I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, in lines 22 and 23 and lines 30 to 32, to delete "from a panel prepared and presented to the Court by the Minister" and in lines 25 to 27 and lines 34 to 36 to delete "as the Minister thinks fit and with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries".
This amendment relates to the constitution of the joint labour committee. In this section there is a distinct departure from the principal Act. We are at a loss to understand the necessity for this departure in view of the fact that we are basing the introduction of this Bill on the fact that it is a logical development to put agricultural workers on the same level as industrial workers. We have three different categories of people being appointed to the joint labour committee under this section. In the first instance we are told that the chairman and not more than two independent members of the committee shall be appointed by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I fail to see the necessity for the inclusion of "Fisheries" there. It implies a permanency of that section being tied to the Department of Agriculture at a time when our fishing industry, and the needs of the nation, demand that "Fisheries" be given special attention. I believe a future Government will appoint a Minister for Fisheries. However, I appreciate the necessity for discussions with the Minister for Agriculture.
This section shows no change from the principal Act of 1946. My amendment refers to the next two groups of people being selected to take part on this joint labour committee. I have asked in the amendment that the Minister should not interfere in these appointments. Subsection (b) of this section states:
the representative (employers) members of the committee shall be appointed by the Court from a panel prepared and presented to the Court by the Minister after consultation with such organisation or organisations representative of agricultural employers as the Minister thinks fit and with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
We want to allow the court to consult with the organisations concerned and then appoint the members to the committee and not as proposed in the section which is a distinct departure from the 1946 Act. It is an interference by two Ministers with the structure of the joint labour committee. I believe the Ministers, and their successors, if we do not accept this amendment, will have powers that they can use to the detriment of a joint labour committee, a committee that must at all times be independent and be seen to be independent. If the Ministers for Labour and Agriculture have the right to interfere with the structure of the joint labour committee such a right can be abused.
We have evidence of political appointments being made on many boards over the past few years. We have the recent example of the Bord na gCapall situation. In that case the members of that board, after giving excellent service, were removed and replaced at the whim of a Minister. The chairman of Bord na gCapall gave much time, energy, effort and dedication to the service of that board during his term of office but he was lifted off that board without any prior notice. He was not even given the courtesy of a place on the new board as an ordinary member, despite the fact that he and many of his members had travelled the length and breadth of this country on behalf of Bord na gCapall and the horse industry. Having used that example, is it difficult to understand why we suspect that the same might apply here, that this Minister or his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, will do the same to the joint labour committee?
The section specifically states that members of the committee shall be appointed by the court from a panel prepared and presented to the court. In other words, the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries come together and form a panel having consulted with the organisation or organisations representative of the agricultural employers and workers. It appears that members of this panel may not be acceptable to the Minister for many reasons. One has to be suspicious that maybe they will not be acceptable because of political reasons.
It would be disastrous for the agricultural workers if this major step facilitated this kind of interference which could defeat the purpose of the joint labour committee before it began a new and difficult task. We want to see this committee perform fairly and effectively, particularly on behalf of the agricultural workers. I see no reason to depart from the 1946 Act in this case. The Second Schedule, section 2 (b) reads:
Members (in this Schedule referred to as representative members) appointed by the Court being—
(i) such number, as the Court thinks fit, of persons (in this Schedule referred to as representative (employers) members) who, in the opinion of the Court represent employers in relation to whom the committee is to operate, and
(ii) an equal number of persons (in this Schedule referred to as representative (workers) members) who, in the opinion of the Court, represent workers in relation to whom the Committee is to operate.
There is no need to depart from those guidelines. In proposing this amendment we are asking that the court, after consultation with the organisation, or organisations, representative of agricultural workers, appoint their members to the joint labour committee. The same applies to workers' representatives. I cannot understand the reason for consultation with the Minister. Perhaps he will outline in detail his reasons for doing this. It appears to be the thin end of the wedge. If it applies to this joint labour committee, what guarantee have we that it will not apply to future committees?
I ask the Minister to accept this amendment and show his fair approach to this matter. It will make his task easier during his term of office and will not give any opportunity to a Minister who succeeds him to avail of a specific situation.