Mr. Tom Freyne:

To take up that point, I was a member of the previous board, the larger one. It was tasked with reaching new heights. The formulation of that board following the Dowling report was such that it had representatives from other stakeholders across the industry – all the affiliates. For example, Showjumping Ireland had four members on the board, Eventing Ireland had two and Dressage Ireland had one. I believe the Irish Horse Board had four. The number depended on the size of the affiliated organisation. If I recollect correctly, there were 17 people on the board. Mr. Beecher was one of the chairs. The first chair we had was Joe Walsh. He was the man who set the whole thing up. He was the Government-appointed chairman of the original board.

The Indecon report examined the organisation and suggested that the size of the board be reduced to increase efficiency. There was a huge amount of discussion on this. The memorandums, articles and constitution lodged with the authority at the time set out the structures for the pre-January 2024 Horse Sport Ireland. That was what was alluded to by Mr. Madden. There were four Government appointees on the body, and the advisory councils. I was part of the original board of HSI. It was turkeys voting for Christmas in that each of the affiliates and organisations, following considerable discussion and interaction, agreed the best way forward for the governing body was to reduce the size of the board. In the constitution, and as alluded to, each organisation was allotted a certain number of places. I am here as a representative of the RDS and I am the CEO of the equitation school. The school had a seat on the high-performance advisory council and the coaching and education advisory council. The RDS had a seat on the high-performance advisory council and also on the coaching and education advisory council. Showjumping Ireland had the original chairmanship. Each of the affiliates and organisations was guaranteed a pathway through to board membership. I was one of the directors along with two of the Government-appointed directors who opted to resign back in November 2022. We did so because we were not satisfied with the direction HSI was taking.

What happened when the rest of the board resigned was the Government appointees came in. They suspended the advisory councils. In effect, they prevented the stakeholders and affiliates from sending forward their representatives to make the decision on what the new memorandum would be. The main crux of why we are here today is the new memorandums and articles that are now registered prevent guaranteed stakeholder engagement. That is the process that has led us to where we are now. The original structure, in my opinion, was fit for purpose and did a lot of very good work when there was significant stakeholder involvement. For sure, there was a breakdown in the structures at one stage. The proposal whereby the main funding partners, namely, the Departments of agriculture and sport, would also sit on the board and represent those main funding partners is a way forward. The simple answer to the question is stakeholder involvement in decision-making and policy. The organisation and direction of the umbrella organisation is what is required. Currently, there is no guaranteed structure that will allow that to happen.