asked the Minister for Labour the number of (a) men and (b) women who are members of the Labour Court.

The Labour Court consists of a chairman, two deputy chairmen and six ordinary members. All are men. The ordinary members are appointed on the nomination of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers.

Would the Minister consider it expedient now to require that at least two members of the courts should be women?

The ordinary members are nominated by both sides. The Minister appoints the chairman and the deputy chairman. My own opinion is that the most suitably qualified and acceptable people should be chosen irrespective of sex.

The Minister will be aware of the court's new role as an appeal court in equal pay claims. Does the Minister not think it would be better and would give rise to more confidence in the court in this area if there were women members?

As I said to the Deputy earlier I do not believe at this stage that any changes should be carried out in the Labour Court without a review of its functions.

Can we take it that the Minister's commitment on equality for women is very lukewarm at best?

Question No. 21.

That is not true. I should like to send the Deputy back some of the correspondence he sent me before his appointment as spokesman.

Is it not outrageous that an appeal court for equal pay does not have one woman on it? Is that not an intolerable situation?

That is mainly argument.

I am asking the Minister if he does not agree that there is need for urgent action here in the interests of equality and fair-play for women?

I presume the Deputy is aware of the importance of the independence of the Labour Court, an independence I intend to defend during my time as Minister. I repeat that any appointments made to that court should be of those most suitably qualified, of either sex, if that be the case. But to specifically appoint any one person to the court for a specific purpose is just not feasible at present under the existing structure of the court.

Any colour you like as long as it is black.

As long as it is suitable.

Question No. 21.

Or is it that the Minister shares the Minister for the Public Service's male chauvinist attitude to women at work?

Sorry?

No, the Minister does not share it.

The Minister does not share the Minister for the Public Service's male chauvinist attitude to women at work?

We are not having argument. I am calling question No. 21.

21.

asked the Minister for Labour when it is proposed to set up the commission on industrial relations; and how soon it is expected to report.

I hope to be in a position to set up the Commission on Industrial Relations within the next few weeks. The commission will be asked to undertake a wide-ranging examination of industrial relations. The task will take some time to complete.

In the circumstances, it is my intention to ask the commission for an interim report on the structure and operation of the Labour Court; it will also be open to the commission to furnish interim reports on other areas of their work.

I am at present awaiting nominations from the social partners. When these have been received I shall proceed with the appointment of the chairman and independent members.

Is it the Minister's intention to lay before the House the terms of reference of the commission so that the House will have an opportunity to debate them?

That is a separate question.

Yes, that is a separate question.

I am asking——

The Deputy should give notice of a question of that type rather than try to raise it in a disorderly way.

I have no intention of being disorderly. There is a long established precedent in this House of asking questions clearly associated with the question put down. I am asking the Minister if he would give the House an opportunity of debating the terms of reference of the commission?

That is an entirely separate question and not a supplementary to the one put down.

May I take it then that the Minister does not want the terms of reference discussed?

The Deputy can put down a question.

Can I take it that the commission is what the Minister wants—another pretence at action?

The question deals with when the report is expected. I take it that that question is answered. The Deputy has asked four supplementary questions and not one of them should really be in order.

With respect, the Chair has said that the question deals with when the report is expected. It deals with when the commission is going to be set up. I have asked what will be their terms of reference and if the House will have an opportunity of discussing them. With respect, that is relevant.

I wonder is the Deputy concerned more about publicity than good industrial relations. Certainly I am concerned about good industrial relations.

I am very much concerned about their terms of reference.

I am calling the next question, No 22.

22.

asked the Minister for Labour if it is his intention to extend the scope of the Labour Court and the number of staff employed there.

I am assigning additional staff to the Labour Court to enable it to deal with its increasing work-load. An extension of the scope of the Court is not contemplated but the role and functions of the Court will be examined by the Commission on Industrial Relations, to be established when consultations at present proceeding are completed.