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.