I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, subsection (6), line 46, before " a member " to insert " the Chairman or ".
This amendment is designed to set out what the term of office of the chairman is. The term of office of the members is defined as not exceeding four years; the chairman's term is not defined. This exists in regard to other boards. I know one or two where it exists, where the members are appointed for a specific period, but the most important member—when I talk about members I mean ordinary members—is clearly the chairman, because a great deal of the day-to-day work goes through him. He is not appointed for any specific period and, in effect, he is there at the pleasure of the Government, which, to my mind, is unsatisfactory. If a man has no tenure of office his independence may be put in some jeopardy. He should have tenure of office not less favourable than that of members, who in a sense are under him. While it is arguable that the chairman should have a longer term of office, it is undeniable that he should not have a shorter term. The purpose of this amendment is to seek to give him the same security of tenure as the ordinary members of the board. This seems reasonable and I know of no reason why he should not have it.
In the past four years we have had one example of a semi-State board where the chairman was fired by a telephone call five minutes before a meeting started, while the members were not. They served their term of office. Chairmen should not be in any weaker position than ordinary members. If anything, they should be in a stronger position, but I am only arguing here that the chairman of this board should not be worse off in this respect than the ordinary members.