Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Jul 1970

Vol. 248 No. 12

Horse Industry Bill, 1970: Report Stage.

Mr. Cooney

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, line 26 to add "Provided that appointments of officers shall only be made on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commission".

I can appreciate the Minister saying the Local Appointments Commission would have no function in a matter of this kind, that its statutory authority does not extend to this, but it is the principle with which I am concerned. I should like to see an outside independent tribunal such as the Local Appointments Commission appoint the officers to this board.

The posts that will be filled by officers will necessarily be responsible and, no doubt, highly remunerated. The board should be removed from having the responsibility for making these appointments itself. I do not want to be understood as saying that I would not have confidence in the board's ability to make a good appointment. The Minister, I am sure, will appoint a board of a high standard; but if for any reason the Minister should make a mistake in some of the appointments he makes it could follow that the appointments made by the board would not be satisfactory.

There is the further difficulty that the members of the board can be subject to lobbying by candidates for these positions. It is all very well to prohibit canvassing for posts but this society of ours is so small that it is not possible to rule that out.

How many officers will be involved we do not know. It is for the board to specify what staff is needed, but certainly there will be a chief executive officer and a number of inspectors. These jobs will be sought after and if the board has the appointment of them the members of the board will be put in a very difficult position. I see no reason why the Minister would not relieve the board of this distasteful duty and give it to a body which is already in existence for this specific purpose and which by common admission has worked well and has fulfilled its purpose, that is, to make appointments without fear or favour.

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

We have discussed this question before on the Committee Stage. I did not accept the suggestion of Deputy Cooney at that stage nor do I propose to accept it now. In general I think it would be inappropriate to single out Bord na gCapall for this treatment, because it would appear to suggest that they and they alone were for some unexplained reason to be relieved of the responsibility and the obligation to appoint their own officers.

However, there is also a particular reason that applies to Bord na gCapall somewhat more than it does to other such bodies. An occasion can readily be conceived in which the services of, say, an eminent riding instructor or a person with some particular competence become available and ought to be secured by the board and secured with great expedition. If the procedure of going to the Local Appointments Commission had to be adopted they probably would not get that man because of the procedure being somewhat cumbersome.

Broadly speaking, with the other State bodies the method of appointment of officers is satisfactory, but the ability to grasp opportunities of securing the services of particular people at particular times applies in a special way to Bord na gCapall, and for this reason I do not accept the amendment.

Dr. O'Donovan

Since the members of the board are not remunerated, which is a matter I mentioned on the Second Stage—and personally I would prefer that they were remunerated— provision must be made in the Bill for the appointment of a chief officer of the board. There has to be somebody there to look after the staff permanently. This particular form of drafting relates to cases where there is a paid chairman, a chairman who is more or less in full-time attendance. Whatever about the merits of the amendment, it would be no harm if there was provision for a chief officer. There has to be a chief officer of some sort.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is a matter for the board to provide themselves with a chief officer.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am just stating what has been done up to this on similar boards. Let me give an example. The members of the Racing Board are not remunerated but there was a great deal of talk on the Racecourses Act of 1945 about a CEO. If the Minister thinks about it he will realise why this should be. I am not going to press the Minister about this amendment even though there would be time to amend the Bill. I would prefer if the members of the board were remunerated because there might be people who would be suitable to go on the board but who could not live on the expenses which would be allowed to them. Such a person might become an officer or he might not, but there is a serious reason for having a chief executive officer when the members of the board are not remunerated.

Mr. Cooney

The Minister said that this amendment singled out this board for special treatment over other State bodies. Secondly that there could be a situation in regard to an appointment which this board might want to make which could not be dealt with through the machinery of the Local Appointments Commission or an analogous body. His first point that it singles out the board is true, but that is only because such an amendment was never put down in regard to the other boards and this procedure was never suggested for them; but that does not mean that it is now wrong just because other boards did not do it.

Mr. J. Gibbons

There were overtones that were mentioned very clearly on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Cooney

I cannot accept that. I cannot see anybody on the board being so sensitive as to feel he was being discriminated against, that he was not being trusted by the Minister to appoint his own officers. I do not think that there will be sensitive plants of that sort on the board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I mentioned that, too.

Mr. Cooney

I should like to know if anyone has been invited to sit on this board or if it has been indicated to anybody that he might be invited to sit on this board?

Mr. J. Gibbons

No.

Mr. Cooney

The reason I raised this is that because the brochure for the Punchestown Horse Trials to be held in September——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Tully)

This would be more appropriate on the Fifth Stage.

Mr. Cooney

The Minister's other argument was that this could interfere with the speedy appointment of somebody suitable. I can see the strength of that argument but that criticises the procedure adopted by the Local Appointments Commission rather than the principle of appointing through the commission which is what I am concerned with. Surely it would not be beyond the wit of the commissioners to devise something which would ensure the speedy appointment——

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is hardly necessary. The Deputy may have had the experience of serving on a committee of agriculture or a county council which is waiting for the appointment of a permanent officer. Frequently it is the case that such a local body is kept waiting for quite a long time before the appointment is made. It is not within the scope of our discussion to ameliorate the methods of the Local Appointments Commission.

Acting Chairman

May I point out that we are not on the Committee Stage but on the Report Stage?

Mr. Cooney

One of the Minister's objections to this was that the method was cumbersome and I concede that and I concede what he said about appointments to local authorities, but that criticises the mechanics of the system and mechanics are something that can be corrected to ensure that if this board said to the commissioners that they wanted a riding instructor and to provide them with one right away, I am sure the commission could devise ways and means of getting that done right away. In further answer to that, the Bill nowhere distinguishes between officers and servants. I understand that in the local government code the distinction is that one is pensionable and the other is not. There is no distinction made here but if the board want to classify a riding instructor from abroad as a servant and appoint him there is no objection to that. I think that would meet the Minister's objection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cooney

I move amendment No. 2.

In page 7, line 35 to add:—

"Provided however that no decision to effect such removal as aforesaid shall be taken at any meeting of the Board unless there be not less than seven members present."

This is just to safeguard that a caucus of the board would not do anything drastic to any of their officers or servants, that there would be seven members present and so that if such a serious decision as the dismissal of an officer was involved there would be a pretty full meeting of the board.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is of course a serious matter for the board to consider the sacking of an officer or servant but it is only one of the serious matters with which the board would have to deal and for which they would have to bear responsibility. I do not think there is any serious precedent or serious abuse of boards in this regard. It is conceivable that circumstances might arise in which a sufficient number of members of the board might not be readily available to deal with a special situation and in that case the board would be powerless under this amendment. I know that the intention is to protect the interests of the officers and servants but the obligation to do that rests on every member of the board. As I said already, there are no examples that I am aware of, of any abuses of this arrangement in other boards similarly constituted.

Dr. O'Donovan

On the whole I agree with the Minister, again from a technical point of view. The quorum is five and it will be a properly constituted meeting. I take it the removal of an officer will be on the agenda and, as I say, it will be properly constituted if there are five members present.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cooney

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 11, line 11, after "notify" to insert "in writing".

When the Minister refuses to grant a licence I want him to notify the applicant to that effect in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cooney

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 11, line 14, to delete "seven" and substitute "fourteen".

This is to extend the time within which a person may appeal from seven days to 14; seven days is a very short period in which to make up one's mind or decide on the grounds of appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cooney

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, line 35, after "barrister" to insert "or solicitor".

This is a bit of special pleading on the grounds that solicitors are at least as competent as barristers to hold such an inquiry. The Minister has argued from precedent. I concede that such inquiries are generally given to barristers but I do not think we should be tied to precedent for the sake of precedent. A solicitor of ten years practice is at least as competent as a barrister, possibly more so because of the nature of his business; it brings him into more contact with the public and the rough and tumble of everyday dealings. I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not think it would be appropriate on this Bill to rush in where others fear to tread. When judgeships are open to solicitors the position will be changed. So far, this has not happened. We had a long discussion on this on the Committee Stage. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Cooney

It was not a very long discussion. I refer the Minister to the suggestion made by the former Minister for Justice that the professions should be fused. There is power to appoint solicitors to circuit court judgeships, which have senior judicial status. I do not think there is any question of rivalry between the two branches of the profession involved. I think solicitors would be as competent as barristers to hold such an inquiry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Tully)

Amendment No. 6 has been ruled out of order since it involves a charge on public funds.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

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