With regard to the composition of the board, we envisage a chairman who shall be a barrister or a solicitor of at least ten years standing. We believe the chairman should be engaged in actual practice for not less than ten years. That is a valid argument because I am sure the Minister will agree that a barrister or a solicitor could be regarded as being seven years qualified in his profession if he had been called to that profession seven years previously; but we believe that the appointee should be a person who has been practising at the Bar for at least seven years and who has gained experience in the course of that practice. It is a good thing to know that we are agreed that training as a barrister or a solicitor renders people competent to evaluate the kind of evidence given before a board such as that envisaged here. For that reason I believe our amendment is superior to the suggestion made by the Minister with regard to the chairman of the board. The tribunal is very much in line with a tribunal this Party seeks to set up in relation to another matter, the Planning Act appeals, and I am glad the Minister has considered this particular aspect since the Second Reading.
Again, I would suggest that the Minister should consult with the Chief Justice in the making of this appointment. The Chief Justice is the head of the legal system and he is surely the person best qualified and equipped to advise the Minister. I hope the Minister will consult with the Chief Justice with regard to the appointment of the chairman. What is most desirable here is quality in the individual appointee. Quality should be the hallmark in this appointment.
With regard to the vice-chairman— I am sure the Minister has this in mind, but I think it is worth mentioning all the same—it must be remembered that the vice-chairman of such a board could find himself acting as chairman of sub-boards and it is imperative that such a vice-chairman should not be deemed to be in any way on one side or the other in relation to matters which fall for determination. In other words, he must not be held to be either on the employers' or the employees' side in the matters over which he may preside.
Subsection 5 (a) of amendment No. 34 reads:
(a) The period of office of a member of the Board shall be fixed by the Minister when appointing him and shall not exceed three years.
This is something new. It is a new approach to a problem. It is important that the appointees should be appointed for a sufficient period to enable them to put this legislation into effect. At the same time, there must be a limit since, at a later stage, it might be considered desirable to review the legislation. It should, therefore, be within the competence of the Minister to appoint the board for a specific period, giving the board long enough to ensure the implementation of the Act. A specific period will have to be laid down so that the Minister will not be hampered if he wishes to review the whole situation.
Paragraph (c) of subsection 4 reads:
The Minister may by order remove an ordinary member of the Board from office for stated misconduct or incapacity and shall lay any such order before each House of the Oireachtas.
It is important to ensure the highest quality in the people appointed to a board such as this. One of the basic essentials is high quality with regard to the performance of the duties attaching to the board. Consequently, in the removal of a member from the board the Minister should be in a position to tell the House, through the medium of an Order laid before the House, the reason for the removal of such member. No one need be squeamish about this. The appointees will subscribe to certain conditions of appointment. If the performance of an individual falls short in quality and quantity then the Minister should be in a position to remove that individual from the board.
Paragraph (e) reads:
The remuneration, terms of appointment and conditions of service of an ordinary member of the Board may be fixed by contract entered into with him by the Minister.
There is a principle involved here. The Minister will make appointments from both employers and employees. There may be employers able and willing to serve on the board without much remuneration, or even without any remuneration, but it is desirable that the representative of the workers on such a board should be in a position to negotiate the kind of conditions under which he is prepared to operate.
Subsection (7) (c) of amendment No. 34 reads:
the making of a report and the form of the report of its proceedings annually to the Oireachtas.
It is desirable that such a report should be made to the Oireachtas. The progress of the board which it is proposed to set up under this legislation is something which the House naturally will be interested in. They will be interested in knowing how it is dealing with any problems which may fall to be dealt with in the kind of conditions we are now facing, the kind of conditions in which redundancy is occurring or may occur, and particularly in the conditions of our entry into the EEC. We are faced with problems in this country of a nature which require a good deal of work from such a board. I feel it is very desirable that the Oireachtas should have before it from such a board a report as to its activities and as to how the situation is developing and what the trends are and what success the board has had in regard to the many matters which may come before it.
The amendment, which is in line with the Minister's thinking in this matter, except in so far as I think the word "board" is much better than the word "tribunal", is a very desirable type of amendment, and I believe that if it is accepted it will provide the kind of machinery which will be helpful in relieving the kind of problems which will face such a board. I know that the Minister's amendment deals with much the same matter in the same fashion. There are variations which I have mentioned which occurred to me in regard to those matters and particularly in regard to the word "tribunal" as against the word "board".