we now decide, as a matter of Government policy, that the halfbred is the thing we may have lost the battle before it starts and the Bill may turn out to be just another piece of worthless legislation because we will be producing an animal some good in show jumping but no good anywhere else. Neither the Minister's experts nor anybody else can say what the ideal horse will be for eventing in five years time and we must, therefore, keep the options open. This is a serious objection. It seems to me the Minister is trying to make this into the poor farmer with the halfbred horse versus the rich farmer with the thoroughbred. The Minister should be fair to us and take the point; it is a very real one. He should think about this again.

Mr. Barrett

As Deputy L'Estrange admitted, thoroughbred horses do not enter the show jumping arena until they have failed as racehorses. I do not subscribe to the argument that thoroughbred horses make better or faster show jumpers. All the famous show jumpers have been non-thoroughbred horses. I instance "Dundrum". There were many others. The same argument applies to English and European show jumpers. To my mind show jumping is far more important than eventing. It affects the smaller breeder far more than eventing does. Show jumpers are not thoroughbreds and they make better jumpers than thoroughbreds do. The non-thoroughbred must be catered for here because he is the animal bred by the small breeder. I know very few small breeders who breed racehorses. I do not know any small farmers who breed racehorses.

Mr. L'Estrange

Plenty of them do

Mr. Coogan

The Connemara Pony Breeders Society was started by the late Deputy Josie Mongan. He saved one of the greatest breeds we have. I see a paltry sum of £1,000 given by way of grant to this society. It is time that was trebled.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That has nothing to do with the section.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Cooney

The board will be required within 90 days after the end of each accounting period, or such longer time as the Minister shall allow, to make a report to the Minister. If the annual report goes longer than three months after the end of the period covered by the report it will lose a great deal of its validity. Three months is ample time in which to prepare and present a report. It will be a review of the year's activities. It will contain some statistics and some financial information. I have no doubt that all the information will be readily accessible throughout the year to those preparing the material for the report and three months, therefore, should be ample time in which to prepare the report, draft it, have it printed and circulated. There should be no extension of the period.

Mr. J. Gibbons

What the Deputy says is probably true but occasions can arise when unavoidable delay may occur. There may be trouble about printing, the collection of data, or something like that. It is wise to provide for an extension of the time.

Mr. Clinton

I suggested a monthly bulletin which could comprise the material for the annual report eventually. There is a bulletin issued by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Such a bulletin as I suggest would stimulate interest in the industry as well as keeping people informed about the activities of the in the Midlands. board, the promotional work in which they were engaged and what the future prospects were.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The board may well decide to have a bulletin of that kind.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Cooney

Has the Minister considered whether appointments of officers and servants of the board, which will be very responsible senior posts, will be done through the Local Appointments Commission or is that feasible?

Mr. J. Gibbons

The board itself will appoint its own officers.

Mr. Cooney

I suggest that function should be delegated to the Local Appointments Commission.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The point Deputy Cooney has made has also struck me. Officials of local authorities are appointed by the Local Appointments Commission. Civil servants are recruited through the Civil Service Commission. This board will be something in between local authorities and the Civil Service. The Government are not prepared to trust local authorities with the appointment of senior officials. Neither are they prepared to entrust Departments of State with the appointment of their officials. They are, however, prepared to hand over to this board complete control over the appointment of their own officers. Deputy Cooney's point merits consideration. The principal officer of the board will I am sure carry a very substantial salary and so will the chief executive officer. Such posts should be open for public competition and those qualified should be encouraged to compete. The posts should be filled by an independent examining body like the Local Appointments Commission. I should like to hear the Minister's views for and against what we have said.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is for the board to employ such people as it sees fit and to pay them, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, as much as they and he consider to be fair and just. I am not aware that either the Local Appointments Commissioners or the Civil Service Commissioners are availed of by a board of this kind that employs staff. The advantages in allowing the board freedom to employ its own staff must be obvious. It can recruit quickly and effectively. It can have a large degree of freedom in the selection and appointment of its servants and officers.

Mr. Cooney

These posts will be highly responsible and presumably will be highly remunerative. If the appointments will rest with this board of 11 members I suggest they will be subject to the most distasteful type of lobbying. They should be removed from that position and the appointments should be given to the Local Appointments Commission.

Mr. L'Estrange

I agree with what Deputy Cooney has said. Over a long numbers of years, vocational education committees had the appointment of teachers. They are highly responsible people. Despite the fact that they were doing unpaid work, that duty has been taken from them and an appointments board has been set up. Those of us who know about the workings of the present Fianna Fáil Party realise that the appointees to this board will be Fianna Fáil hacks. Nobody is appointed to the bovine tuberculosis office in Mullingar but Fianna Fáil——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please come to the Bill?

Mr. L'Estrange

Our Constitution guarantees to cherish all of the children of the nation equally. That is not happening in Mullingar. When the Office of Public Works are looking for builders, and so on, they tell their own people in good employment to go on the Labour Exchange on Friday and to come in on Monday. Deputy Cooney can vouch that it happens in Athlone also. Would the Minister even think of saying, in effect: "We will take the staff on the results of public examinations"? We do not wish to see another board set up in this country to employ the sons, daughters or relatives of Fianna Fáil people only. The Local Appointments Commission was set up by the first Free State Government and it has done valuable work since that date. They are there to do this type of work. The Minister should agree to give the making of these important appointments to the Local Appointments Commission.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan:) The Minister makes a case that it is desirable that the board should make its own appointments because it can act quickly and cut red tape: that is what he said in so many words. That same argument could be made in relation to the appointment of a town clerk in any urban district council. Would the Minister advocate the complete scrapping of the Local Appointments Commission procedure and the handing over of the making of appointments to the duly elected representatives of local authorities as was the position away back in the “bad old days”? If the argument in favour of appointment by the Local Appointments Commission of county engineers, country secretaries, county accountants and so on, is valid then it is equally valid here. There will be a chief executive officer who will operate this board. He will enjoy a salary of some thousands of pounds a year; of that there can be no doubt. It is equally important that he should be appointed by an indepedent body such as the Local Appointments Commission as in the case of a county engineer, a county secretary, a county accountant or any of those officers——

Mr. L'Estrange

An agricultural instructor.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is hard to see the difference. It is hard to see how we can dispense with the Local Appointments Commission in this case whereas we consider it absolutely essential in other cases. The lower paid staff of county councils are recruited by the county manager with the assistance of the commission. I am talking here of the chief executive officer and such people. Is it the intention of the Government to move gradually away from the Local Appointments Commission and to scrap it altogether?

Mr. Clinton

Our concern about leaving this matter open is all the greater because the Minister is insisting on hand-picking the members and the chairman of the board. If the appointments to the board were made in the way we recommend we would not be nearly so concerned. Unquestionably there will be jobs at the level normally filled by the Local Appointments Commission. It is quite likely that a veterinary surgeon will be appointed. Normally, a veterinary surgeon is appointed in this way: he is a professional man. There will be a secretary who will be well paid. These appointments merit the care and attention of the Local Appointments Commission to ensure that the best person is got and that no pressure is brought to bear on anybody to have a person appointed because he or she is a friend of somebody. If the Minister does not accept this recommendation we shall have to put down an amendment on Report Stage and bring further pressure to bear on him.

Mr. L'Estrange

There is a board which is staffed by the brothers, cousins and relations of Fianna Fáil Ministers. They control all the appointments and have it within a small ring.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not accept——

Mr. L'Estrange

Make some inquiries.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Similar boards across a broad spectrum of the public service recruit and appoint their own staffs. I think it is an unwarranted usurpation of the function of the board—particularly of a board such as this where the kinds of skills the board will be looking for in its officers and servants are very specialised. We hope that people with a special knowledge of horses and the horse trade will serve with this board. Such skills are very specialised. They are of a kind that would not readily be detected by adopting the form of appointment advocated by the Deputies opposite.

I think it is an assumption in advance of the functioning of the board that they will use their functions for ends that are not best calculated to serve the purposes for which they are being established. There are no grounds at all for this. Purely on a utilitarian basis, if the board want to employ a groom to handle horses, or an executive or a more senior rank, the qualities people of that kind have are not readily detectable by an organisation such as the Local Appointments Commission.

Deputy Fitzpatrick made the point that county engineers and people like that are appointed by the Local Appointments Commission, and so they are, but the qualities required of such people are academic qualities which are very easily recognisable. The qualities that will be required of the officers and servants of Bord na gCapall are not nearly as recognisable and are far more specialised. It would require people of a similar cast of mind to select the best type of people. I think this section providing for that should be accepted by the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Surely the Minister appreciates that the Local Appointments Commission operates through a board, that the board is set up for each appointment and that the members of that board are qualified and experienced in the skills required by the person to be appointed. When Ministers come into this House and try to conduct a debate in an unrealistic manner like this, it is time for us to call a spade a spade. I ringed this section when I saw it and I intended to raise it. I do so because experience has taught us that the method proposed to be employed in recruiting staff for boards like this has lead to abuses in the past.

The chairman of Bord na gCon was appointed by a Minister, and he was hardly out of this House as a Deputy. The chief executive officer of that board was the son of a serving Deputy. It is best to call a spade a spade. The net result was that we might as well have written into the functions of Bord na gCon another paragraph reading "to distribute political patronage". That is what we want to avoid. I make no apologies for it and this party make no apologies for it, because we have had that experience. I do not care what Government are in power, these boards should not be brought into ridicule by being branded as being methods of distributing political jobs and political patronage.

I do not think the Minister's explanation holds water. He simply makes the case that because a highly specialised person is required, the Local Appointments Commission has not the machinery or the qualifications to appoint that person. I cannot and I do not accept that. Surely a very highly skilled physician or surgeon is a very technical gentleman with highly technical qualifications; yet the machinery at the disposal of the Local Appointments Commission can provide a board that can differentiate between ten men with the same academic qualifications and sift out which of these people is best qualified for the position. As Deputy Clinton has said, one of the appointments here will probably be that of a veterinary surgeon. The Local Appointments Commission appoint veterinary surgeons every year.

Another appointment here will be that of administrative officer, an executive officer who will be skilled in the art of administration, skilled in the administration and probably with some experience of or interest in the horse industry. Surely a board properly composed by the Local Appointments Commission would be able to select the best man. There is no argument, good, bad or indifferent. I am sure that the chief executive officer of this board—that is probably what he will be called—will command a salary of £3,000 a year plus. If he is not in a full-time position he should be recruited in the same manner as the chief executive officer of a vocational education committee, or the chief agricultural officer of a committee of agriculture, or any other technical position.

The Minister cannot expect this House to believe that it is not within the competence of the Local Appointments Commission to appoint such a person. He should not insult the intelligence of the House by telling us that. If he wants to say this is a political patronage job and that the appointment will be made in the same way as judges and State solicitors are appointed let him say so, but let him not try to pull the wool over people's eyes by telling them that the Local Appointments Commission cannot do it. I highly recommend to the House and to the country that these responsible appointments should be made by the Local Appointments Commission.

Mr. Cooney

I want to endorse what Deputy Fitzpatrick has said. The Minister's argument is that people with a particular professional knowledge will be required by this board. What the board will want in their officers— and, of course, our requirements involving the Local Appointments Commission will apply to the officers of the board only; we do not intend that every petty functionary of the board will have to go through the Local Appointments Commission—will be skills in administration and possibly some knowledge of the horse industry. The expertise on the horse industry will come from the board. They will want their skilled executive to implement their knowledge and their policy.

The appointment of such a person is peculiarly within the province of the Local Appointments Commission. In my opinion the members of Bord na gCapall would not be competent to assess a person's administrative ability to carry out the executive functions of the board. It is quite a skill to carry out an interview for a job of that status and assess the qualifications and personalities and aptitudes of the applicants. I do not think the members of Bord na gCapall who will be appointed because of their knowledge of horses will be able to make suitable appointments. This is a job for the Local Appointments Commission.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not deal with the practical effect I mentioned when I spoke earlier of leaving the appointments with the board. They will be subjected to very distasteful lobbying and canvassing. There are no two ways about that. Pressures of one kind or another will be put on them. All these things can be taken away from them. They will be appointed because of their status in the horse industry to advise on the horse industry and its improvement. They should not be put in a position where they will be subjected to lobbying and canvassing and pressures of one kind or another.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I want to say a couple of things. In the first place what I understand the function of the Local Appointments Commission to be is to make selections from applicants for various jobs under local authorities generally. I am not certain of this, but I doubt very much if it would be within the powers of the Local Appointments Commission to act on behalf of the Horse Board at all. I do know if the Horse Board so wished that there are other means by which important choices can be made in the matter of the selection of staff. This is an affair for the Horse Board themselves.

I reject absolutely the suggestion that the appointment of officers and servants of the Horse Board is going to be or ought to be a matter that would be tinged with political selection at all. On the contrary, it would be damaging for the board if the board were obviously guilty of any political bias in the matter of the appointment of officers and servants. They would handicap themselves so much that they would be unable to carry out their functions properly. I am quite certain that when the board approach the subject of the appointment of staff they will be as conscious as I or any other fair-minded Deputy would be of the necessity for impartiality and fair play.

That being the case, they might enlist the aid of agencies which handle this type of business for firms of various kinds. This may be their choice, I do not know how they will go about their work. It is very unfair to assume in advance (a) that the board are going to be of one political stripe and (b) that being of that political stripe they are going to recruit officers and servants of the same political stripe. It would be a capital mistake for any mature political party to walk into. I am quite certain it will not happen.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Government have walked into some recently.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I want to revert to the novel idea of the appointment of the officers and servants of Bord na gCapall by the Local Appointments Commission. I doubt very much if the Local Appointments Commission could take this job on even if they wanted to. If they did it is quite likely that the boards they would appoint to make the selection would include members of the Horse Board. I am very doubtful that the Appointments Commission would even accept this job. The basis of the Opposition's suggestion is that there is no way in which a board, having been set up by the Government, can appoint officers or servants of their own and do it properly.

Mr. Clinton

That is not the basis of our argument at all. The basis of our argument is that all the people in this board, including the chairman, are hand-picked by the Minister. That makes them suspect from the word "go". They are suspect for the reasons which Deputy Fitzpatrick put before the House. The Minister made a very feeble defence of the provisions of this section. In so doing he has down-graded the competence of the Local Appointments Commission. He has, in effect, said that the Local Appointments Commission could not possibly do this job as well as the board could——

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think they have the right to.

Mr. Clinton

——because the Local Appointments Commission do not have the people to assess the type of ability and competence that the board members would be able to assess. The Minister should not be guilty of such a statement. I would remind the Minister that people are selected by the Local Appointments Commission for all sorts of positions in his own Department, for many of which it would be very hard to define the exact type of abilities required to perform the jobs. People are recruited in connection with the land project, the AI centres, the farm improvement scheme, the progeny testing stations and a whole variety of schemes by the Local Appointments Commission. All these appointments have peculiarities such as those referred to by the Minister. I sat on some of these boards before I entered politics and I know how they work. Despite what has been said about the Local Appointments Commission in my experience there is no more impartial body in the country from the point of view of making appointments. It is a great pity when an important board of this type is being set up that the officers and servants of it should not be appointed in the most impartial way by, in my view, the most competent organisation we have to do it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister made two points. He said it was quite unfair to assume in advance that the board would act politically. We can only speak from experience. We know that Bord na nCon did act politically in making these appointments. As a result, Bord na gCon has lost the confidence of the greyhound racing community. This is the sort of thing we want to avoid here. Bord na gCon might as well have had written into their objects the promotion of political patronage.

When the Minister spoke first he said that the Local Appointments Commission would not have the skill or the competence to select the type of people required by Bord na nCapall. When we pointed out to him that that would not hold water because they acted through boards set up for each particular appointment he fell back on another argument and said that he doubted whether they could legally make these appointments. I shall solve that problem for him. The Local Appointments Commission is a legal statutory creature brought into existence by an Act of this House. I cannot tell the Minister off-hand what their statutory functions are but I can tell him that those statutory functions are capable of alteration and amendment. The measure we are now discussing can by a simple section give the Local Appointments Commission the necessary authority to make the appointment we are saying they should make, if the Minister has the will to grant them that power.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Does the Deputy mean we can amend the law setting up the Local Appointments Commission?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Certainly.

Mr. J. Gibbons

In this Bill?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Certainly.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I doubt it very much.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): We can confer on the Local Appointments Commission the power to do this. It might mean a slight alteration in the Title of the Bill but if the Minister has the will to do it he can do it. The Civil Service Commission perform a multitude of functions with regard to the recruitment of personnel and they seem to perform these functions very well. They could be entrusted with this job. The Minister has made no case—perhaps, he was not prepared for the argument, if he was not I can excuse him—against the proposal we have made.

It is wrong to assume that just because appointments to these boards have been made in a particular way in the past they should continue to be made in the same way. It is our duty to suggest improvements and point out where faults have occurred in the past and where a particular type of machinery for a particular purpose has not worked well. That is what we are doing here. There has been a very healthy discussion on this section. We shall put down an amendment on the Report Stage if the Minister does not yield now and if the Minister does not accept the amendment we shall at least have ventilated publicly what in the past was nothing short of a political scandal.

Mr. L'Estrange

We have told the Minister that we are anxious to co-operate. He does not seem anxious to reciprocate. I do not know why. In this Bill we are legislating for the future, irrespective of what Government may be in power in another ten or 15 years. Surely, in view of recent happenings Fianna Fáil do not think they will be there. There are 11 members of this board but there are 11 members in another place who may decide very quickly to turn the present Government out of office.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on the section.

Mr. L'Estrange

We want to see that whatever board are appointed the people will have confidence in them, that they will be composed of men of integrity who will do their duty irrespective of what party are in power. I cannot understand the Minister's arguments. Despite the fact that he could not allow members of the bodies to nominate the members of the board, he was nominating the members——

An Ceann Comhairle

This has already been discussed on the relevant section. It cannot be raised again on this section.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Chair will allow me to finish, it is quite relevant. Earlier, the Minister had not confidence enough in the members to allow them to elect a chairman——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that three or four times already. He should come to the section.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am coming to the point that the Minister has confidence in the board to appoint the principal officers. I wonder why? We now know why he also wanted to appoint the chairman : he wants the chairman to be in a position to see that all appointees of this board are Fianna Fáil supporters. The Minister has said that it is unfair to assume that they will be members of one political party. We can only take Bord na gCon and realise what has happened there. As Deputy Fitzpatrick stated, the chairman was an ex-Fianna Fáil TD. The CEO was the son of a Dáil Deputy——

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing the affairs of Bord na gCon.

Mr. L'Estrange

We want to have justice here and ensure that the people appointed are the best people to do the work, irrespective of their politics. We know the tricks of the Fianna Fáil Party. The Minister said that no mature political party would walk into anything like this. Fianna Fáil must not be a mature political party because they have walked into some damn funny things in the past month, things that nobody suspected.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Suspected but could not prove.

Mr. L'Estrange

We suspected them but found it hard to prove. The dirt all came out in the end, or at least some of it; it is not all out yet.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should come to the section.

Mr. L'Estrange

We want to ensure that if the Local Appointments Commission cannot make the appointments, provision should be made in the Bill for an impartial body to make them. Things have gone so far that Bord na gCon recently, in connection with the opening of Shelbourne Park, invited Fianna Fáil touts from this city and others——

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy try to conduct himself and speak on the section before the House? The affairs of Bord na gCon are not our concern on this Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): On a point of order—we are setting up a board more or less similar to Bord na gCon, with similar provisions, similar functions and duties and similar authority. We are pointing out that some of the authority given to Bord na gCon was badly abused and we are suggesting similar authority should not be given to this board. With the greatest respect, that could not be more relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not open up a discussion on another board or boards. Reference to it may be made in passing but the Deputy is going into detail.

Mr. L'Estrange

Will the Minister not now agree to an impartial body being set up to appoint those officers and servants?

Mr. J. Gibbons

The methods of appointment advocated by the Opposition would produce a situation where the board might as well be an adjunct of the Department because the people appointed would, in effect, be civil servants. I have already said that I doubt very much whether the Local Appointments Commission or the Civil Service Commission would have any right to function in this regard. If they had, they would certainly destroy any independence the board had to begin with, and if the board are to be of any use at all they must have some independence.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is really sickening—that is the only word I can think of—to hear the Minister talking about giving the board independence and about the independence of the board when in sections 8 and 9 he has done everything possible to take away any shred of independence the board could possibly have. When we suggested that an independent board should be set up and that people interested in horse jumping and horse breeding should appoint members to them so that they would have independence, the Minister rejected that and said it would not do. On section 9 we say the members, when appointed by the Minister, should at least be given the semblance of independence by appointing their own chairman from among them. The Minister will not have that; he must appoint him. Now, he wants independence. He wants independence when it comes to independent jobbery. He has drawn that out of me. The Minister has said that he doubts whether the Local Appointments Commission or the Civil Service Commission have legal authority to make these appointments. I invite the Minister if he is honest to explore between now and the next Stage of the Bill whether they have such authority or not.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is the Deputy's idea; he should explore it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister is getting a bigger salary than I am and he has men paid to investigate this for him. The Minister has partially resisted our suggestion by saying the Local Appointments Commission or the Civil Service Commission have not the legal authority to do what we suggest. He and the Department should investigate between now and the next Stage whether these bodies have that legal authority or not. If they conclude they lack the authority I suggest they further consider whether we can confer it on one or other of them in this Bill. Further, if that cannot be done the sooner the law setting up the Local Appointments Commission or the Civil Service Commission is amended so as to entrust one or other of these bodies with appointments like this, the better for the country and the better for decency in the operation of these boards. I feel strongly about this. We know abuses have been committed in the past and nowhere more disgracefully than in Bord na gCon.

Mr. L'Estrange

Can the Minister say what type of officers and servants the board will appoint if he says the Local Appointments Commission would not be a competent body to to deal with them? Surely they will appoint a chief executive officer, an accountant and, as Deputy Clinton suggested, a veterinary surgeon? Surely they have the machinery to appoint the most competent people? The only reason why the Minister will not trust them is that they will not appoint the Fianna Fáil crowd he wants to see appointed.

Mr. Cluskey

The Minister would be well advised to accept that an impartial, independent body should make these appointments. The Minister may recall that some short while ago a motion was before the House asking that an independent body be established to deal with planning permission. His party saw fit to oppose that motion and went into the Division Lobbies to ensure it was defeated. However, a very short time after they had gone through this exercise they themselves set up an independent body to deal with planning permission because they saw the desirability of doing so, not the desirability as far as the citizens were concerned but the desirability as far as their own party were concerned, as it had become common knowledge that there was a great deal of disquiet among the general public as to the way these matters were being handled by the Minister.

It is ridiculous to suggest, as the Minister has done, that the board would act independently. As Deputy Fitzpatrick has pointed out, the Minister has ensured by the division here this afternoon that the board will not be independent and cannot be independent. I do not think it does this House or this country very much good to have charges, such as have been made in relation to Bord na gCon and other matters, being constantly made in this House, but, unfortunately, the facts justify the charges which are being made about political jobbery being used in the filling of these appointments. In the interest of the country as a whole I would suggest that the Minister now appoint an independent body to make these appointments and let us not have a repetition of what happened in regard to the planning authority.

Mr. Clinton

I want to make sure the Minister understands I have given notice that we intend to raise this matter by way of amendment on Report Stage. We shall have a long hot Report Stage on this Bill.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 49.

Tá.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Blaney, Neil.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Colley, George.
• Connolly, Gerard C.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Foley, Desmond.
• Forde, Paddy.
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, James.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Browne, Seán.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Loughnane, William A.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Thomas.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Des.
• Sheridan, Joseph.
• Sheridan, Seán.
• Smith, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wyse, pearse.

Níl.

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Browne, Noel.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burton, Philip.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cott, Gerard.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Finn, Martin.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Fox, Billy.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kenny, Henry.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Malone, Patrick.
• O'Connell, John F.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Paddy.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Taylor, Francis.
• Timmins, Godfrey.

Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and Bruton.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 21.

Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Clinton

I could perhaps more relevantly have raised this point on subsection (4) of the previous section but it comes in here as well. We refer to the board here and say that they may perform any of their functions through or by any of their officers or servants duly authorised by the board in that behalf. When we speak of the board what exactly do we mean? Do we mean a majority of the members of the board? Do we mean a quorum of the board which could be, as the Minister has provided, five out of 11, which would in fact be a minority of the board? Could a minority remove an officer of the board? This is an important point which the Minister might perhaps consider. It would look wrong if the manager of the board could be removed by a minority. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard.

Mr. J. Gibbons

We have already determined what will be a quorum of the board. A quorum could, presumably, take decisions and it is clear enough what is meant in this context.

Mr. Clinton

I take it that the Minister is satisfied that the principal officer of this board could be removed by a minority? If he is happy about that situation, I certainly am not. I think provision could be made to prevent this. The removal of an officer should require at least seven votes. The Minister will surely agree that it would be altogether wrong that the principal officer of the board could be removed by a minority.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The power of decision rests with the quorum of the board in any matter requiring decision and it applies equally in this matter.

Mr. Clinton

In the circumstances, could I ask the Minister what security of tenure would the principal officer of the board have where a minority of the members could remove him? He would have no security whatever.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I think this matter arises under section 20 which has just been passed.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is irrelevant on this section then.

Mr. Clinton

Section 21 states that the board may perform any of its functions through or by any of its officers or servants duly authorised by the board. Under section 21 a minority of the board could, for example, authorise a principal officer to remove his second in command.

An Ceann Comhairle

This does not arise on this section.

Mr. Clinton

The question of the board's functions arises and one of their functions is the removal of officers.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is the performance of their functions by officers and servants.

Mr. Clinton

It is stated that the board may perform any of their functions through or by any of their officers or servants. Therefore, they can delegate the authority of the board to any officer or officers of the board to do a job and one could be to remove the principal officer.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think so.

An Ceann Comhairle

Section 25 refers to removal of officers.

Mr. Clinton

This leaves the whole procedure wide open.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not agree with the Deputy. This concerns the carrying out of various functions or the delegation of power to officers and servants to carry out various functions of the board's work. It is perfectly straightforward.

Mr. Clinton

Does the Minister not accept that one of the functions of the board is the power to remove an officer?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Which we have dealt with.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister will agree that it is one of the functions and this is one of the functions that may be delegated under section 21?

Mr. J. Gibbons

It does not make sense that the board would delegate to one of their officers the removal of another officer. I cannot understand that.

Mr. Clinton

Obviously, the Minister does not want to understand it, as he does not want to understand the reasoning behind the various propositions we on this side of the House have been making since these discussions began.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 22 agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I would not encourage members of the board to stand for election to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 23 (1) (c) states that a person who becomes a member of either House of the Oireachtas shall not have his time in the Oireachtas taken into consideration for pension purposes. For my own information, may I ask the Minister if that applies to employees of local authorities who are given extended leave or dispensary doctors who might also be given extended leave?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not know the answer.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I can understand that the Minister is not in a position to answer and I realise I could not expect him to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. L'Estrange

This section deals with acceptance of gifts by the board. It is stated that the board may not accept a gift if the conditions attached to the acceptance by the donor are inconsistent with the functions of the board. What kind of gifts has the Minister in mind?

Mr. J. Gibbons

The board will be able to accept gifts unless the terms of the gift forbid this.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

From what the Minister has said, I take it that this is an anti-bribery section whereby the Minister wants to ensure that the board will not accept money they should not accept. By accepting such money they might do something which is not in keeping with the functions of the board. Am I correct in this assumption?

Mr. L'Estrange

Does this apply to the board collectively or individually?

Mr. J. Gibbons

It applies to the board. If the Deputy will read the first section of section 24 that will be quite clear.

Mr. L'Estrange

Is there any way in which a section could be inserted to prevent members of the board accepting gifts? Unfortunately this is happening at the present time. There is no use in the Minister smiling. Some of the people on boards have got rich very quickly at the expense of the taxpayers. We do not want to see it happening in this case, irrespective of what Government are in power. If, collectively, the board cannot accept gifts, why should individual members be allowed to accept gifts? We know it is happening in Bord na gCon. In one case we know a man got as much as £400, he bought a dog for £600——

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing the question of buying dogs.

Mr. L'Estrange

We want to ensure that individual members of the board cannot accept gifts inconsistent with the functions of the board. Unfortunately, it seems to be general policy that members of boards will not do their duty unless those with whom they are dealing are prepared to give them a hand back; there is far too much of that kind of thing. Surely the Minister could insert a short section to deal with this. He provides that the board shall not accept a gift if the conditions attached to the acceptance of the gift are inconsistent with the functions of the board. Could he not spell out that no member of the board shall accept a gift if the conditions of acceptance are inconsistent with the functions of the board? Here it is left wide open. A man could buy a horse for £600, sell it for £1,000, and pocket the £400. We want an end to that type of corruption or malpractice. It is, unfortunately, all too common in some of our State and semi-State bodies. It is up to the Government, even at this late hour, to try to put an end to it. I suggest that the Minister insert a section that neither the board nor any member of the board shall accept a gift. If it is wrong for the board collectively to accept a gift, surely it should equally be wrong for a member of the board to accept a gift.

Mr. J. Gibbons

This section is not concerned so much with bribery as with gifts inconsistent with section 7. I think Deputy L'Estrange's point is adequately covered in other legislation.

Mr. L'Estrange

If it is catered for in other legislation why is there such corruption and such malpractice in certain State and semi-State bodies and why should these people get away with it?

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing State and semi-State bodies. We are discussing section 24.

Mr. J. Gibbons

There is legislation dealing with the offence of accepting bribes.

Mr. L'Estrange

How many have been brought to justice?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think a willingness to accept bribes should be imputed to the prospective members of the board. If anybody was so unfortunate as to become a victim to that kind of practice there is already adequate legislation in existence to deal with that situation.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister must know that there are victims. There are people in State and semi-State bodies who accept bribes, people in blooming good jobs who should be satisfied with the remuneration they are getting from the taxpayers, but they become so greedy and corrupt they are not satisfied. There should be a definite section enshrined in Bills to put an end to this practice. If this board as a whole cannot accept gifts, I do not think any members of the board should be allowed to accept them either.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Has this any relevance?

An Ceann Comhairle

No relevance whatsoever.

Dr. Browne

There is a difficulty on the part of the Opposition because the Minister appears to be inconsistent. We suggested earlier that he might lay down certain procedure in the case of a person who might be involved in a particular deal and who might gain an advantage in that deal because of his membership of the board. The Minister's suggestion was that that person should withdraw. He did not want to hurt the susceptibility of the people engaged in the horse buying, selling and training industry. Our case was that these people were fairly rugged individuals and well used to that kind of activity and they would not, therefore, be hurt if certain provisions were incorporated in the Bill directing the kind of procedure to be followed in buying and selling. The Minister must not be too upset now when we find it difficult—I do at any rate—to understand how he can put in a provision here which suggests not so much that individuals but the whole board would allow themselves to be bribed.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is conceivable that in certain circumstances a gift might be offered to the board to serve a purpose inimical to the purpose of the board. I gave as an example a gift meant to promote the import of horses which would, of course, militate against our own horse trade. That would be inconsistent and, under section 24, the board would be precluded from accepting such a gift.

Dr. Browne

Our case was that certain provisions should be incorporated in the Bill to strengthen the hand of the chairman and to ensure that public money would be carefully and judiciously spent. The Minister's case all the time has been that this is a body which is so above suspicion we do not really have to incorporate this kind of provision in relation to them. Here we have a provision which I, if I were a member of the board, would consider a most offensive provision, a provision suggesting that, unless this was spelled out, I might take a bribe.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is not so.

Mr. Barrett

I think the Minister has made it very clear that he is not talking about bribes here.

Dr. Browne

A rose by any other name!

Mr. Barrett

The men who will be appointed to this board will be men of the highest integrity. Wild, sweeping statements are being made here without any foundation whatsoever.

Mr. L'Estrange

I have been proved right over the last year about the Ministers—Deputy Moran, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Boland. I did not mention Deputy Haughey. But I was proved right about the other three and it is a bad day for the country that I was. I would have preferred to have been proved wrong.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

If a member of the board does anything, or accepts a bribe, a benefit, or whatever you like to call it, to enable somebody to secure some particular privilege arising out of his membership of the board, what is there in this Bill to deal with him? Can the Minister simply say that this man has no right to serve any longer on the board? We are entitled to some protection. If I am a member of the board and I secure for a friend a very beneficial price for a horse as a result of my membership of the board, am I infringing the law? We want some guarantees about that. Could the Minister clarify the point?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think it is necessary to include a provision about propriety in this section any more than it is necessary to incorporate a section that would forbid Members to murder their wives. It is a non sequitur. It does not come into section 24 at all. I have already explained that the purpose of this is that, in the case of the board getting gifts, the gifts offered must be consistent with the general aims of the board which are to promote the export of horses and to foster the horse industry generally. It is conceivable that gifts might be offered that would not be so consistent.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Might it be that the board could accept gifts for the purpose of carrying out the objects of section 7 but that the board could not accept a gift provided there was a condition to it that they would spend the money made for the purpose, say, of conducting a campaign against horse racing as a cruel sport?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Why should anyone appointed by the Minister as a member of this board accept a gift from anybody to further any action he might have in mind?

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is not a person; it is the board collectively.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Somebody such as the Aga Khan might give a few million pounds.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Suppose a man or a woman who is a member of the board accepts a gift to further some sale of some animal in which they have a particular interest, or in which some friend of theirs has a particular interest, is that in keeping with what the Minister has in mind?

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is not.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

If it is, it is an incitement to bribery.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is not in keeping: it is a separate offence that could be dealt with separately.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

On another section?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Just as it is against the law to break a window of your neighbour's house it is also against the law to accept a bribe.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I have not had an answer to a very simple question. Suppose I am a member of this board and have an interest in the sale of a particular animal belonging to a friend of mine or to somebody else and I accept a gift for that prupose: am I still bona fide? Am I going to stay on the board?

Mr. J. Gibbons

No, you are not. We dealt with this at great length some hours ago—the question of a member of the board declaring an interest in any particular transaction.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 25.

Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. P. Barry

Do these committees or subcommittees, appointed by the board, draw expenses, and so on?

Mr. J. Gibbons

This would be a matter for the board themselves.

Mr. P. Barry

That they could?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Under section 25, the board may establish committees to perform such, if any, functions of the board as in the opinion of the board may be better or more conveniently performed by a committee, and are assigned to a committee by the board. I suppose that is reasonable enough. Then, in subsection (6) we read:

That acts of a committee established under this section shall be subject to confirmation by the Board unless the Board dispenses with the necessity for such confirmation.

The board may establish a subcommittee and give it some comparatively important function to discharge and forget all about it. It may not be subject to confirmation by the board. I think it should be subject to confirmation by the board. This section confers on the board the right to appoint a subcommittee to perform any of their functions, as the board think fit, and the board need never hear anything about this again. They can just leave it to the subcommittee who can perform these functions and commit the board up to the hilt without referring back to the board. This would be a better section if the last few words of subsection (6) which I have just read out were deleted—"... unless the Board dispenses with the necessity for such confirmation".

Mr. P. Barry

And subsection (7) also.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): No, it does not. Subsection (6) is the confirmation section. It states that the acts of a committee established under this section shall be subject to confirmation by the board unless the board dispense with such confirmation. The House should seriously consider whether it is wise to give the board power to delegate their duties to a subcommittee without the necessity for the board's confirming the acts of the subcommittee because the subcommittee may consist of people not members of the board at all; it may be any person. We shall be told that the board will act responsibly. I would hope they would and I would expect them to do so. At the same time, I think subsection (6) is going a bit too far.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I think it should remain as it is. One can readily imagine a situation in which it would be necessary to dispense with the obligation on the subcommittee to await confirmation and the board, having set up a subcommittee to carry out a specific task, would unnecessarily restrict their activities and their freedom of action as a result of the deletion of the words which Deputy Fitzpatrick suggests ought to be deleted.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not think the Minister is entirely right there. He adopts the policy of “not an inch”. Even subsection (6) as it is drafted does not intend what the Minister intends. Indeed, it would seem to imply that the acts of the subcommittee would normally require confirmation because it is only if the board dispense with that confirmation, that confirmation will not be necessary. My question is whether it is right to give the board power to dispense with confirmation.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I think it is. It takes in the general acceptance of the competence of the board to carry out their own business. If the board decide to dispense with the necessity for confirmation in certain circumstances, we must accept that they are competent enough to judge the proper circumstances in which to give such dispensation.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister would give the board the right to do anything except the right to appoint their own chairman.

Mr. Clinton

If the board decide that confirmation is not necessary do they then divest themselves of responsibility for what this subcommittee does?

Mr. J. Gibbons

No. There is precisely the same subsection in the Racing Board and Racecourses Act.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am sure there is a precedent for it. Where would it come out of?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Deputies opposite were beating my head with this particular Act earlier on in the day. It is no harm to point out that subsection (4) of section 10 of the Racing Board and Racecourses Act, 1945, includes this type of provision.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I accept that. I think there is a point of view for it here and I would say it is not as bad as we think it is. Confirmation will not be necessary unless the board say when appointing the subcommittee: “You need not report back. Go and do the job we are giving you to do.” Unless the board say that, it will be necessary for the subcommittee to report back and get confirmation.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is right.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 26.

Question proposed: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Clinton

I am opposed to section 26 because, on numerous occasions in the course of the discussion on Committee Stage of this Bill, the Minister expressed his concern for the independence of the board and now, in this section, he proposes to take all this independence away. He proposes to take the authority into his own hands to decide what type of riding establishment should get a licence and what type of riding establishment should not get a licence. Because the Minister has handled this Bill in a certain way up to the present, and because of the manner in which he has insisted on holding on to authority to select the board and the chairman, he has rendered himself suspect.

We are now suspicious about this section because he can decide: "This is a group of friends of mine. I will make regulations and I will not subject them to the necessity of having a licence for their establishment." I very much dislike legislation by ministerial regulation. Why does not the Minister spell out and specify in this Bill the type of riding establishment he considers should not be required to have a licence? He must have in mind at this stage a specific type of riding establishment that he does not want to be covered by licence. It should be written into the legislation and specified. The Minister should not have the power to decide to befriend one section and offend another.

We had a very long argument here on another occasion and I submit there is an analogy here. The Minister for Justice brought in the Intoxicating Liquor Bill and he wanted power in section 15 to license all the cafes in the country. We had endless arguments about this and we threw it out, but it was brought before the House as a section in a Bill. Here it is proposed that we should give similar power to the Minister. Why should we give him that power? Why should he be entitled to license or not to license any establishment in the country by ministerial order and not spell out his reasons?

Mr. Keating

I rise to add my voice to that of Deputy Clinton. When one reads this section in a leisurely way its import is absolutely monstrous. The section provides:

The Minister may by regulations under this section provide that this Part shall not apply to any class of riding establishment specified in the regulations ...

There is not the faintest effort to indicate what the Minister's thoughts are. We are asked to give carte blanche to the Minister in an area of this kind. Surely if one thing has emerged from this debate it is that in the minds of the Opposition Deputies —and in this we reflect the minds of the public—the most profound doubt exists in various areas as to the exercise of power by Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries and as to whether or not that power will be exercised properly. If we were at the end of a period of perhaps a quarter of a century in which we had Ministers for Agriculture and Fisheries behaving impeccably we might conceivably let such a section as this pass without demur.

I wish I were a lawyer, because I wonder whether any legislative body could confer on a Minister this sort of totally unrestricted and undefined power. Perhaps, some of the lawyers present in the House could tell me because it strikes me as being utterly extraordinary that we should be requested to give approval to something that is totally unspecified when we could see it used in ways in which we would profoundly disagree with the decision taken. It is easy to make charges about people mocking Parliament and debasing the legislative process; for the Minister even to ask for this power without vast amplification of his intentions, is, in fact, mocking this House.

Mr. Davern

I agree with the right of the Minister to license these establishments in view of the fact that we are trying to provide superior horses and superior riders. If any one who rides a pony home from the creamery could start a riding establishment— and tourism is also involved—we would have a bunch of gaucho riders. It has been proved that riders, ponies and horses benefit from specialised training. Unless these establishments are licensed no proper amenities will be provided.

Mr. Cooney

No one disputes the necessity for a system of licensing. The last speaker overlooked the wording of section 26:

The Minister may by regulations under this section provide that this Part shall not apply to any class of riding establishment ...

The Minister may be selective in giving licences in the terrible sense that he may exempt some establishments from the necessity of having to have a licence. I do not think this complies with the proposition that all people are equal before the law. It is a serious breach of that rule. There is absolutely no control over how the Minister exercises his discretion. There is reference in brackets to some of the matters he might take into account in deciding who does not need a licence: "(by reference to such matters, including the number of horses kept, as the Minister may consider appropriate)". It is entirely at his discretion. There is a vague reference to the number of horses kept.

Did the draftsman have in mind that a huge establishment with 100 horses does not need a licence, or had he in mind that an establishment with half a dozen horses does not need a licence? If riding establishments need licences —and nobody disputes the necessity for licensing riding establishments; this was very strongly recommended by the survey team—I cannot see why the Minister would not accept that recommendation and include all riding establishments. I consider that the section as drafted is very unfortunate and this is an extraordinary power for the Minister to want to take.

Mr. R. Barry

When I spoke on this Horse Industry Bill last week I said that the setting up and improvement of horse riding establishments were very desirable. There is no doubt in the minds of all who know anything about horses that there is a real need for improvement here. Having listened to the debate for the last few hours and the Minister's talk about independence, I think if there is any section of this Bill that should be left to the discretion of the board it is this section. In this case there should be no interference or advice from the Minister. We want to set up a board as independent as he believes they will be. The Minister does not think the Local Appointments Commission are competent enough to choose executive officers by reason of the fact that those executive officers will need a special knowledge of horse breeding and of the horse industry in general. I believe this very important work should be left to that board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

This is one of the areas in which the board will be invaluable to the Minister in deciding about the application of licences. A system of licensing is desirable in order to raise the general standard of instruction, the maintenance of horses and stable buildings at riding establishments. Anyone with a knowledge of the horse riding scene will know that the small operators find it very difficult to keep going. They make a livelihood of sorts and I would not like to see this class of establishment unduly restricted. They are entitled to a chance of survival.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What class, did the Minister specify?

Mr. J. Gibbons

The small operator who hires horses on very modest lines. The Minister should approach the general question of the licensing of establishments in collaboration with the Horse Board. Exemptions can only be made by regulation under section 5 and orders and regulations must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and may be acknowledged by a resolution of the House. There is no absolute and sweeping assumption of power on the part of the Minister in this particular regard; it is simply the necessity to determine how far and how fast to go in the business of licensing riding establishments.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): There is a great deal to be said for licensing these establishments in order to see that they are properly run, that the horses are properly looked after and that inexperienced people are not allowed out on the horses. The Minister proposes to exclude certain establishments altogether from the licensing provisions. It is difficult to see what the point in this is. I am not thinking for a moment that there is any ulterior motive here—I am sure the Minister will be glad to hear that—but even if a man is operating a riding school with a couple of horses, would it not be a good thing to have some supervision over that establishment? Abuses can creep in to an establishment where there are only one or two animals just the same as if there were 15 or 20. As a matter of fact, abuses might be more likely in an establishment where there are only one or two horses. I do not visualise that the licensing provisions would put the small man out of business provided he met the minimum standards required by the regulations introduced by the Minister on the advice of this board. I should like to know exactly what the Minister has in mind and why he thinks it might be necessary to exempt small establishments and not large establishments from the licensing provisions and the consequent supervision.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The general objective is to raise the standard of instruction, animal husbandry and riding generally.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt the Minister but, as I see it, this visualises instructing in riding and riding per se which are two different things.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The main purpose is to raise the standards in all these things. As Deputies with any knowledge of the horse business know, there are all kinds of establishments which deal with riding. I would regret if a peremptory briskness were employed in the general approach to the licensing arrangements of these establishments because the wrong people might get hurt. This matter requires careful handling to ensure that it is done properly. It is a very good example of the type of problem which the Minister would take to the board and ask their advice on it. Every Minister would be well advised to get the views of the board about this before he took any action himself, bearing in mind the objective that we do not want to injure anyone and in general we want to raise the level of the standards of training of horses and riders and the maintenance of horses. At the same time, we do not want to put the small operators out of business if we can avoid it. It is rather a difficult situation and that is why I propose to get the advice of the board on a continuous basis about this.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I should like to congratulate the Minister on talking round a subject without expressing any views on it.

Mr. J. Gibbons

We must go into the field and examine what we have there before we can say that we have a good number of riding establishments or a poor number of riding establishments. This problem requires very careful examination.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): But why total exemption from the licensing provisions for the small operator? I assume a certain standard of horse or pony would be required. Where a person is renting out horses for reward or providing instruction for reward would that not apply in any case?

Mr. J. Gibbons

As I said earlier this is something we would need to examine very carefully.

Mr. Cooney

Surely the whole object of the licences is to raise the standards?

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is right.

Mr. Cooney

By exempting people we are exempting them from being a party to having their standards raised.

Mr. J. Gibbons

If he has any ambition at all we would be instilling in him an ambition to reach that standard.

Mr. Cooney

Is it the Minister's intention that there will be only a temporary deferment of coming within the scope of the licensing provisions?

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is a bit conjectural. This section is a general acceptance of the desirability of a licensing system but we must feel our way about this under the section.

Mr. Cooney

If the principle that the licensing system seems to establish means a raising of standards why should any establishment be exempt from having its standards raised no matter how small it is?

Mr. J. Gibbons

First, it may not reach the required standard. Secondly, the operator may be unable to afford the cost involved and you do not want deliberately to put him out of business if you can avoid it.

Mr. Cooney

If he is not fit to be in business does he not have to go out of business? That is the underlying assumption in having licences at all. Is there not provision in section 28, if I have not misread it, for the application of the licensing section being postponed? Would not that be sufficient protection for the small man and enable him to get his house in order and would it not be preferable to exemptions?

Mr. J. Gibbons

This is something that should be played together between the Minister and the board.

Mr. Cooney

Except in section 33 nowhere in the earlier sections is there anything that obliges the Minister to do so but I presume the Minister will ask for recommendations? Would it not be better, as Deputy Clinton suggested, that the board should issue these regulations? Let the board issue the regulations and recommend people to whom licences should be given and let the Minister issue the licence.

Mr. J. Gibbons

No. In this case the Minister should make the regulations, as recommended in the Bill. He should make these regulations in consultation with the board. I think that is the proper way to do it.

Mr. Cooney

May I take it that the exemptions envisaged by section 56 will be only temporary exemptions?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would hope so.

Mr. Keating

It has emerged, if I correctly understand what the Minister has said, that the exemptions envisaged are exemptions of small operators. I think there is a general welcome for the principle of licensing but let us look for the moment at the object. It is necessary to raise the standards of instruction but it is also necessary to have regard to standards of safety for those hiring horses because we know this sport has a certain risk in it. It is also necessary to take great care to ensure the avoidance of cruelty either by indifference or improper use of animals by inexperienced people. This is becoming more and more a sensitive area. We are talking about an industry with a vast tourist potential where we shall not be dealing only with people in this country but with many tourists.

The Minister has used the phrase "the small operator" but I suggest that adverse results through neglect of safety precautions and also through possible cruelty to the horses which would conceivably result in extremely adverse mass publicity, would be more likely to occur in the establishment of a small operator who is in severe difficulties. We know of large establishments in Dublin where the standards of instruction, of care and safety and everything else are magnificently high. It is precisely the man with a few horses in some out of the way place who might damage the reputation of all the riding establishments. The Minister is unduly worried about introducing licences and the adverse effect on small operators.

We have a good deal of experience —if we say hard things it is well to say good things also—of various Department of Agriculture schemes where there are statutory requirements that farmers must meet and we know that the interpretation of these schemes by the Minister's officers is generally a very understanding one. They are not out to crucify people: they give them time; they appreciate temporary or particular difficulties where these exist. They are humane and understanding. Surely a great deal of the risk of adverse publicity either by accident to a human being or by cruelty to a horse lies precisely in the area of the man who does not have a big stable but who perhaps buys three or four horses for a summer season and says: "If it does not go well it does not matter." He is the person who would need to have his sights raised by his inclusion in a scheme of licensing where there was also understanding of particular human difficulties that may exist in regard to all Department schemes.

Mr. P. Barry

I should like to make the same point as Deputy Keating but possibly in reverse in that I think many small operators who perhaps only go into the business part-time have equally good animals, treat them equally well and are as competent as instructors from the safety and riding point of view as big operators. I think they themselves would wish to be included and registered in this scheme, unless the Minister has in mind something like the Bord Fáilte scheme for guesthouses whereby there are registered and unregistered houses and Bord Fáilte recommend only registered guesthouses. If there is a licensing system everybody should be licensed. The system can be interpreted leniently for a number of years until people have a chance to improve their establishments or the quality of their horses. I think for that reason the Minister should agree to register both big and small.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I think we must distingush between the operator who provides instruction and the small operator. Many people, such as small and medium farmers in my own constituency, keep one or two horses which they hire out to people wishing to hunt in winter. In my view any establishment where instruction is provided should be subject to the licensing requirements. There is a cast-iron case for bringing them within the scope of the licensing system but I am a little concerned about the small and medium farmers in my constituency. Quite a number of them in recent years in response to demand for hunters from tourists and others began keeping a couple of horses which they hire. I am not clear as to the actual need for licensing such people who provide no instruction, merely horses. No exemption should be granted to any establishment providing instruction. Perhaps the Minister would say what his views are in regard to those who keep a couple of hunters for hire.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I think it is a question of defining what we mean by "a riding establishment". I should like to say that no exemption at all is contemplated unless it is recommended by the horse board. I hope the examples that have been cited will serve as an illustration of the very wide spectrum of horse-operators that exist. For instance, as mentioned by Deputy O'Donnell, there are people who hire horses but do so so rarely that they could not seriously be said to be running a business or a riding establishment.

What Deputy Keating said about the necessity for vigilance in regard to the proper treatment of animals is certainly worth noting. As I said earlier, it is such a large problem, covers such a wide spectrum of people and requires such careful handling that it ought to be approached by the board acting primarily in an advisory capacity to the Minister. The Minister would be very foolish if he did not accept the advice of the board especially on the question of giving exemptions. I do not think that an exemption should be given to an individual per se but that it should apply more to classes of riding establishments, if they can be classified, and that, too, is not very easy. However, this section enables this to be done.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 27.

Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Keating

I think we have overlapped a little because some of the discussion on section 27 came up under section 26. What is set out here is precisely an effort to define what section of the entire business of hiring horses and offering instruction should be caught within this Bill. Section 27 refers to horses "being let out on hire for riding". Then the matter of instruction is mentioned. A very significant development has occurred in connection with horses in this country in the last seven or eight years, which is the letting out of horse caravans. Of course people do not ride the horses; the horses pull caravans.

Mr. J. Gibbons

We do not deal with them.

Mr. Keating

I realise that, but I am suggesting that the licensing regulations might be extended to cover the horse caravan operator for the reason of the safety of the people hiring if the horse is unsuitable, and the adverse publicity to the whole equine scene in Ireland if the horse is cruelly treated. These arise not in connection with riding but in connection with Irish horses for pleasure. Could the Minister see his way to extend this section to the licensing of such people, not very numerous and some of them quite large operators, who hire out horse caravans to people travelling the roads on holiday? In this way he would ensure a standard that would prevent our getting adverse publicity in either of the ways that occur to me. It is a little invidious that somebody who hires out a horse to be ridden should be subject to licensing requirements while someone who hires one out for pulling a caravan should not be so licenced. I think everyone in the House accepts in principle that the arguments for licensing riding establishments——

Mr. J. Gibbons

In so far as they relate to the riding of horses. The essential difference is that we are concerned not with caravan horses but with riding horses. The caravan horses are draught horses and are not dealt with in this Bill at all. I do agree with Deputy Keating this widening field of activity in caravaning is throwing up a demand for proper attention to the maintenance of the horses involved in it. It is a difficult country, too, because a great part of the suffering inflicted on some of the animals results merely from the total ignorance of some of the drivers of even the rudiments of handling a horse. I do not think there is a great deal of conscious cruelty to these horses but there may be a great deal of cruelty resulting from ignorance such as——

Mr. Cooney

Which end do you put in the water?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, and the failure to dry horses off after a day's work, the development of harness sores and things like that. However, we are not dealing with that class of horse in this Bill.

Mr. Cooney

I might mention the difficulty raised by Deputy O'Donnell, the establishment where one or two or possibly more hunters are kept and hired during the winter. I do not think they should come within the scope of this section. They are not the type of riding establishment the survey intended to include. There is no doubt that the qualities of the mount must be up to standard or the person hiring out the horse will not do any business. You could have a person with, say, horses of his own which he is hiring and he could have two or three more at livery. If a man has horses at livery during the hunting season should he have a licence? Perhaps the section could be amended to add after the words "the purpose of their being let out on hire for riding" the words "other than for hunting hounds" That would exempt such an establishment.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Again from the tourist angle and in relation to what Deputy Keating has said in regard to establishments providing horses for the purpose of pulling caravans, I would not be in favour of bringing these establishments under the licensing regulations at all. From my own personal experience of these establishments I know that before such an operator is recognised by Bord Fáilte and before he will get any business from foreign travel operators, his establishment is subjected to very close scrutiny and unless it is up to standard he will not get business and if he does get business and is subsequently found not to be up to standard he will get no business afterwards. I agree with Deputy Cooney that there is no need to license the farmer who keeps hunters.

Mr. J. Gibbons

As I said earlier, I agree the man who hires out a horse occasionally for the purpose of hunting should not seriously be considered as having a riding establishment. However, as I said also, this is a matter that the Minister and the board should work out between them and the Minister should draw on the competence of the members of the board in this field.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 28.

Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Cooney

I do not quite follow subsection (1) (b) of this section. Subsection (1) (a) says:

... a person shall not keep a riding establishment except under and in accordance with a licence.

Paragraph (b) (1) states that that provision does not apply "to a person who kept a riding establishment immediately before the commencement of this Part, during the period of three months beginning on such commencement." Does that mean a person has three months in which to apply for a licence?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, the existing operator will have three months' grace from the coming into operation of the licence provision.

Mr. Cooney

Paragraph (b) (ii) reads:

in relation to a person who acquires, by purchase or otherwise, a riding establishment the subject of a licence, during the period of three months beginning on the date of such acquisition, or

Does that mean the licence is personal to the operator and does not apply to the business and that if a person purchases a riding school he does not get the licence but has to apply for one?

Mr. J. Gibbons

The person who at at any time buys an establishment from a licensed operator——

Mr. Cooney

He has three months to apply for a new licence?

Mr. J. Gibbons

The licence carries over to the new operator.

Mr. Cooney

Why then is this necessary? What is the reference to three months? It appears to me that the licence dies and he has to apply for a new licence.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is in the case of a person applying for a new licence.

Mr. Cooney

Paragraph (b) (ii) refers to a person buying a riding establishment. He does not need a licence for three months.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I am not with the Deputy.

Mr. Cooney

He buys a licensed riding establishment. This would seem to suggest that the licence is personal and does not pass over with the establishment. Is that the position?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, it is to the person rather than the establishment.

Mr. Cooney

Is it not rather odd that if a licence is in force to a person for an establishment that it should not continue, that there should have to be provision for a new licence?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think so. The decisive thing here is the personal fitness of the licensee.

Mr. Cooney

Yes, it gives the Department the chance to investigate that.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cooney

This section sets out the provisions that the Minister has to take into account. They are all extremely sensible. The last one, paragraph (h) states that:

where horses are used for the purpose of providing in return for payment instruction in riding, the person giving the instruction shall have the necessary skill and ability for the purpose.

Who is to say what is the necessary skill and who decides the standards? If a person has not got the necessary skill and ability presumably an offence is committed, or if it is a condition of the licence and these are the things that have to be taken into account, and the conditions of the licence are not complied with, it will be very difficult trying to prosecute where something is left as it is there. There are no objective standards which can be provided. I do not know if you can prosecute where you cannot provide objective standards.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The possession or otherwise of the necessary skill would I suppose be determined by an officer of the board.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That is one of the things the Minister has to take into consideration in granting the licence.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think there is any other way of doing it.

Mr. Cooney

It should not be a condition of the licence because a breach of it could not be proved. It is something which the Minister should bear in mind when he is drawing up his regulations. It should not be part of the legislation.

Mr. J. Gibbons

As the Deputy said, it would be very hard to prove.

Mr. Cooney

It would be impossible to prove and that is why I say it should not be part of the legislation, it should not be a condition of the licence.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is conceivable that if a person was of such gross incompetence that it could be shown that he was grossly incompetent.

Mr. Cott

Would the Minister like to specify what else would qualify a person for a licence besides experience in the management of horses?

Mr. Cooney

Is it not rather odd that if a licence is in force to a person for an establishment that it should not continue, that there should have to be provision for a new licence?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I did not catch the Deputy's question.

Mr. Cott

The section says, more or less, that one would qualify for a licence—I am referring to line five in the first part of the section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is referring to the fifth line at the start of the section.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, I think it is rather straightforward. The note I have from my adviser is that a person could have 20 years' experience or one year's special training. He might be an old horse-hand or a fellow who had done special training and developed an acquired skill.

Mr. Cott

Would the individual in that case need special training to qualify?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Presumably.

Mr. Cooney

I am a bit apprehensive to hear the Minister saying 20 years' experience or one year's special training. Many people could be excluded who would be very competent. I hope it does not show how minds are running in regard to the drafting of the regulations. Under subsection (3) the Minister proposes to refuse a licence. The seven days could be extended to 14 days. It would not be unreasonable to give a person 14 days to make representations. It should be spelt out and the Minister should give his reasons in writing.

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is undertaken in subsection (3). The Deputy wants 14 days instead of seven.

Mr. Cooney

Yes and the reasons should be notified in writing.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Could we talk about that on Report Stage?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Cheers!

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is rather late in the night.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): If we stay another couple of days at this we will get the Minister to do something. I see the section provides that an appeal can be made against the Minister's refusal to grant a licence. Naturally I would like the appeal to be to the district court but I do not imagine I would get the Minister to agree to that. Subsection (3) (d) provides that the Minister shall appoint a person who is a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing to hold any inquiry under this subsection and the person so appointed shall have power to take evidence on oath and so on. I am going to make a small professional plug here and suggest that not alone should a barrister of ten years' standing qualify for appointment but that a solicitor of ten years' standing should qualify for appointment. I base that argument on the talk we had recently on the profusion of professions, on the change in the law to deem a solicitor qualified for appointment to the position of circuit court judge. The former Minister for Justice spoke in those terms when introducing the Estimate for his Department some months ago. We are thinking in those terms of having an enlarged jurisdiction for the district court, which is promised in a Bill which it is hoped will come before the House shortly, having the jurisdiction of the circuit court increased—recently we had a district justice appointed to the tribunal to inquire into the 7 Days programme on money lending—and solicitors qualify for the position of district justices. On that tribunal too, we had two high court judges and the president of the district court. A solicitor is qualified for the position of district justice; in fact, the present president of the district court is a solicitor by profession. Therefore, I urge the Minister to amend this on Report Stage and to add “that the Minister shall appoint a person who is a practising barrister or solicitor of ten years' standing”. If the Minister does not wish to take my word for it I suggest he speaks to the Minister for Justice on the matter before Report Stage. My suggestion is in line with Government thinking on this subject and I should be interested to hear the Minister's views.

Mr. J. Gibbons

This is rather unfamiliar territory for me but I suspect it is the old business between barristers and solicitors. I also think this provision about a barrister of ten years' standing is a standard one.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is a standard but there has been a change of thought.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It would be inappropriate for the Horse Industry Bill to be used as a vehicle for the promotion of an objective that has nothing to do with this industry. There appears to be a discussion among the legal profession about these matters and I do not think they should be introduced into this Bill. I think subsection (d) is all right as it stands.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The discusion is not among the profession but it is going on in the Department of Justice; in fact, it was the former Minister for Justice who introduced the discussion and expressed very firm views on it. Since the foundation of the State there have been innumerable precedents for appointing solicitors to hold inquiries into various

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): matters and for appointing them on judicial tribunals. Surely the task entrusted here under this section is no more important than the jurisdiction entrusted to a district justice who has power to sentence people to 12 months' imprisonment and who has the power to withdraw a driving licence from a motorist, even for life? This subsection merely follows some other subsection that was put into another Act. I am suggesting to the Minister that he consults with the Minister for Justice who should be in a position to advise him on such matters.

Mr. Cooney

If the Minister revokes a licence there is provision for the person concerned to request an inquiry. This is the proper procedure where a person's livelihood is affected. However, if the Minister refuses to grant a licence the effect of the refusal could be equally serious and the equity of the case demands that an inquiry be held in this instance also. Administratively, it might appear cumbersome to hold an inquiry every time the Minister refuses a licence, but as hardship is created in the case of a refusal in fairness an inquiry should be held. We should reject the principle that a refusal is an administrative decision and ends there. There should at least be an inquiry before an impartial judicial person if it is not possible to go to the ordinary courts.

With reference to the holding of the inquiry, there is provision for the person to appear personally or by counsel or solicitor and to adduce evidence, but this is optional. One can imagine a situation where a man might not want to engage advocates to appear for him. We could have the situation of a barrister of ten years' standing holding an inquiry into the revocation by the Minister of a licence for a riding establishment, because of non-compliance with the conditions of the licence or failure to come up to the standards recommended. Many of these conditions would be very technical and, while barristers are men of wide knowledge, one could visualise a situation where the barrister would be at sea if the case was not presented by professional advocates. If the party losing the licence decided to present his own case, in those circumstances the Minister should provide for an assessor to sit with the barrister holding the inquiry.

The right to appear personally or by counsel or solicitor and to adduce evidence is given. Presumably the practice will develop that counsel or solicitor or both will appear on behalf of the Minister to justify the revocation and there could be an inquiry of several days' duration. There is no provision here for easing the burden of costs and it might not be a bad idea if the Minister gave power to the tribunal holding the inquiry to make an award of costs to the person appearing at the tribunal, irrespective of the result. In the case of revocation of a licence, the person concerned might be inhibited by reason of the costs involved from seeking professional aid. The cost factor should not deter a person in cases where the necessity arose as a result of a ministerial action. It would be more just and equitable that provision be made for payment of the costs of a person who has to attend at the inquiry, irrespective of whether he wins or loses the case. Perhaps the Minister would let me have his views on this?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I shall discuss it with the Deputy on Report Stage. I should like to consider what he has said and I am not in a position to reply to him immediately.

Mr. Cooney

That is fair enough.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 30.

Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Clinton

I agree that the Minister should have the power he is seeking in so far as it relates to premises for which he has already given a licence. However, I think it rather extravagant and far-fetched of the Minister to require that where an establishment applies for a licence he should have power to require any person having in his possession or control any records or documents relating to the premises or the business carried on there to produce such records or other documents and to inspect, examine, copy or take extracts from them. I consider this a fantastic requirement in respect of an establishment which has been carrying on business that has no relationship with the requirements the Minister may expect when he issues a licence. I assume the Minister will lay down conditions.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 11th June, 1970.