I move:—
In page 4, line 3, to delete the words and figures "Sections 6, 7 and 8", and substitute the word and figure "Section 6".
The purpose of this amendment is to confine the powers sought by the Minister in Section 5—that is, the power to retire existing officers at a particular age either by way of general rule or by fixing an age limit in a particular case. Under the section as it stands the Minister, in addition, seeks power to suspend officers and also to dismiss officers. As I pointed out, both on the Second Stage and on the Committee Stage of the Bill, the powers now sought by the Minister are a drastic encroachment upon the rights of existing officers. Those rights were guaranteed to the transferred officers in particular by Section 99, subsection (3) of the 1930 Act. In 1944 the Minister sought to remove the protection given by Section 99, subsection (3) of the 1930 Act but, as he told us on the last occasion when this measure was being discussed, he was advised that he must get specific powers to ensure that the provisions of the 1944 Act would apply to the transferred officers.
The Minister also told us that he had sought legal advice and that that advice was to the effect that it was not clear that he could exercise the powers of the 1944 Act in relation to transferred officers; but he also told us that he was more concerned with getting the power to retire officers at a prescribed age rather than to acquire drastic powers for either suspending, removing or dismissing officers. It is a reprehensible principle that when this House confers by Act of Parliament a statutory protection upon a body of servants the House should subsequently be asked to remove that protection by subsequent enactment. By law and by statute of this House these officers were given a measure of protection under the 1930 Act. That measure of protection is now sought to be removed. While the Minister has no particular concrete case in his mind, he says that it is desirable that he should have these powers. I have pointed out repeatedly that it is a violation by statute of the contract which these officers hold and under which they function. If an ordinary individual sought to violate the contract in this manner he would find himself before the courts for breach of contract but the Minister wants to violate the contract and have the protection of the statute to cover such violation. The principle sets out a very, very undesirable precedent and to my mind it is futile for this House to pass any enactment to give statutory protection to any body of State, or semi-State, or local authority servants if subsequently the Minister can come along and ask to have that protection removed.
For that reason, I seek to amend the Minister's powers here, to give him the powers which apparently are desirable and necessary to remove officers at a prescribed age limit, and to withdraw from him the powers which he now seeks to get of removing, suspending or dismissing officers of vocational education committees. The House should realise that in dealing with this body of servants we are not dealing with State servants. We are dealing with a body of officers who are the employees under the Act of 1930 and under the existing law—and even under the law as it will exist after this measure is passed—of the local vocational education committees and who hold their contracts from these committees. As in the case of the primary teachers so also in the case of the vocational teachers, because the State puts up a certain amount of money to enable the local authorities to function and to implement their schemes of education, the Minister steps in to give himself an arbitrary power which he may exercise either generally or in a given case. I hold that that is an encroachment of the contract as between the individual and the committee. I hold that in the contract that does obtain there is a contract between that committee and the individual and that in no sense can the Minister be regarded as a party to the contract. If my memory serves me correctly, I think in the case of the primary teachers, who contested the Minister's right to do certain things, it was found that the courts took the view that the Minister was not a party to the contract and could only act in a merely supervisory capacity. The courts did not question his right to make regulations and they did not question his right to prescribe conditions or qualifications. To my mind they did question whether he had the right in given circumstances to alter conditions of the contract as between the individual and his manager.
Now the contract here is not made between the manager and the individual teacher. It is between the local committee and individual teacher and the Minister here wants to give himself rights over the heads of that committee, if he sees fit to remove, suspend or dismiss an officer. The protection of the local inquiry, as far as I can recollect, is still available to the individual concerned, but these powers may be exercised in an arbitrary fashion—I am not saying that they are about to be exercised in an arbitrary fashion by the present Minister—by a future Minister. They may be exercised on the prejudiced report, if you like, of an individual inspector. We all know that in the operation of schemes of this kind human conflicts will arise, personal conflicts between individual inspectors and individual teachers or C.E.O.'s. Some of these individuals may have very peculiar characteristics or idiosyncrasies. The human element enters into the matter very much and it is possible for an individual to be placed in the position in which he has no redress against a biased inspector or chief inspector who has the ear of the Minister. For that reason, I think the powers sought by the Minister should not be given to him. If he needs powers to retire individual officers on grounds of age, by all means let him have them, but there is no need for these extra drastic powers of removal, suspension and dismissal which he is now seeking. He told us previously that he sought these powers to meet a hypothetical case and that he has no concrete case in mind. I put it to him then, and I put it to him now, that powers of this kind should not be sought unless there was a concrete case which could not be disposed of in any way other than by the exercise of these drastic powers or that such a serious condition arises in vocational education that the Minister cannot operate in any other way.
As I pointed out before, the Minister has already ample powers on the initiative of the local committee to suspend, remove and dismiss officers of local committees but here the power and authority of the local committee are being pushed on one side. The independence of the local committee is being undermined and whatever views the local committee may have as to the fitness or otherwise of an officer, these may be swept on one side and the Minister may, on the advice of his own advisers in the Department, ignore local committees, and proceed to exercise these arbitrary powers against an individual officer. The two elements that strike me as most reprehensible in this matter are the drastic interference with the existing contract under which these officers hold office, the drastic withdrawal of the protection which was given transferred officers in the Act of 1930, and the encroachment on what should be the peculiar preserve of the local vocational education committee who were after all the employers of the particular officers in question. The contract of appointment is made subject to the Department's regulations, subject to the prescribed qualifications drawn up by the Minister, by the local committee. The power of dismissal is vested in the local committee subject to the Minister's sanction. The suspension of an officer is already vested in the local committee subject to the Minister's sanction. Surely these powers are sufficiently ample to enable any Minister to exercise his functions in relation to any particular officer. Surely a case has not arisen anywhere —I questioned the Minister on this and he told me no case had arisen—in which a local committee has set up its will in favour of a particular officer as against the Minister or his Department. No case has arisen where an attempt has been made by a local committee to hold on to a particular officer who was regarded by the Minister as unfit for his office.
When we pressed the Minister on these points in the Committee Stage debate he said that his principal worry and concern were to have his powers to retire officers on the ground of age clarified. I put it to him then as I put it to him now that the House is prepared to give him these powers but it is not at all agreeable to give him the extra additional powers of suspension and dismissal which he seeks. I submit that a case has not been made for these powers and I think that it is altogether improper to come to the House on a purely hypothetical case and ask for them. Many of these officers as I have said have very long service. They had definite guarantees from this House that the conditions under which they would continue to serve would not be worsened by reason of their transfer under the 1930 Act. It is all very well to say that some of these men received promotion and got appointments which would not normally accrue to them. I think that is beside the point, because the whole purpose of their transfer and the whole purpose of the Act was to enable these appointments to be made. These men were transferred to the new service on the understanding that they would be in the running for promotion and new appointments. It is beside the point altogether now to take advantage of the fact that they improved their position as an argument in favour of seeking these very drastic powers. I would appeal to the Minister to restrict the provisions of Section 5 to the powers which he requires to enable him to retire officers at the prescribed age limit.
