I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (2), page 5, line 38, to delete the word "any" and substitute the word "a".
The original Act laid down that in the case of removal from office a local inquiry, on oath, should be held. I think I explained to the House that in the case of some 900 or more teachers we are bound to have a certain number of teachers whose teaching service is not considered efficient by the inspectors, and that if, after the inspectors have reported to that effect to the committee, no action is taken, it would mean, at present, that a sworn inquiry would have to be held. I cannot see—and I doubt if any arguments will be brought forward here which will show me otherwise—that any additional facts would be likely to be brought out in a local inquiry of that nature, which would not be already in the hands of the Minister and of the local committee. Hence, the alternative to the inquiry. However, as I have said already, in all cases where the unfitness or incapacity of a person arose, apart from the question of inefficiency in teaching, the intention is to hold an inquiry.
I do not think it would be for the good of the service, or in the interests of vocational education, that in the case of a teacher whose inefficiency is well known, in respect of whom the inspectors have reported that he is unable to carry out his work satisfactorily, and where the committee is not prepared; for one reason or another, to take action against that teacher, the position could be resolved only by the holding of a public inquiry. There may be other cases also. For example, we mention in sub-section (4) of this section that, where the holder of an office is convicted of an offence which clearly makes him unsuitable to be an officer in the vocational education service, the Minister may, by order, remove him from such office. There, again, for reasons which I need not go into, but which, I am sure, all those who are acquainted with vocational education are aware of, certain considerations may enter: such as personal feeling, the reluctance to take stern action against somebody who is well known or liked, or who has been in the service of the committee for a considerable time, or who has local associations which make the committee reluctant to take action. I think that, in fact, when these disagreeable cases arise—if they do arise—the committees themselves would prefer that the Minister should undertake the unpleasant task rather than themselves.
With regard to the point that has been made as to the powers sought being rather too drastic, I should like to say that, again, these powers are on the same lines as those that obtain under the corresponding local government legislation, and I think that, in the interest of efficiency, such powers are necessary. I have pointed out that a certain procedure is followed with regard to teachers, generally, and that if the work of a teacher is not thought to be satisfactory by the inspector, the teacher is given notice of that fact by the inspector and that he intends to carry out a formal inspection of his work. When that inspection is completed, if the inspector is not satisfied and feels that the case is so serious that the matter must be reported to the committee, I think we may assume that he will so report it. Then, if the committee admonish the teacher and he mends his ways and gives satisfactory service afterwards, that ends the matter; but if it should happen that when the inspector comes along again and finds —as may very well happen in a service where you have a very large number of teachers, even though the vast majority of them are doing very good work—the teacher upon whom admonishment has had no effect, or where, in spite of admonishment, the case is getting worse, there is no option left, I suggest. I think we all know what happens in those cases. Appeals are made to the committee not to take action. The committees do not wish to discharge teachers unless there is no other alternative, and we also know that certain organisations, political or otherwise, are by no means inactive in the matter of teachers' rights. We know that pressure can be brought to bear on these committees, and we know that even where the committees try to maintain a high standard of public efficiency, they may still find great difficulty in dismissing teachers who, in the opinion of the inspectors, are not discharging their duties efficiently. The Minister, through his inspectors has to take a special interest in this matter, and I am not in any way unfair when I suggest that the question of the efficiency of the work in our schools comes before his notice in a way that is not possible to the committee. It is being constantly reviewed by inspectors, whose task it is to see that a reasonable standard of efficiency is maintained. Therefore, when the position arrives that a teacher is no longer able to give satisfactory service, and the committee has failed to take action against him, I think the Minister would be failing in his duty if he did not take steps to have such a teacher removed.
As I have often stated in this House the sole advantage that many of our children in this State get is the amount of education we are able to give them. They have very little else. If the Minister for Education does not see that a high standard of efficiency is maintained by teachers, it simply means that children, parents, and the country are not getting value for the expenditure, that precious time is being lost, and that where good work and good results should be given the opposite obtains. Therefore, I hope the House will agree that the procedure I outlined is fair: There is a visit by an inspector, and a further visit when the case becomes serious and action must certainly be taken. When it reaches the point of removal from office, where a senior inspector's visit confirms the original report, if the committee still fails to act, there should surely be no necessity to have such an inquiry as is laid down in the Principal Act. If the Minister is to be entrusted with responsibility —and the House has entrusted him with responsibility for seeing that the service is maintained efficiently—it is not too much to ask that the power he exercises in connection with teachers of vocational schools should be on the same lines generally as in other branches of the service.
