Cork man Jim Beecher served 38 years in the Department of Agriculture. He has been with the Irish Horse Board ever since the process of setting it up began in the early 90s. He spoke to The Irish Horse about its evolution since then and his hopes for the future.

Q.What was hoped to be achieved by the new Irish Horse Board (IHB) when it was set up in the 90s?

Jim Beecher: It was to be a breeders’ organisation that would run the Irish Stud Book. The Department gave them very strong support in terms of personnel and funding of about €2.3m a year. It’s primary function then was to represent the interests of the breeders so they could breed horses to meet the demands of the market.

Q. Was the IHB successful in that role over the next 15 years or so?

JB: For a number of years we were a bit restrictive in what could be registered. But then the best favour we did the breeders was to open the studbook and let them free to use whatever stallion they wanted. We could provide the information but it was then up to the breeder.

We, in effect, followed the progressive breeders. Improvement of our young horses in the studbook series and at Lanaken and Le Lion d’Angers is the result. In general, it achieved its goals in the interests of breeders. Dermot Ryan, Lynn Aldrich and Nick Finnerty did their best for the breeder during that time.

Q. Why was it then decided to link up in the formation of Horse Sport Ireland (HSI)?

JB: The Dowling report recommended a bringing together of the various equestrian organisations. For that to work the key players – EFI, SJAI, Eventing and the Horse Board had to link up. Joe Walsh was chair at the time he had brought the racing world together so he agreed to doing the same thing with equestrianism.

Q. Given that the IHB was then “subsumed” by HSI in 2008, transferring all its funds and functions, why was it not disbanded altogether?

JB: Rather than “subsumed”, I would say it transferred its functions, the studbook etc. to HSI. But the IHB was to form the nucleus of HSI as the breeding sub-board. All the elected members of the IHB became members of the breeding sub-board and, more than any other organisation, it has five of its members on the overall HSI board. It makes its own decisions and to date none of its decisions has ever been overturned by the board of HSI.

Q. What about transfer of funds?

JB: No IHB funds were transferred. There are member funds of about €230,000 and they are sacrosanct. If the IHB were ever disbanded they would have to go back to the members.

Q. In your opinion, are breeders better or worse off within HSI than within the IHB as it was?

JB: People still have problems selling their foals. In terms of expectations in relation to funding, HSI has underperformed. Immediately after it being formed, the recession hit and requests for more funding went out the window.

Q. Is a return to two organisations a runner in your opinion?

JB: Personally I would not have a problem with that. But prior to the Indecon report is not the time to promote it. We do not know what Indecon will recommend in terms of structures and governance. So it is better to wait. After Indecon, people can suggest what they like on that.

Q. Would it be possible to ring fence Department funds for breeding?

JB: We are very severely audited. Under State aid, it is very difficult to have funds earmarked for the production end of things whether it be the suckler cow or whatever. It is easier to get money for the sport end and then funnel it back to the breeder. In many ways funding is already ring fenced for the breeder since it has to be used in the way it was allocated in the first place.

Q. Could the studbook ever be back in the control of the breeders?

JB: In a new structure, of course, I could see it happening. It would be wrong to rule it out.

Q. Do you think the IHB election system is still fit for purpose?

JB: I think it would be useful if people going forward for election would have a stake in the industry by having at least bred a foal. I also think the regions could be looked at to perhaps make some of them smaller so that there could be greater representation.

Q. What do you hope will be the major recommendations from the Indecon report?

JB: I just do not know. Their forte is in structures and governance. It is in that area that we can look for recommendations to the minister.

Q. What would be your priorities in terms of a strategic plan for the Irish sport horse industry?

JB: Let’s call it a ‘stakeholder plan’. We have to be ambitious for our industry as we look for new funding because it is worth it. I am talking about €10-20m extra coming into the industry. The same as with racing, it could come in by way of the sport, but also rebound to the benefit of breeding. The sport and the breeder should win because, in my mind, both are equal. I could see a weekly set of competitions in every sector from showing to jumping to eventing all around the country with a total of €100,000 on offer each week. I am talking here of €5m annually for that alone. This would give breeders something to aim for on the home front. And, in all cases, a major share of the prize money should go back to the breeders.

This should be real competition for real funds in much improved facilities. At the moment, breeders, owners and riders are frustrated because they are not making money and competing for peanuts on what is many times bad ground. We have to change that. Currently we not only have Indecon reporting we also have Barry O’Connor’s group working with Jim Power and also the UCD study.

All of these have to be brought together very quickly to come up with a realistic plan for the future that is ambitious and rewarding for owners, riders and breeders. This stakeholders’ plan has to be ready by September so that it can get into the system before the budget.

Q .How do you view your role as acting chair?

JB: I see it as very short term until a new chair is appointed through the new system of selection. But, in the meantime, I have to take responsibility the same as if you were there forever.