I move amendment No. 44 :—
In sub-section (3), page 37, line 8, to delete the word " may " and substitute the word " shall."
This was one of the amendments that we were asked to insert by the bacon curers. I do not think there is very much of importance in the amendment. Personally, I think the Minister would have to nominate a person to act if the Chairman were absent. Perhaps it is well to lay it down that the Minister must do it. The Minister will be at fault if it is not done.
I think the Minister should inform the Committee whether he has in mind any type of person for appointment to the office of Chairman of this Board. Does he contemplate a judicial person, an expert, or a civil servant ?
I certainly have an open mind on it. Three views have been put to me—a legal man, an auditor, or what you might call a civil servant. Personally, I do not know which is the most desirable. It is very difficult to say. I am inclined to think that the same person should act as Chairman of both Boards. I think it would be unnecessary expense, in the first place, to have two Chairmen. Secondly, it would be useful to have a Chairman who would be a link between the two Boards.
What remuneration does the Minister propose for the Chairman of those Boards ?
I would not like to say that at this stage. I think it is going to be a full-time job. Even if you have two Chairmen I would hardly regard it as a part-time office. It is the type of job that a man may have to spend 12 hours a day on for seven or eight days at a time of crisis. If it was only a part-time job the Chairman could not be expected to do that.
May I take it that the job would correspond more or less to the Chairmanship of the Railway Tribunal. It would be as important a position as that.
If a man were to be Chairman of the two Boards it would be more important.
I think making one man Chairman of the two Boards, if it is possible, would be most desirable.
I think it is a matter of considerable consequence to the Committee to make a suggestion to the Minister seeing that he himself has an open mind—whether the person to be Chairman of the Committee should be a judicial person or an expert, or an auditor. I have a kind of feeling that where the ultimate decision in certain cases is going to rest with the Chairman he ought to be a judicial person who would hear both sides of the case and in rare circumstances, if there was a division of opinion, give a judicial decision as between contendng parties on the Board.
On the other hand, I imagine the most suitable person would be somebody who would be in close touch with the trade. In other words, an expert who understood marketing but who would not be in competition.
He would be if he was connected with a particular firm.
If it was a whole-time position, naturally he would not be associated with any firm.
I think a civil servant would be the most desirable person.
I would like to debate further Deputy Maguire's point. Naturally to a position like this a person is not appointed for life. He may not be a success and have to be removed in a few years. If that be the case, and if he has been connected with a particular firm, he is not going to fall out with that firm.
He will not be a civil servant.
I do not say that.
In his capacity as chairman ?
No.
Is it the intention to attach pensionable rights to this office ?
I do not think so.
If not, how do you hope to have an efficient officer ?
A civil servant would have all his rights.
He would be seconded from his Department. But surely that would not sway the Minister finally in his decision if it were thought in the best interests of the industry that there should be a judicial person in the position.
I have not all the confidence in judicial people that Deputy Dillon seems to have.
It is common sense more than anything else that we want.
The only information that the Minister has to give us to date is that he has a completely open mind on the matter.
I have. If the Deputy were to ask the Committee to give a direction I do not think much would be achieved. Suppose you were to give a direction that a judicial person was to be appointed. If that were done, and if the judicial person were not a success, he might have to be removed and somebody else put in his place. I think it is better that it should be left open.
I move amendment No. 45 :—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (b), clause (i), page 37, lines 39, 40 and 41, to delete the words " the period of twelve months ending immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act", and to substitute the words and figures " the year 1934 ".
This is not really a very important amendment. It is to keep the Bill uniform.
I may say that I consider this a most important amendment, and a very great improvement on the Bill as it originally stood.
The really important amendment comes on later.
