Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Mar 1944

Vol. 28 No. 14

Vocational Education (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1943—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 5:—

To delete sub-section (3).—(Senator O'Connell.)

Mr. O'Connell

Last night I moved this amendment which proposes to delete sub-section (3) of Section 8. This sub-section and Section 9, with which I shall deal later, are the two provisions in this Bill which have caused most uneasiness to those principally concerned. I confess that I did not read the Dáil debates on the Bill, but so far as I have listened to the Minister I have not heard from him or from anybody else any satisfactory explanation as to why these provisions were introduced. I did hear the Minister say—a similar statement was made by the Minister for Agriculture when the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill was before the House—that the object of the two Bills was to effect some degree of uniformity between these particular officers of local authorities and officers under the Department of Local Government. The Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, to which I have referred, does not contain the sub-section that I am moving to delete from Section 8 of this Bill. In fact, it does not contain sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) of Section 8. When we examine the Local Government Act on which this is supposed to be modelled, we also find that there is no provision in Section 25 similar to that which is now contained in sub-section (3) of this Bill.

In this provision the Minister takes power to himself to dismiss an officer and to remove an officer without giving him the right of inquiry. That right is not taken from an officer under the agricultural committees nor is it taken from an officer under the Local Government Department. In the Vocational Act, 1930, which made all provisions for the operation of the vocational committees, for the transfer of teachers and for the conditions under which they were to be appointed and to operate, there is a special section—Section 27—which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House. The section says:

"The Minister may by Order, either upon or without any suggestion or complaint from a vocational education committee, remove from his office or employment any paid officer or servant of a vocational education committee (whether appointed by or transferred by this Act to such committee) whom he considers unfit or incompetent to perform his duties, or who at any time refuses or wilfully neglects to perform his duties or any of them, and may direct that a fit and proper person be appointed in his place in accordance with the law relating to appointments to such office or employment."

That is sub-section (1) of Section 27. Here is sub-section (2):

"The Minister shall not remove under this section from his office an officer or servant of a vocational education committee unless and until he has caused a local inquiry to be held under this Act in relation to the performance by such officer or servant of his duties as such officer or servant and considered the report of the person who held such local inquiry."

Now, that was a right given to the Minister under the Act to dispense with the services of any person who was unfit or incompetent to perform his duties, but it also provided that this action could not be taken until a local inquiry was held at which all charges against the person concerned would be fully investigated.

The Minister on the Second Reading, referring to the criticisms of this particular section, pointed out that this inquiry was of a legal nature. Yes, it is provided under the Vocational Education Act, 1930, that the officer appointed by the Minister to hold a local inquiry may by summons in the prescribed form signed by him require any person to attend at the time and place (not being a place more than 30 miles from the residence of such person) named in such summons and there and then to give evidence or produce any document in his power, possession, or procurement relating to any matter in question at such inquiry or do both such things. The Act then goes on to say that evidence may be taken on oath. The Minister said that as this inquiry set out in the Vocational Education Act was of a legal nature where evidence is taken on oath, witnesses are summoned and counsel may be employed, then he did not see any reason why the Minister for Education should be bound to hold such an inquiry in a case where he was satisfied that a teacher was giving unsatisfactory service.

This Vocational Education Act has been in operation for some 12 years. The Minister himself has paid tribute to the successful manner in which it was operated and that is a tribute in which we can all join. I want to know, however, why he has thought it necessary at this stage to introduce this particular provision in this Bill? Has he been in any way hampered or impeded in operating the Act or in getting rid of any person who was proved to be unfit, because he could do so only after holding a local inquiry? I do not think he can say that. I would be surprised if he could. I know, and every Senator here knows, that his action in bringing in this provision taking away the right to be removed from office only on the result of a local inquiry has caused uneasiness and heart-burnings among the teachers engaged by the vocational committees. They have seen no necessity for it and they do not understand why this right should be taken away from them. If the Minister is of opinion that an officer is incompetent or is discharging his duties unsatisfactorily, that opinion is formed on the report of an inspector, and it is no reflection on inspectors to say that they are human like the rest of us, that they are fallible, that they are liable to make mistakes and commit errors of judgment.

I have been too long associated with inspection and have experience of inspectors long enough to know that errors have been made and that inspectors may form different opinions of the same work, of the same officer or of the same teacher. I do not at all agree that an inquiry is superfluous in the case of dismissal or of removal of a teacher from office for inefficiency or for alleged inefficiency. There may be many matters which would come out at an inquiry of that kind which would go a considerable distance, go the whole distance, in fact, towards refuting the suggestion that this teacher was inefficient. After all, inefficiency is a matter of opinion and it is often based on wrong conclusions. We know, too, that an inspector going into a school spends a very short time in that school and he has to sum up in that short time his opinion of the work which that teacher has been doing over a very long period, perhaps over a whole series of months. The adverse circumstances that may be affecting a man's work—his own possible illness, the illness of his family, bad attendance of pupils—all these things may be factors and important factors, too, in determining whether the teacher should be continued or not in his work.

I cannot see for the life of me why it should be thought necessary on the rare occasions on which this occurs— and they are bound to be rare occasions in which it is necessary to remove a teacher because he is alleged to be inefficient—for a Minister to put in a provision taking away the right granted to the teacher under the Vocational Education Act. I cannot see why that should be done, especially at a time like this when we are anxious that the whole machine should run smoothly and when our whole industrial and economic future may be said to be dependent on the work of these vocational schools. Nobody will stand more strongly for efficiency than I will, but I want to make sure that inefficiency is proved home before a man is deprived of his livelihood because of a charge of inefficiency.

If the Minister were wise, he should not be content that he alone would be satisfied; he should take steps to show that other people interested were satisfied that the teacher was inefficient—that even the teacher himself would be convinced of his inefficiency by the facts that would come out at an inquiry, that his committee would be convinced, and that there could be no suggestion or allegation that injustice was done to him. I think even that consideration is something that would make a full inquiry of the kind set out in the Vocational Act necessary and advisable.

I ask the Minister, in the interest of the smooth running of the educational machine—the effective operation of it—to reconsider the wisdom of including this particular sub-section that I want to delete. I trust that Senators, in all fair play, will bring such pressure on the Minister as will induce him to reconsider it. It is our duty to see that anything that causes discontent and uneasiness in the ranks of a body of public servants, such as these teachers, should be removed, unless there is a very great necessity shown by the Minister for its existence.

Professor Magennis

I desire to support Senator O'Connell's amendment and to reinforce, in so far as I am able, the arguments that he has addressed to the Minister. Yesterday we passed Section 7, which provides that whenever a charge is brought against a vocational education officer there ensues immediately an inquiry and the suspension of the accused officer while the inquiry is being prosecuted. In Section 8 the inquiry provision is referred to again in sub-section (2):

"Where the Minister is satisfied as a result of a local inquiry...."

That proves, on close examination, to be the prelude to three different provisions for the Minister's exercise of the power of dismissal. The first is in sub-section (2):

"Where the Minister is satisfied as a result of a local inquiry that any of the statutory grounds for removal from office exists as regards the holder of an office, the Minister may by Order remove such holder from office."

What a "local inquiry" is, is explained in the Act of 1926, and Senator O'Connell has dealt with it. In sub-section (3), which is the subject of the present amendment, we have the second procedure:

"Where the Minister is satisfied that the holder of an office has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of such office and is of opinion that he is unfit to hold such office, the Minister may—... remove such holder from such office."

The third is in sub-section (4):—

"Where the holder of an office is convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Minister renders him unfit for such office, the Minister may by Order remove such holder from such office."

There is a very marked difference between the first and the third. In the case of the third all the world is, or can be made, aware, because it is the result of the finding of a court; the man is unfit for educational responsibilities because he has been convicted of an offence. That is the point in sub-section (4).

In the case of sub-section (2) the Minister's action follows as the result of a local inquiry. Very proper, everyone will say, but number two stands out as the exercise of an arbitrary unconditional power in the Minister. All that is required is that he "is satisfied." It does not say by what procedure he is to be satisfied. It is sufficient for the Minister to say, "I am satisfied", and that suffices for the world at large. Senator O'Connell has dealt sufficiently with the psychological aspect of this and I need not go into it further—dissatisfaction in the minds of public servants, and the uncertainty as regards their reputation among their fellowmen where there is no inquiry.

I do not allege that the Minister will do anything arbitrarily. I am willing to give the Minister all the powers it is requisite for him to possess to discharge fully his Ministerial duties. But I think that amongst the many considerations that apply to the executive officers—not merely the Minister for Education, but all the Ministers—is the important one that citizens should feel happy in their minds that the executive acts, the administrative acts, are all above suspicion of being in any measure irregular or open to question. I think it is all-important that they should have public confidence.

The Cathaoirleach may rule me out of order, because what I have to say further appears to be in anticipation of the discussion of Section 12 which provides for the repeal of Section 27 of the Act of 1930.

Cathaoirleach

Both amendments appear to me to go together, so the Senator may proceed.

Professor Magennis

I think they do and, as you rule in that manner, I feel easy in my mind. Section 27 of the Act of 1930 states:—

"The Minister may by Order, either upon or without any suggestion or complaint from a vocational education committee, remove from his office or employment any paid officer or servant of a vocational education committee (whether appointed by or transferred by this Act to such committee) whom he considers unfit or incompetent to perform his duties...."

I will return to the alternative terms presently—

"or who at any time refuses or wilfully neglects to perform his duties or any of them...."

Sub-section (2) of that section says:—

"The Minister shall not remove under this section from his office an officer or servant of a vocational education committee unless and until he has caused a local inquiry to be held...."

Section 12 deliberately—I was almost about to say "of malice aforethought"—removes this piece of wise and wholesome legislation in order to make sub-section (3) possible, because sub-section (2) of the Bill is in substitution for Section 27 (2) and sub-section (4), where the Minister's notice of dismissal ensues upon a conviction by the court. That also is an excellent and adequate substitute for a local inquiry, so that Section 12 removes what already, in the 12 years' operation of the Act, worked satisfactorily, according to the testimony of the Minister. What is the advantage gained by removing it? I fail to see any. I fully share the view of Senator O'Connell on this matter.

Furthermore, incidental to the whole section is the curious draftsmanship: portion of Section 27 of the Act of 1930, a substantial element, must be retained, and with the crudity and clumsiness I indicated yesterday in the draftsman's work, here is what we get. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 reads:

"For the purposes of this section, the following shall be the statutory grounds for the removal of the holder of an office from such office, that is to say:—

(a) unfitness of such holder for such office,

(b) the fact that such holder has refused to obey or carry into effect any order lawfully given to him as the holder of such office, or has otherwise misconducted himself in such office."

When one reads the able form in which this appears in Section 27 of the 1930 Act, one asks oneself why is that to be repealed and this piece of muddled and confused thought substituted for it in what is called an amending measure.

I read again from Section 27 of the 1930 Act, laying emphasis on what I want to bring under the Minister's notice:—

"The Minister may by Order, either upon or with any suggestion or complaint from a vocational education committee remove from his office or employment any paid officer or servant of a vocational education committee...whom he considers unfit or incompetent to perform his duties, or who at any time refuses or wilfully neglects to perform his duties or any of them, and may direct that a fit and proper person...."

It will be observed that what is stated in Section 27, in clear, precise and fully understandable language, is clumsily set out here as sub-section (1). Unfitness is put down absolutely, nakedly, in this Bill. Section 27, which is to be repealed, throws some light on what "unfit" is to be understood to mean by giving the alternative term "incompetent". Anyone who studies for even five minutes what is set out in sub-section (1) will see that unfitness is meant to be contrasted with want of discipline or insubordination.

"The fact that such holder has refused to obey or carry into effect...."

These are set out as alternative grounds in Section 27, but, as stated here on the earlier occasion, one would carry away the impression that (a) and (b) are to be taken collectively. I take the liberty of drawing the Minister's attention to that. There is no "or" between (a) and (b), and it is only in the terms of a later sub-section that it becomes evident that they are alternatives.

I read again:

"...the following shall be the statutory grounds for the removal of a holder from office...."

And then follow paragraphs (a) and (b). That gives the impression to anyone who is not studying this legislative proposal closely that the two together are the statutory grounds, but sub-section (2), which reads:

"Where the Minister is satisfied as a result of a local inquiry that any of the statutory grounds for removal...."

is, of course, discretive in its effect and separates the two. I beg the Minister to consider a little further as to whether it is altogether wise to repeal Section 27, in the interests of this section, and even if he retains the clumsier form of expression, he will see the undesirability of taking power to dismiss without any inquiry, that is, without any publicity, antecedent to the dismissal.

There is just one other complaint I would make. The draftsman in this case, where he can avoid doing so, never states a thing directly. It is by means of innuendo and implication that some of the more important proposals are given. If the Minister, under sub-section (3), is to dismiss by sending a registered letter and so on, it is stipulated that he shall not dismiss at once. He is to take 14 days in a sort of cooling chamber and if, at the end of 14 days—I draw your attention to this egregious language—"the Minister remains of the same opinion"— what a picture is painted of a Minister of State, a member of the Cabinet Council, who issues by registered letter an Order of this kind—it is a ukase rather than an Order—which ukase becomes operative if the Minister remains of the same mind for 14 days. If the Minister "remains of the said opinion, he may by Order remove such holder from such office". I think I am using very mild language when I say that language like that is a disfigurement of a piece of legislation.

But that is not the worst of it, by any means. Let us read the implications—what may or might happen in the 14 days during which the Minister is keeping his moral indignation in strict control, without allowing its fires to burn down altogether. During the 14 days, the to-be-dismissed vocational education officer, or friends on his behalf, may get busy. He is not debarred from doing that, although there is no inquiry. He has to make a little substitute for an inquiry and to put up representations to the Minister. The concluding portion of sub-section (3) reads:—

"The Minister after the expiration of 14 days from the day on which he sends the notice and the copy thereof, and after consideration of the representations (if any) made to him by such holder or the vocational education committee, remains of the said opinion...."

So it is said here in obliquo, indirect expression, that the vocational education committee may make representations on behalf of this wretched creature who has received the registered letter. Why could not it be stated explicitly that representations may be made on behalf of the accused, and he is to weigh them in the 14 days. I suggest that this would be a better Bill if there was a specific sub-section in it stating that the accused person has this privilege, and that it grants the power to make representations, instead of it being casually introduced by way of parenthesis.

Mr. Ruane

I desire to support the amendment, mainly because, as the section is drafted, I see no reference whatever to the administrative body in a particular county under which an officer functions and by whom he was appointed. That body represents those who raise the money and to a great extent dispense it. I see no reference to the committee before an officer who, according to the Minister, is unfitted for duty can be removed. I agree with Senator O'Connell that Section 27 of the Act of 1930 gives the Minister abundant power to dispense with the services of any officer guilty of conduct that interferes with the successful carrying out of his duties. The Minister has ample power to discipline any teacher under a vocational education committee and, because of that, I feel that the present Bill would be very much more entitled to be referred to as an amending Bill, if he could see his way to delete Sections 7 and 8 and to substitute for them Section 27 of the Act of 1930 which as far as we know has given satisfaction. A large number of people do not see the necessity for this sub-section. If there was anything in the original Act of 1930 that left room for criticism it would have been criticised long ago. As far as we know the Minister has had no complaints as to the manner in which the Act of 1930 was administered. Seeing that vocational education has now passed the experimental stage, we should be very slow to introduce any changes that might interfere with the relations that existed hitherto between the Department and those responsible for the administration of vocational education schemes in the different counties. The danger I see, if this sub-section is not removed, is that it will to a great extent drive a wedge between local officers and committees. Officers are appointed with the sanction of the Department, after which it is their business to carry out the wishes of the committees. An officer has to play for safety between the committee and machinery under which the Minister might arrive at an opinion which could place him in the position that he was not carrying out his duties or that would render him liable to dismissal.

As Senator O'Connell pointed out, local vocation education committees consist of people from different parts of each county who take a practical interest in the work. They were appointed on these committees because of the interest they took in vocational education for many years. Circumstances which, in the opinion of the Minister, might warrant removal of an official from office could, if brought under the notice of the administering county committee, be explained in a way that might lead the Minister to change his mind. There are local circumstances with which members of these committees are in closer touch than any official of the Department whose duty it would be to make periodical visits, but who could not form as accurate an opinion as could be formed by a committee administering the scheme in a county. An official could not be considered as competent to pronounce on circumstances that might impair the efficiency of the work in a county as those administering the scheme. I hold that the existing power of suspension or dismissal provided in the original Act is sufficient, and I trust that before this Bill becomes an Act, the Minister may see his way to delete sub-section (3). I consulted several people who are interested in this matter and I did not meet one who was not against having such a sub-section in this Bill.

Professor Tierney

This sub-section seems to provide a very interesting exercise in textual criticism. A higher critic studying the document would be driven, after very brief consideration, to the conclusion that, in Section 8 as it stands, there are two originally independent documents. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) represent the original draft and sub-section (3) was introduced by someone who was not responsible for the original draft, some diaskeuast or some later scribe, whoever he may have been. Sub-section (1) seems to lay down the purport of the whole section by referring to the statutory grounds for removal from office. These statutory grounds are again dealt with in sub-section (2), which applies sub-section (1). The latter defines the statutory grounds, while sub-section (2) lays down how these are to be applied. Sub-section (4) seems to cover a special case of statutory ground for dismissal from office, the case in which an officer has been before a court and has been found guilty of an indictable offence. But then sub-section (3) comes in, and it seems to me, at any rate, to make the rest of the section entirely unnecessary. If sub-section (3) is to stand, where is the necessity for having statutory grounds defined in the section as a whole? According to sub-section (3), the Minister has the power to take action which amounts to summary dismissal, if he is satisfied that the holder of an office has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of such an office. Whether or not the holder of an office has given statutory grounds for his dismissal, the Minister is entitled to dismiss him under sub-section (3), so that either sub-section (3) should not be in the Bill, or, if the Minister insists on having it, it should, at any rate, take the place of the section as a whole.

It gives much wider powers to the Minister than seem to be contemplated by the rest of the section as it stands. Really, from the drafting point of view, as Senator Magennis has pointed out, the whole section would need to be revised. If the Minister wants to hold on to the statutory grounds, which are set forth here in slightly different language from the clause governing removal from office in the 1930 Act, then he should leave the section without sub-section (3). If he wants to get further authority for dismissing from office, then he should redraft the whole section and make it practically equivalent to sub-section (3) as it stands.

There is another point also which seems to be important in that regard. Sub-section (2) says:

"Where the Minister is satisfied as a result of a local inquiry that any of the statutory grounds for removal from office exists as regards the holder of an office, the Minister may by Order remove such holder from such office."

In other words, the old provision for a local inquiry is kept in an attenuated form, a shadowy remnant of a provision that existed specifically in the original Act. It is so shadowy that it is difficult to be sure whether the phrase "a local inquiry" means a statutory local inquiry, or whether it means a casual inquiry of some kind, as I suggested on the Second Reading. It does not seem to me, at any rate, to be at all clear what the exact bearing or character of such a local inquiry would be, but, in any case, if there has to be a local inquiry to ascertain statutory grounds for dismissal, why should there not be a local inquiry to ascertain the grounds that are suggested, rather than definitely laid down, in sub-section (3)? In this section as a whole, we have two widely different approaches to the question of removal from office by the Minister. According to one, statutory grounds must exist. According to the other, which is pushed in between sub-section (2) and sub-section (4), the Minister himself, by his mere executive action, can dismiss. Even if we agree entirely that the Minister should have power to dismiss without inquiry, we ought to ask him to reconsider the section, and to redraft it in a more intelligible and less clumsy form than the present one.

Personally, I do not agree that he should have this power. I agree entirely with Senator O'Connell. I do believe that it is not right for us in the Seanad, or for any legislative body, by a rather casual section introduced in that peculiar way into an Act, to take away rights which certain citizens have been enjoying for a number of years. It seems to me to be quite clear that these officers, for a number of years back, have enjoyed the right to have a local inquiry before they are dismissed from office. If that is so, it is entirely unethical for us in Parliament to deprive them of that right, no matter how inconvenient it may be for the Minister, and no matter how seldom that right may have to be called into action. Cases will arise where that right might be their greatest protection, and we should not deprive a single citizen of the protection which existing legislation gives him. If we do, we lend ourselves to the commission of a very serious injustice. If one act of injustice is done under a Bill passed here, we are guilty of that act of injustice, and we should not allow a change to be made which would render it possible for that act of injustice to be committed. On two grounds, therefore, the Minister should reconsider this whole section very carefully. First, there is the peculiar inconsistency of the section as it stands. Secondly, under this section he seems to contemplate taking away from individuals rights which they undoubtedly possess, whether these rights have or have not been frequently called into action, and whether or not the existence of these rights is inconvenient to the Minister's Department.

Mr. Madden

I rise to support the amendment of Senator O'Connell and, after the very convincing speech I have heard, it seems to me there is very little left for me to say. I see the serious implications of this Bill, its reactions and repercussions on the vocational committees as well as on teachers and, as I have stated in this House and outside it, I shall continue to proclaim my conviction. Looking back in retrospect and viewing the intrusions on the will of the people since the advent of our National Parliament, I am beginning to feel that one day we saw the disappearance of the district councils. On another day we saw practically the nullification of the powers and privileges of the county councils.

Then we saw a Bill introduced to whittle away the rights enjoyed by those bodies of men comprising the county committees of agriculture, and to-day we are discussing a Bill that also makes serious incursions on the rights and privileges of vocational education committees and on the rights and privileges of teachers employed by them. I should not be surprised in the future, despite all we hear about democracy, that we would be considering a Bill in which the two Houses of the Oireachtas, if they are not dispensed with, may have their powers so reduced that they will be something like those enjoyed by the existing county councils. It is inexplicable to me why this Bill was introduced. I think it was in the other House that it was admitted that after 13 years of experience——

Cathaoirleach

May I point out that we are dealing with a particular amendment?

Mr. Madden

Might I be permitted to develop my point?

Cathaoirleach

Yes, with relevance to the particular amendment, but not by way of Second Reading speech.

Mr. Madden

I thought I might be permitted to lead up to that. However, I bow respectfully to your ruling and I shall try to keep my remarks as far as possible relevant to the amendment. I happen to be a member of a county vocational education committee. There are five extern members, five priests. I was not present at the meeting when this Bill was being considered by the committee, but they unanimously condemned it. I have here before me particulars of a case of a teacher who from 1924 to 1926 was studying in the National University, preparing for his B.E. degree. In 1933 he was appointed by our committee as a manual instructor and he continued in that capacity until 1942. The reports in regard to this man vary; they were good, bad, sometimes satisfactory, sometimes middling, and so on. That continued until 1942 when he got notice from the Department that his services were discontinued. We considered the whole question very carefully at a meeting of the committee. We considered that this man may have been subject to the will and caprice of inspectors. Those who have been associated with primary education—I was a teacher myself for a short time —know what it is to suffer under inspectors.

This man, as I say, had served from 1933 under our committee until 1942 and we felt that some action should be taken, lest an injustice might be done to him. I want to be clear that the reports from the inspectors varied very much—sometimes for, very often against. The committee, therefore, requested that under the Act of 1930 a sworn inquiry should be held to give the man an opportunity of presenting his case if he had any, and of showing cause why his services should not be discontinued by the Department. That request was turned down. As was pointed out, he was perfectly entitled under the Act of 1930 to such an inquiry. We felt that an injustice was being done and that we had an obligation to this man, as well as to the general administration of the county, to try to remedy that injustice. A deputation was then appointed consisting of the chairman, the chief executive officer and myself. They asked me if I would go with them to the Minister for Education with reference to the case. I pointed out that as a matter of common courtesy we should first ask the Minister to let us know if he would receive a deputation and in that request to point out the terms on which the deputation was asked to go to him. We did send that request to the Minister and the answer we received from him was that he was too busy with the preparation of this amending Bill to receive the deputation.

Mr. Derrig

Am I in order in asking the Senator, if he has a copy of my reply, to read it, please? I do not think I sent any such reply.

Mr. Madden

I did not quite catch what the Minister said.

Mr. Derrig

The Senator says that I said that I was too busy to receive a deputation. I do not think that is correct.

Mr. Madden

That is the information I have. I cannot go any further in verification of it. I have a statement from the person concerned here.

Mr. Derrig

I am sorry to have to interrupt the Senator, but he has said that I sent a reply stating that I was too busy with this Bill to receive a deputation. I say that is not so. I asked the Senator to read the letter which I sent. The Senator now says that he has not that letter and that he is only speaking from hearsay. Am I exceeding my rights then in asking the Senator to withdraw that statement?

Cathaoirleach

The Minister is certainly entitled to have the statement substantiated or withdrawn.

Mr. Madden

That is my information but I withdraw the statement. I shall take steps later to see whether it is correct or incorrect. I am acting simply on information in front of me from the person concerned. The point I want to make is this. I do not know anything about the circumstances of this man's people but from 1922 until he left the university his people provided him with the means of equipping himself to secure a livelihood. From 1933 until 1942 he was uninterruptedly in the employment of the vocational education committee. As I said before there were varying reports, good and bad,——

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid I cannot see the relevancy of this particular argument to the amendment before the House. The Senator has explained the position very well and I do not think it is really necessary to read the document in question.

Mr. Madden

I speak with all deference to the Chair, but I think that this case is perfectly analogous to the arguments put forward in support of Senator O'Connell's amendment. Here was a teacher employed for eight years by a committee and he is told at the end of that period by the Department that his services are no longer needed. He applied for the legal right given him under the Act of 1930 for a sworn inquiry to ascertain why his services should be discontinued. That request was sent by the chief executive officer to the Department. When that was turned down the committee asked the Minister to receive a deputation consisting of the chairman, the chief executive officer and myself, but that was turned down. There can be no denial of that. That teacher has been dismissed since 1942 and the vocational education committee feels that an injustice has been done to him. The committee did everything in their power to try to get the Minister to receive a deputation and to talk the matter over with the Department. I think that that is a case that is perfectly relevant, now that the Minister wants power to do away with the section of the 1930 Act under which a teacher may seek an inquiry if his services are dispensed with in an arbitrary manner. That is why I consider this point relevant to the debate on the amendment.

Cathaoirleach

I now appreciate the Senator's point.

Mr. Colgan

I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator O'Connell. I do so because I am satisfied that the Minister in this section is seeking powers of a dictatorial nature which, I believe, he should not possess. The section reads:—

"If the Minister is satisfied that the holder of an office has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of such office and is of opinion that he is unfit to hold such office."

I say that the expression "unfit to hold office" is an all-embracing term. Any excuse can be made to disemploy or dismiss an employee in the service of a vocational education committee throughout the country under that section. The Minister's opinion may be that a man or woman is unfit for office and he or she can be dismissed without reference to anybody. What I particularly object to is this. We have vocational education committees throughout the country. Men and women give their services on these committees without fee or reward, but under this section the Minister can remove an employee of such committees without any reference to them whatsoever. It is quite possible that under this section either a man or woman can be dismissed the service without any notification of the removal being sent to the immediate employers, the vocational education committee.

I think it will be admitted that these committees have done their work very well since the Act came into force in 1930. They are anxious to do it. I think that the Minister is unwise in putting himself into the position of taking power to dismiss employees of these committees. I would rather see the Minister in the position of an umpire. I think that he should not take the power from the vocational education committees of dismissing or suspending their employees, but that he should leave that work to these committees, and, if any of the people concerned have a grievance, they should have a right of appeal to him. As it is now, under this section he will simply notify people by registered letter that their services under the vocational education committee are terminated.

I agree that it is possible under the present system for many injustices to be done by inspectors' reports. As Senator O'Connell pointed out, a man may be working year in and year out and an inspector may come along at a most inopportune time, when the school is not what it might be or when the officer himself is not what he might be, and on a report based on a few hours' inspection a whole term's working or possibly 12 months' working of the school is to be decided upon. I feel that the Minister is unwise. He is asking us to give him powers that I personally am satisfied he should not have. They are powers which would be better left with the vocational education committees, and I think it is due to the members of these committees throughout the country that these powers should be left with them. I support the amendment that the sub-section be deleted.

Mrs. Concannon

The arguments put forward for the revision of this section seem to me so overwhelming that I would be failing in my duty as a representative of the National University, of which so many of the vocational teachers are graduates, if I did not support them. I think it is very important. I did not like to hear Senator Colgan say that the Minister proposed to take powers. That is not the question at all. It is proposed that we give powers. It is we who have the giving of the powers and, therefore, we should be very careful and should scan every line of proposals such as this in order to see if we are acting in the common good by giving such powers. I think the real trouble is in the unfortunate drafting of the section. It is a sort of amalgam. I believe some of it was inserted in the desire to meet objections raised in the other House. This section which we are considering at present, at first reading would actually seem to introduce a new statutory ground for removal. The section says:—

"Where the Minister is satisfied that the holder of an office has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of such office and is of opinion that he is unfit to hold such office;"

and also,

"Where the Minister is satisfied...that any of the statutory grounds for removal from office exists".

That is very peculiar drafting. It seems to give to the Minister dictatorial powers which I do not think he desires to have, because I am certain that no Minister in this democratic State would exercise such dictatorial powers. We have no right to give them to him. That is why we should be very particular to scan each line of this section. I believe that it is possible to argue from it that certain rights which vocational teachers possess will be taken from them, and that is very serious. As Senator Tierney said, it is really inequitable. We should not do such a thing. I hope, therefore, that the Minister on the next stage of the Bill will be able to satisfy us as to the doubts we have about this section.

Mr. Baxter

I do not propose to add much to what has been said already. I am, however, puzzled as to what exactly the Minister means because, despite the fact that we may criticise him, I refuse to believe that he is aiming at a situation which will put him in the position to do something that may not be regarded as wise, something that might be regarded throughout the country as very severe and dangerous and very upsetting to our whole educational plan. I wonder is it not possible for this House to find some way between what the Minister is aiming at and what we desire. I have had experience of the operation of this scheme for a very long time. It is very difficult to talk about it and to relate it to certain individuals. Probably it is not fair. But now and again a puzzling situation does arise for vocational committees and, no doubt, for the Minister or the Ministry. At the same time, if I have to venture an opinion and to give a vote, I would much prefer to be put in the position of restraining the Minister, or withholding power from him which would make it possible for him to dismiss a teacher by registered letter, rather than give him power which would mean that he could remove an inefficient person by this particular method while, at the same time, running the risk of doing an injustice.

The committee of which I am a member had this section under consideration and their view was against the power being given to the Minister which he is seeking. I do not know what the Minister's experience of committees is, but I refuse to believe that committees are anxious to hold on to teachers about whom unsatisfactory reports are being made year after year or whose increments are being withheld because their work is not satisfactory, because they are not attending to their classes punctually, because the number of hours they teach is far below the number which normally you would expect a teacher to work. Cannot the Minister make some suggestion in the circumstances? I put it to Senator O'Connell when he was moving the amendment that, quite obviously, we must be in a position to get rid of a teacher. If the present machinery is not good enough, is there not something which could be done between what the Minister wants, and which we think is too much for him to ask for, and what we desire? I believe that vocational committees reject this demand which the Minister is making. They feel—and they are right in feeling—that too much is being asked. Supposing there is a man in control of the vocational education plan who may have a one-track mind and who is clamouring that all the teachers fit into a common plan. That may mean an upheaval in a short time in the whole system of vocational education.

I presume that Senator O'Connell intends to ask the opinion of the House on this. That may not solve it, and I do not think that is the way our educational difficulties should be solved. They should be solved by reasonable people, making a reasonable approach to the problem that faces them. A solution should not be the product, on the one hand, of one out to achieve victory and, on the other hand, of a person smarting under defeat and declaring that the Department will utilise these powers in an unjustifiable way. The first time these powers are used, there will be a clamour throughout the country; and that is not good for the whole scheme. If I have to vote, I will vote in favour of the amendment. I suggest, however, that there ought to be some other way. The Minister has had an expression of opinion from both sides of the House and it is up to him to bring further enlightenment, from his angle, on the situation that confronts us and on which we have to pass judgment.

General Mulcahy

On the general principle involved here, nearly everything has been said that need be said. I would like to make one point regarding this sub-section, which shows how ill-thought out the whole scheme contemplated here is from the start. When this measure was presented originally, sub-section (3) of Section 8 proposed that the Minister might send by post to the person involved, at the principal office of the vocational education committee under which he held office, a notice that, after the expiration of seven days from the sending of such notice and after consideration of whatever representations were made, the Minister might by Order remove from office the person involved. A letter posted to-day concerning an official teaching in Macroom, Bandon, Skibbereen or somewhere like that, would not be delivered under present circumstances in the Cork central office until Saturday morning. I do not know when it could be expected to reach the unfortunate principal recipient: it may be Monday or Tuesday, according to the way the postal service is at the present time.

I submit that, as originally proposed, it would be utterly impossible for the person to whom this registered letter was addressed to get the letter, give it consideration, even by return of post, and have representations returned to the Minister in time. With the extension, as the Bill now stands, to 14 days, he may have some chance of getting the letter in time and of getting representations sent back. The sub-section, as it now stands, differs from the original rendering by introducing a provision that, on the day the notice was sent to the person principally concerned, a notice would also be sent to the head office of the vocational education committee under which he was working, and that 14 days would be given within which that committee might send in whatever representations they had. Again, take the County of Cork: a letter posted to-day and intended for the vocational education committee in Cork would reach the Cork office on Saturday. If so, are the members of the Cork Vocational Education Committee supposed to come from the various tailends of Cork to meet to consider the Minister's proposals and to send up representations? It is a fantastic proposal at any time but, under present circumstances, with the difficulty of postage and the difficulty of travelling, it is more fantastic still. I do not think the Minister for Supplies can have been consulted in putting this provision into a measure to be discussed in the House in March, 1944.

The facilities that are offered here for making representations on the Minister's intention are quite impracticable, and so impracticable as to demonstrate that very little thought has been given to the matter. If there is so little thought given to that aspect of the matter, it is quite conceivable that a certain amount of thoughtlessness has gone to the other principles involved in it. I support entirely the amendment and I particularly support the suggestions made to the Minister that he should reconsider the whole matter.

Mr. Derrig

Senator Mulcahy has been Minister for Local Government and Public Health and, no doubt, he is aware from his experience in that office that the telephone has frequently been used, where it was necessary to convey urgent decisions—that the persons concerned are informed by telephone that certain decisions are being conveyed by letter.

General Mulcahy

That makes the scheme more fantastic still.

Mr. Derrig

A good deal of the talk we have heard here about this section, particularly the statement by Senator O'Connell, who has proposed this amendment, that there is no such provision in the 1941 Act, might have been avoided if Senators even looked at the Act. As sub-section (3) stood in the Vocational Education Bill, when it was introduced into the Dáil, it was taken word for word from sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Local Government Act, 1941. Senator O'Connell is not correct, therefore, in saying there is no such provision in the Act of 1941. I do not know whether he has gone to the trouble of reading the Act. According to himself, he has not thought it worth while, or he has not found time, to read the discussions that have taken place in the Dáil; although he must know that a considerable amount of time was given to this matter and that, if the amendment which I accepted with reference to this particular section, and which was inserted, was the fruit of discussions that took place in the Dáil, very much stronger reasons and more investigation than Senator O'Connell and some of the other speakers here have given to the problem, would be necessary to make me feel that I should now go further.

At any rate, if I am asked to go further, reasons beyond the vague assertion that I propose to do all kinds of arbitrary things ought to be given. If it is said that I have said that, during my experience as Minister, I have found committees giving attention to their work and anxious about it, that is perfectly true. On the other hand, I should like to know whether committees or officers in general have any fault to find with the manner in which I have discharged my duties towards them as officers, or whether they can produce any evidence to show that I have been anxious at any time to use them unfairly.

A good deal has been said about the taking away of rights, and of injustices being imposed upon teachers and officers. From the discussion here on this measure, one would imagine that, in any question of education, nothing matters but the interests of the teachers and officers. Even those who have spoken here for the National University and who have challenged me on this matter, have not referred to the question of the injustice that can very distinctly and definitely arise to the pupils attending the schools, if the Minister for Education is not in a position to put an end to inefficiency in the teaching service. If the vocational education service is to be of value to the country in the future—I believe it will be of immense value—or if it is to be of value in our industrial or agricultural development, then, I say that that will depend upon the teaching efficiency of our schools more than upon anything else.

I do not know whether Senators expect me to believe that members of committees can take the place of inspectors and judge the efficiency of the work in the same way as highly-qualified inspectors trained in that work and with long experience can do. I doubt that Senator Baxter, if he had not a case to make here, would agree that that is the position. Senator Madden cited an example which simply proves that for a teacher whose inefficiency is unquestioned and has continued over a period and which, so far as the inspectors' reports go, is incurable, there may be no remedy by way of termination of his services. According to the views expressed here, such a teacher, giving unquestionably unsatisfactory service, must be allowed by me to remain teaching to the disadvantage of the children whom he is supposed to instruct and to the disadvantage of the interests of our country, particularly our technical efficiency, unless I have a sworn local inquiry—to determine what? What new factors in the situation can be brought forward at a local sworn inquiry dealing with this question of a teacher's efficiency and his capacity to do his work satisfactorily? Before the case of the teacher reaches that point, he will have been inspected on more than one occasion. He will have been inspected by the local inspector on, at least, two occasions—probably more. He will have had a formal inspection by a senior, or other, inspector and that formal inspection, if the case should be serious, will probably be held by more than one inspector.

Professor Magennis

That is not stated in the Bill.

Mr. Derrig

Senator Magennis has been a member of the National Board of Education. If the question of terminating the services of inefficient teachers came up for consideration then, as I am sure it did, the Senator would have considered somewhat in the same manner as I am considering representations to the effect that a local sworn inquiry should always be held in order to enable the board to terminate the services of a teacher who had been inefficient over a long period. I do not desire to delay the House, but I should like to refer to the particular case to which allusion was made in the debate. As it happens to illustrate the difficulties which arise from my point of view, no harm will be done by devoting a few moments to it. Had this officer been a whole-time permanent officer, I could not have dealt with his case except by having the same type of local sworn inquiry as has been held recently in County Limerick in connection with another matter. The teacher in question was not on a permanent, whole-time, established basis. The reason he was appointed in the first instance was that he happened to be the best qualified of the applicants for the post, although neither he nor any other applicant had the qualifications laid down. Notwithstanding that, he was appointed because he was the best of those who had applied.

The inspector reported upon his work as unsatisfactory. The Department was holding a course of training for teachers in the subject in question and, as he was lacking in the necessary qualifications, it was decided, despite the preliminary, unsatisfactory report from the inspector, to give him an opportunity of doing this course and thereby obtaining the minimum qualifications. He did that and then took up teaching. After his year's work in 1936-7, his work was described each subsequent year—and increased with time—as being only fairly satisfactory. In 1940, the committee was informed that, the inspectors' reports showing that his work was not entirely satisfactory, the Department would require evidence of appreciable improvement in the standard if sanction were to be given for the continuance of his employment, he being on a year to year basis. Early in the following year, the Department informed the committee that they were unable to approve of this teacher's appointment on its permanent staff and a copy of the report of the Department's inspectors was enclosed.

The committee was told that unless, in the meantime, there was evidence of substantial improvement in the standard of his work, the Department would be obliged to withdraw recognition of him as a teacher. Later, the committee was informed that, pending the result of a special inspection of this teacher's work, no objection would be raised to employing him in a temporary, whole-time capacity. The special inspection of his work was held in the following year and the report was signed by three inspectors. As a result of that, the recommendation was made to me that recognition should be withdrawn from him as a teacher and I carried that into effect.

A period of two years elapsed from the time the correspondence with the committee in regard to his unsatisfactory service was opened. From the 1937-8 session up to the 1941-2 session, the reports, in some cases, at any rate, described his service as only fairly satisfactory. Those who say that there ought to be an inquiry in those cases should address their minds to the question: what type of additional evidence could be brought forward in a case of that kind? Had that teacher been employed in a whole-time, pensionable capacity, his case could only have been dealt with by means of an inquiry. Let me say that the findings of such an inquiry are not binding upon the Minister. In statutes affecting other Departments, it is not stated that the findings of such inquiries are binding upon the Minister. A discretion is left to the Minister as to whether or not he will have an inquiry. If he has the inquiry, it is not mandatory on him to accept the conclusions reached by the officer who held the inquiry. The inquiry is held, as I have stated, in order to obtain information on the facts or issues which may be in dispute.

In this particular matter the question of the inefficient teacher is not, I take it, in dispute. It might be suggested at this sworn inquiry, as was suggested during this discussion, that the inspectors acted under some whim, had some bee in their bonnets, some antagonism or some prejudice—and it would be quite easy, as the discussions in the Dáil and Seanad have shown, even for an individual teacher, let alone a strong organisation, to go around and canvass members of committees. Although a committee has the power to dismiss a teacher, we know very well that committee are reluctant to do that. We know very well, if we face the situation candidly, that committees, as, for example, the County Limerick Committee will be most reluctant to dismiss a teacher. If there is anything of a disagreeable or unpleasant nature to be done, the committee will naturally prefer that headquarters at the Ministry in Dublin should do it.

We have 1,000 whole-time teachers in the vocational education service. I submit that there is no analogy between the position in that service and that under the county committees of agriculture which employ about 160 officers. The 1,000 whole-time teachers and the 600 or 700 part-time teachers under the vocational education schemes are subject to regulation and supervision by the head-masters, by the chief executive officers, as well as to inspections by inspectors of my Department. Therefore, there is always evidence available as to what the state of affairs is in a particular school and of the work that a particular teacher may be doing.

The sub-section, as it stands, makes it mandatory on the Minister when giving a decision in this matter, since it is a very important and serious one, to satisfy himself—he has, with a full recognition of the responsibilities that lie upon him, to give what he considers to be a right decision—whether, in the first place, the officer has carried out the duties of his office satisfactorily. Having done that, the Minister has, further, to give his opinion as to whether in his view the situation demands that the officer should be removed from his post. Senators seem to think that the Minister will come to a decision on that matter without having any evidence before him. I cannot see how a Minister could legally do that. I think he would be violating the obligation which the statute places upon him if he were to give a decision under one or other of these headings adverse to the officer concerned without having evidence before him.

I have explained to the Seanad that, in the case of teachers as happened in the Limerick case to which I have alluded, inspections will have been held at least twice, and probably three times, by more than one inspector, possibly by two or three inspectors independent of the local inspector who dealt with the case originally. In any case a sufficiently long period of time would elapse to give the teacher, by way of guidance and advice, every opportunity to improve himself. When these loose references are made to inspectors and it is suggested that they are fallible, or subject to error, that, of course, is so. I do not question that at all, but the reports of the inspectors have to come up to the office of the Department, where they are scrutinised by the chief inspectors. They are scrutinised in the first instance by the immediate superior officer—the senior inspector. He sees the reports and "vets" them before they go back to the committee. He would undoubtedly have to make an independent report before any serious action, such as threatening removal from office, could be made against a teacher.

Therefore, as I have said, sufficient time is allowed with the object not of getting rid of the teacher but of giving him every opportunity to improve. The inspectors are there to see that the public get the best value and the best possible return from the schemes. They are not there for the purpose of doing an injustice to teachers or of taking advantage of temporary weaknesses. As I said in the Second Reading debate, inspectors are categorically asked to note and to make allowance for, difficulties and obstacles that teachers may have to contend with, such, for example, as illness or family troubles. Inspectors are human. They have been teachers themselves and I am sure they make due allowance in all cases. One would imagine, listening to representatives of teachers who let themselves go in discussions of this kind, that inspectors were a lot of bloodhounds anxious to get teachers out of their positions on very slight or flimsy pretexts. That is not the case at all. Inspectors know that it is a very serious thing for a teacher to have recognition withdrawn from him or to be dismissed from his office because, at his time of life, such a teacher may find it difficult to get other employment. The inspectors make every allowance, but in the long run they must have regard to the benefit of his teaching to the children and to the interests of the service. If, after prolonged advice and guidance, no good can be got of a teacher, then the matter, when it first appears to be serious, has to go before the committee. But, even then, some time unquestionably would be given to the teacher to enable him to adjust himself and to improve. If he still continued to give unsatisfactory service, probably a definite warning would be given to him and, as in the Limerick case, if that did not suffice a formal inspection, when the whole matter would be brought to issue, would be held.

Wherever there is any question of a doubt, as, for example, in regard to misconduct, physical incapacity or any matter of that kind, I certainly think that there ought to be an inquiry. I am quite prepared to hold an inquiry in any case of doubt, but in a case where an officer has been convicted under sub-section (4) I doubt if an inquiry is necessary. I think the matter might then be left to the Minister. Neither do I consider that, where the question of unsuitability arises through the prolonged inefficiency of a teacher, officers of vocational education committees should get any special privilege. Had these vocational education officers remained in the service from which they were transferred when the 1930 Act became law, they would still be officers of local authorities. In that capacity Section 25 of the 1941 Act and the other sections which are more or less taken into this measure, would apply to them. They would have continued in the local government service, and, therefore, cannot claim, in reason, better conditions. In my opinion, according to the appropriate section of the Principal Act, they cannot claim better conditions than the conditions in the service which they left. They are getting conditions at least as good under this measure. In my opinion, they are getting better conditions than the vast majority of other officers of local authorities who are governed by the appropriate sections in the 1941 Act.

If, as I have said, the Seanad votes to delete sub-section (3) which I have included in the Bill, having considered the whole matter carefully over a long period of time—it is a sub-section which I consider to be in the best interests of the service—they will then be setting up a position in which they will have deliberately chosen to impose upon the Minister, no matter how bad and unsatisfactory the service of a teacher may be, how long that unsatisfactory service may have continued or how poor the results may be for the children attending the institution, the obligation of holding a sworn inquiry. Of what advantage is such an inquiry? I have already explained in this or the other House that from time to time we hold inquiries with regard to primary teachers. These inquiries are not sworn inquiries in the sense that inspectors hold them under statutory rules. They are held in what I consider to be a much better way. The inspectors go down to investigate all the circumstances. They interview the clergy, the parents and the children and take statements from them. The teacher has the right to be represented, of course.

I submit that under the sub-section as it stands, if it is necessary and if I consider that such an inquiry would be of benefit, I can order it, but I think the Seanad would be going entirely beyond what is necessary and would be weakening the hand of the Minister in his efforts to keep the service in an efficient state through endeavouring to do justice to the officers concerned, by paralysing the administrative side by imposing on me the duty of having a sworn inquiry in every case. It would be a toleration of inefficiency in my opinion. I think my statement as to the procedure which is followed where teachers are giving unsatisfactory service, of the length of time it takes before the matter reaches an issue, of the opportunities that the committee, the headmaster and the chief executive officer have of discussing such matters with the inspectors, with the higher officers of the Department or with me should such a course be necessary, proves that there are ample safeguards. There is no possibility in fact it has never occurred and will never occur, that a Minister could arbitrarily, without having followed that procedure and without having satisfied himself fully when taking a final decision, refuse to give the officer every fair play and not give every consideration to representations that are made on his behalf.

The Minister will have before him whatever representations are made by the committee or by the officer and will have every opportunity of considering them. In relation to this provision that there should be an inquiry, the fact is that if the inquiry be held on the basis of the corresponding inquiry under the Agriculture Act, then it need not be binding on the Minister. The Minister would hold an inquiry in response to a request from the officer or committee and he would consider the result of it but he would not be bound by it legally. If, therefore, we had the same procedure under the vocational education schemes he would not bind himself legally to accept the inquiry or be guided by its decision. That is the position in regard to the Agriculture Act and it is not analogous in my opinion. The circumstances are entirely different. More discipline, more control and more supervision are obviously necessary in a great teaching service and I am satisfied that if the Seanad is satisfied that the Minister, his officers and his inspectors are the best means of securing efficiency, seeing that efficient service is given, it will decide that that means is better than that power should be taken from the Minister and local inquiries substituted in every case.

I do not know if Senators have considered, if local inquiries were held, what the position would be if representatives of an officer had the right to cross-examine inspectors as to whether in fact they were biased or prejudiced, what ideas they had at the back of their minds in writing their reports. I can assure the House that in the Limerick case and in all the other cases that have come before me I am satisfied that the inspectors are acting in an unprejudiced fashion. If there has been any suggestion at any time by the teacher concerned that that is not so, he has always been given the right to have inspection by an independent officer. I think I have covered all the points and I do not think I should delay the House any further.

Mr. O'Connell

The Minister began his statement by saying that I have not taken the trouble to read Section 25 of the Local Government Act, 1941, and that if I had I would have noted what the section did and that the section which I wish to delete was taken word for word from that Act. I just want to say that, if the Minister had read Section 25 of that Act as carefully as I read it before I got up to speak, he would not have made the statement which he did make at the beginning of his speech. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Local Government Act sets out the statutory grounds for the removal of the holder of an office and sub-section (2) says that—

"where the appropriate Minister is satisfied as the result of any local inquiry that any of the statutory grounds for removal from office exists."

and so on. Then there is sub-section (3) which he says is identical with the one in the Bill.

Mr. Derrig

As brought into the Dáil, is what I said, Senator.

Mr. O'Connell

Well, even as brought into the Dáil. I have not the original Bill before me at the moment. Here is what is in sub-section (3) of the Local Government Act. It says:

"Where the appropriate Minister is of opinion that any of the statutory grounds for removal from office exists...."

Now there is not a word about statutory ground for removal in the sub-section of this Bill before us, not a word about it.

Mrs. Concannon

The Bill says:

"Where the Minister is of opinion that he is unfit to hold such office."

Unfitness for office is a statutory ground.

Mr. O'Connell

It says that where the Minister is satisfied that the holder of office has failed; that is not a statutory ground.

Mr. Derrig

Are you willing to accept the Local Government Act version?

Mr. O'Connell

I am not willing to accept the Local Government Act. I do not see that section in it anyway, but even if the Minister were correct and if he did take this sub-section word for word from the Local Government Act, which he did not, although he alleges that I have not read the Act, I say again even if he had I will not accept it because these particular people got certain rights under the Vocational Act of 1930. They got certain rights which are now being taken from them. The Minister says that they are getting better rights, that, in effect, no rights are being taken from them, that they are getting the same rights as they had. I forget what the Minister's exact words were.

These people left a certain service in 1930 and were given a certain right in the 1930 Act and these are the rights that are being taken from them now, under this particular sub-section.

Mr. Derrig

Does the Senator say that I am incorrect in saying they were given rights in regard to remuneration and conditions of office which appertained to the service which they left and, if they had continued in that service, the provisions of the 1941 Act would now apply to them?

Mr. O'Connell

When the 1930 Act was passed, Section 27 was put into it very deliberately by the Oireachtas. It gave them certain rights of security of tenure. I am not talking about remuneration at the moment, nor am I talking of pension rights.

Professor Magennis

Arbitrary dismissal.

Mr. O'Connell

I am talking of the rights against possible arbitrary dismissal. The Minister referred to the practices of the old national board, when he was replying to Senator Magennis. The old national board was established here over 100 years ago by a foreign Government; very bad traditions grew up in that national board, and some of them are there still. Here we have a native service, a plant established here by our own Government, and we do not want any traces of these bad traditions that grew up under the British regime to be introduced into this service. I feel quite sure that considerations of that kind were in the minds of the members of the Oireachtas when they passed Section 27 of the Vocational Act of 1930, which stated that no officer, teacher or otherwise, would be removed from office until he was given an opportunity, if he wished to have it, of a local sworn inquiry.

I am not convinced by the case made by the Minister against having a local inquiry. He says we will have plenty of evidence from headmasters, members of vocational committees, inspectors and others. Let us have that evidence; let it come out in public and, then, if the teacher deserves to be dismissed, let him be dismissed. I certainly do not stand for inefficiency. I do not want a teacher to be continued one hour in any public service if he is proved to be inefficient, but let that be proved openly and above board and let the inspector openly make his case. An inspector should not be afraid to submit himself even to cross-examination. If he has a good case, he will not be afraid of cross-examination; he will make his case.

The Minister makes the case that if we omit this sub-section we are imposing on him the necessity to continue an inefficient teacher in office. That is wrong; that is not suggested by anybody. It has been pointed out that even after an inquiry he has the right to say whether or not he will dismiss a teacher. It is not likely he would, if the findings of an inquiry are to the effect that the teacher should not be dismissed; but he will still have the right to do it—he will continue to have that right, even if the inquiry is held.

I do not wish to dwell any further on this matter. I have made my case already and there is nothing the Minister said as to what will be done, or what will be the practice, that justifies taking away a right which teachers had of having an inquiry open and above board when it is proposed to remove them from their positions. Anything the Local Government Act may say, or anything that was done for other local officers, has no bearing on this. There is no analogy, and what was done under the Local Government Act should not be taken as a defence for what is proposed under this measure.

Professor Magennis

There is a well-established principle in philosophy that he who proves too much proves nothing. The Minister has proved quite too much in the concluding portion of his speech. He argues as if there were involved in some substitute for his sub-section (3)—dependence on a local inquiry—we should have all sorts of dreadful results; inspectors submitted to cross-examination by counsel for the accused and asked awkward questions as to whether they were animated by prejudice or malice. Does the Minister forget what sub-section (2) says:

"Where the Minister is satisfied as a result of a local inquiry that any of the statutory grounds for removal from office exists...."?

Is not an argument against dependence on a local inquiry an argument against dependence on a local inquiry as it appears in sub-section (2)? I take strong exception to his description of any criticism that I had the temerity to make as being put forward in the name of the National University of Ireland.

Mr. Derrig

I was not referring to Senator Magennis.

Professor Magennis

The Minister used the plural.

Mr. Derrig

I was not referring to the Senator.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should accept the Minister's disclaimer.

Mr. Derrig

The Senator is not the official representative here. The official representatives of the university said they were speaking for the university graduates, and they were quite frank about it. I think I was justified in making a reply to them.

Professor Magennis

I am not speaking as a representative of the National University of Ireland; I am speaking as one who has been interested for a lifetime in the betterment of education in Ireland—that is my status here. All that Senator Tierney has said I adopt as a better and clearer statement of the objection I tried to formulate. Section 27 of the Act of 1930 is the charter of the vocational education teachers. That charter is to be removed by Section 12 and there is substituted for it this irregularly-worded, incompetent Section 8. What I particularly object to is the vagueness, the indefiniteness of the language in regard to fundamental vital things that condition the success of vocational education.

"Where the Minister is satisfied that the holder of an office has failed...."

Satisfied, how? By what procedure is he satisfied? Is it sufficient that the offending official be informed that the Minister is satisfied that he must go? I have in my time received a message from a Department of State informing me that "the Minister holds such-and-such a view," when I had had a conversation with the Minister the previous day and knew that the Minister held no such view, but quite the reverse. A minor official had taken it on himself to issue this declaration of policy in the name of the Minister. That sort of thing is part of what we are continually indicting in this House—the possibility of misgovernment through government by Order. I adopt every word that the two representatives of the National University said with regard to this clause.

The Minister asks us to take his assurance of what he would do and upon what ground he would proceed in substitution for putting something definite and tangible into the legislation. Again, I read:

"Where the Minister is satisfied...."

The Minister's account of how he reaches the state of mind of being satisfied is that he receives reports from inspectors. I direct his attention to the concluding words of sub-section (3)—In his passion for parentheses, the draftsman introduces parenthetically what ought to have been stated positively in sub-sections—The Minister contemplates that in the 14 days which are to elapse between the posting of the registered letter and his official issue of the dismissal notice, opportunities will be given for representations to be made on behalf of the accused and, what is very important, on behalf of the local vocational education committee. Therefore, the Minister does contemplate a form of inquiry—call it by some other name. Someone is made to say by Shakespeare that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet. Is there not a distinct invitation for a process of investigation, an irregular sort of trial, during the 14 days? Now would it not satisfy the requirements of public opinion much better, if instead of this matter occurring incidentally in parenthetical parts of a clause, it were laid down positively that, notwithstanding that the Minister is satisfied by reports from inspectors or otherwise that the holder of an office has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of such office, it shall be permitted to the official, within a period of 14 days, or a month, or whatever period is fixed, to show cause why he should not be removed, and that this liberty shall be extended to a local vocational education committee to declare its opinion on the matter? That would be intelligible and regular legislation. The Minister spoke with a great show of moral indignation. I thought it was a fine performance.

Mr. Derrig

Thank you.

Professor Magennis

I am accustomed to Ministerial performances and know a good one from a bad one by experience. We had this fine show of moral indignation that we want an inefficient teacher to continue teaching inefficiently for some indefinable period. The Minister forgets the terms of his own Bill. He forgets Section 7 which says:—

"When the Minister has reason to believe...he may suspend such holder from the performance of the duties while the case is being inquired into."

How, in face of that, can it be said that our disapproval of sub-section (3) is in any way equivalent to a demand that an inefficient teacher should go on teaching inefficiently? When the Minister is driven into such a defence as that, I think his case is hopeless. I did not ask him to do anything which would diminish his power as Minister for Education. I do not think there is anyone more opposed to putting obstacles in the way of the efficient discharge of Ministerial duties than I, but I did ask him to reconsider this. That was all I asked, and there is time between now and the next stage to reconsider whether he cannot allay public fear or suspicion, anxiety in the minds of a body of officers or a disposition in a local education committee to resist what they might think an undue power in the hands of the Minister. Can it not be worded in a more satisfactory way? That is not asking for very much.

Mr. M. Hayes

In Section 8, two methods of dismissing a teacher are contemplated: one is the holding of a local inquiry and the other without a local inquiry, so that, in fact, sub-section (3) entirely negatives sub-section (2) or, at any rate, leaves the Minister with complete choice to dispense entirely with any kind of local inquiry. It seems to me quite plain that, in the present state of the post, the provision in sub-section (3) that a vocational committee may make representations to the Minister will not work. The case made by Senator Mulcahy is, I think, complete. If the Minister sends a registered letter to Cork, and that letter has to go to Bantry or Bandon, the vocational committee cannot meet and make representations to the Minister within 14 days. I know that the Minister spoke of the telephone, but not even the Minister for Education can send a registered letter by telephone, and I should like to suggest to the Minister, from the practical point of view, and apart from the other arguments made, that the actual provision he makes here for giving a vocational committee a voice before he comes to a final and irrevocable decision is not really practicable. It could not be done in 14 days at present, and even when the post was at its best before the emergency, it could scarcely be done in that period. Fourteen days is really not a long enough period.

I sympathise with the Minister's desire to get rid of inefficient teachers and I know that it is very difficult in this country to get rid of anybody who is inefficient. All kinds of people make appeals and it is one of the things on which one gets unity in the country. People of different Parties combine to make representations to a Minister about people who are in fact not able to do their jobs, but, speaking as, I think, the only person who was for some time a vocational teacher, I do feel that certain rights which people have should not be lightly altered. More particularly, the Minister takes power entirely to decide the matter himself. I know that he will have inspectors' reports and so on, but I am not so certain that all these reports will be examined in the Department with completely judicial calm in all cases. There are certain considerations which may enter into a dismissal into which one would like to have more inquiry than is provided for here, but, in any event, even what the Minister himself desires to give is not given in a practical and practicable manner in sub-section (3).

Sir John Keane

I have listened to this debate with very little knowledge of the background of the legislation, and I should like to ask the Minister what determines whether he proceeds under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3). Sub-section (2) appears to me to give him all the powers he wants. The statutory grounds would appear to cover almost anything, including unfitness for office. If a teacher is incompetent, does not do his work or keeps irregular hours, surely he is unfit for office? We have heard about the Limerick case and surely that teacher was unfit for office? Why does the Minister not proceed under sub-section (2)? In fact, what cases does he consider drive him to proceed under sub-section (3)? That is the point on which there is a little doubt in mind at present. If all the cases which do arise are covered by sub-section (2) why does he want sub-section (3)?

Mr. Derrig

I think Senator Sir John Keane must know that, in the case of Local Government inquiries, they are held normally by an inspector from the Department. If I were to follow the same procedure, and accept the existing law as being suitable, then I would send an inspector down to Limerick. As I explained, the reason why an inquiry was not binding upon me in this particular case was that the officer was not a whole-time pensionable officer. He was employed from year to year and the Department refused on account of his unsatisfactory service to sanction him as a whole-time officer. Had we sanctioned him, and had the position been that the inspector had not reported him as being unsatisfactory—if we had had a moderately good report, and if he had happened to do good work the first year and, as may happen, for some extraordinary reason he suddenly declined in efficiency, and if, in the meantime, he had become a whole-time pensionable officer—the only method open to me would be an inquiry.

Senator Madden's speech will make it clear whether the Limerick Committee would be likely to take upon themselves the duty of terminating his service, but if they felt that the teacher had been wronged by the inspector, I would then have to hold an inquiry. I would send down one of my inspectors to whom the Limerick or another committee might object as being an unfair person to be charged with that duty. The teacher and the committee would have legal representatives there. There would be statements made and evidence given, as well as cross-examination of the inspector or other officer who would have made a report to me. As the law stands I would not be bound to accept that report. I would be bound to consider it. Until the Minister has held such local inquiry and considered it, as the law stands at present, even though the officer concerned or the committee did not make a request for an inquiry to be held, the Minister must hold one. When this sub-section was inserted, as in the case of the section guaranteeing to officers rights they held in the service from which they were being transferred, there had not been any experience of such procedure.

A new service was being established in 1930 when the section was put in. I do not think sufficient consideration was given, or possibly could have been given to its implications at the time. The implications, as I have tried to make clear, are that, if a committee fails to take action against a teacher who has been repeatedly reported for inefficient service, the only way in which the Minister could deal with that situation is by having a sworn local inquiry. Inquiry is being held constantly through the inspectorate, and the results are reported year by year and are known to the committee and its officers and I should not be bound to hold the sworn local inquiry which the law at present compels me to hold in every case.

Sir John Keane

I am afraid the Minister has not satisfied my doubts. When this Bill becomes law, is it entirely within the Minister's discretion whether he will proceed under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3)? If that is so, what is the object in retaining sub-section (2)? There is a certain element of redundancy on technical grounds. Why does he want sub-section (2) at all if it is entirely discretionary or, alternatively, why is he not satisfied with sub-section (2)?

Mr. Derrig

On the question of teaching efficiency, there is a branch of the service carrying out inspection from year to year, which is in constant contact with officers of the committee. Members of the inspectorate frequently attend meetings and discuss matters with committees. The question of removal from office of a teacher giving unsatisfactory service can only arise after a certain period. I cannot see that it should be binding in a case of prolonged inefficiency to hold a sworn local inquiry. It may happen that the question of an inefficient teacher is bound up with other matters, unsatisfactory relations between teachers in a school or between teacher and the head master or the chief executive officer. It may be alleged there is a dispute going on in the school that it is not primarily a question of the inefficiency of the teacher, but of conditions in a school not being satisfactory. In that case I should say that an inquiry would be necessary. If it were a case of an allegation of a teacher being unable to work, let us say on account of drink, or other physical incapacity, being unable to attend to his duty, or if there was question of financial misbehaviour in connection with a committee's funds, in all these cases in my opinion an inquiry would be necessary wherever there would be any doubt, or where the Minister had not before him ample and sufficient evidence to enable him to come to a decision under sub-section (3). If there was any doubt, or if there was not sufficient evidence he would, as in the cases of which I gave examples, order an inquiry to be held.

Sir John Keane

I see the Minister's point and realise that there are grounds other than technical incompetence upon which the Minister might want to be satisfied. That being so, I think the section is very clumsily drawn. I do not often agree with Senator Magennis, but I would support him in this instance. The whole section should be redrafted. I consider that it could be drafted in a much more intelligent form so as to carry out what the Minister has in mind.

Mr. Derrig

I do not know if the draftsman takes a certain view regarding his duties as a literary stylist as well as a lawyer. I know that the chief draftsman we had rather prided himself on his style and that it was always considered comparable if not superior to the style of draftsmen elsewhere. Surely the important thing is to have good law whatever the style. I am sure that the best sections in English law would not meet the rather high standard that some Senators demand from the literary point of view. Words may be put in as a compromise or to meet certain objections that are often dealt with on the spur of the moment, and that had not that consideration from the literary point of view that one would like. In reply to Senator Hayes I should like to say that the extension of the period to a fortnight was in reply to a request from the Opposition side in the Dáil that it should be so extended. It was not suggested that a fortnight was not sufficient, and the Deputy who raised the matter had a right to speak for the people of Cork.

As regards the telephone, I have not suggested that a registered letter can be sent by the telephone. What I have suggested here is that there is nothing to stop the Minister communicating within five minutes with the office of the vocational education committee, and intimating to them that on the following Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, or on this day week he intends to send a letter.

Mr. M. Hayes

I see.

Mr. Crosbie

It would take the Minister a little more than five minutes.

Mr. Derrig

But I have no objection to extending it further if it is desired.

Mr. M. Hayes

That could be done on the next stage.

Mrs. Concannon

On the last occasion, I spoke in the interests of the vocational teachers who are in my own constituency. Now, I speak as a responsible member of the Legislature, anxious that we in this House should make good law. I think that if we read this section, the wording of sub-section (3) clearly gives arbitrary powers to the Minister. Section 8 gives two statutory grounds for removal. Even the Minister himself admits that sub-section (3) is the important part of the section but, going on the wording alone, the sub-section as it stands shows that the only trial as to whether a man is unfit takes place in the Minister's mind. The sub-section says "if the Minister is satisfied." We know, of course, what satisfies him, but there is no indication of that in this particular sub-section of Section 8.

If the Minister considers that an officer has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of such an office, his opinion, as a consequence, is that he is unfit to hold the office and, therefore, there is a statutory ground for removal. So far so good. The Minister may not do it at all. I do not see why the word "may" should be used because as far as that goes, the word "may" entitles the Minister not to take any action at all. I do not see why the grounds for the Minister's action should not be incorporated in this section, that the holder has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of his office and, therefore, when he forms an opinion, it would be necessary that one of the statutory grounds for removal should be present. I think that we could get a better word than "may", to allay our apprehensions about the effect of this sub-section which, to my mind, gives the Minister arbitrary powers, inasmuch as the action seems to take place in his own mind. If he is satisfied that the officer is unfit to hold this office, there is no question that the statutory ground for removal is present.

Mr. O'Connell

I would like to make one point to show the difference between Section 27 of the Vocational Education Act of 1930 and what is proposed in this Bill. This Bill leaves it entirely within the discretion of the Minister whether he holds a local inquiry or not, even where it is a question of misconduct or malversation of funds. So far as this section is concerned, he says he will, and I accept his word, but it is entirely in the discretion of the Minister to hold it. But in Section 27 it states definitely that the Minister shall not remove an officer until he has caused a local inquiry to be held.

Professor Magennis

I am glad that Senator O'Connell has emphasised that point. The Minister makes great play with the words "literary stylist". We are supposed to be concerned only with finding nice phraseology and turns of expression. What we are really concerned with is the reputation of the Legislature for exercising a clear mind as to what it is passing into law and what its enactments may be interpreted to mean in a court of law, if a question be raised in a court of law. I suggest, with all deference to the Minister, that if his draftsman thinks he is so superb in his profession, it might humble him if he studied Section 27 of the Act of 1930, a masterpiece of clear drafting. There are no parentheses in it, and no possibilities of anyone making a mistake about what it means, whereas this wretched thing, Section 8, gets originality only by its departure from that excellent piece of workmanship. There are ever so many satires in literature, as we are talking about literary things, on originality. Some people think they are original by turning things upside down or beginning discussions at the wrong end. Here, Section 8 begins by declaring what are the statutory grounds for the removal of the holder of the office and succeeds in being ambiguous at the very outset. Surely "unfitness" stated in that absolute way is not a disqualification. Senator Sir John Keane declared that I was unfit to be a censor of books.

Sir John Keane

Totally unfit.

Professor Magennis

I wanted him to say that again. He has fallen into the temptation I held out. Anyone may declare that someone else is unfit. Does that make him unfit? There is a famous case of Lincoln as a lawyer. He asked a very competent witness: "Suppose that an Act of Parliament deemed a cow's tail to be a leg, how many legs would a cow have?" The witness, as innocent in his performance as Senator Sir John Keane, replied: "Five.""Ah," said Lincoln, "so you think that by calling things by another name you alter their reality." In this Section 8 of which we are speaking, there are, we know— I pointed it out before and I repeat it to a certain extent, but in a different connection—three different procedures. First, the Minister acts as a result of an inquiry. Under sub-section (4) the Minister acts because a court has done the inquiring for him, but in the intermediate case in sub-section (3) it says the Minister may act if he is satisfied and is of opinion the man is unfit to hold such an office.

I grant the Minister that it would not be possible to give a full definition of unfitness but I think that the expression should be "proved unfitness". It was proved unfitness that Section 27 of the Act of 1930 had in view. Anyone who reads it will see that that is so:—

"The Minister may by Order ... remove from his office or employment any paid officer or servant...whom he considers unfit or incompetent to perform his duties...".

Those words, standing by themselves, might seem to contradict what I am alleging, but the next sub-section says:—

"The Minister shall not remove under this section...unless and until he has caused a local inquiry to be held...".

In other words, the Minister is not to consider the man unfit until an inquiry has shown that he is unfit. That is the merit of the section which Section 12 of the present Bill seeks to repeal. I do not think this is a question of literary quality—it is a question of right legislation.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 23.

Tá

• Barniville, Henry L.
• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Campbell, Seán P.
• Colgan, Michael.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Counihan, John J.
• Croshie, James.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Hayden, Thomas.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kyle, Sam.
• Madden, David J.
• Magennis, William.
• Monahan, Edward.
• Moore, T.C. Kingsmill.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Sullivan, Donal.
• Rowlette, Robert J.
• Ruane, Seán T.

Níl

• Brennan, Joseph.
• Colbert, Michael B.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, Séamus.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O Máille, Pádraic.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Peter T.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• McCabe, Dominick.
• Maguire, John.
• O'Beirne, Frank.
• O'Donnell, Francis H.
• Quirke, William.
• Stafford, Matthew.
• Walsh, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Crosbie and O'Connell; Níl: Senators Hearne and O'Donovan.

Question declared lost.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Section put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 6 can be taken on the question: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Connell

I move amendment No. 6:—

To delete the section.

This is, of course, more or less, although not directly, consequential on Section 8 which we have just been discussing, because by Section 9 the Minister makes, as it were, assurance doubly sure. He takes steps in this section to prevent any existing officer exercising what, if this section were not in the Bill, would be a vested right. If this section were not inserted, it would be possible that an existing officer might say that he had vested rights under Section 27 of the original Act dealing with conditions of service and that they should not, and could not, be altered while he was in the service. But this section definitely states that, even if he were in the service at the time of the passing of this Bill, Section 6, 7 and 8 would apply to him. It is an example, of course, of very objectionable retroactive legislation. But, in view of the attitude the Minister has taken on Section 8, I do not think it is necessary to argue this very long. The purpose of the section is clear; it is highly objectionable. It is taking away vested rights which teachers and officers have and altering their conditions of appointment. If it were not there, an officer to whom these objectionable provisions of Sections 6, 7 and 8 would be applied might very well have a cause of action against the Minister.

Professor Magennis

I think that Senator O'Connell's speech is an-illustration of the old classical phrase sed victa Catoni—a losing cause has his advocacy. I join myself with Senator O'Connell in opposing this section, but I realise that, as all these other offending sections have been already passed, our opposition is practically futile. Still I want to have it on record that there were two voices at least raised in this House against possible injustice. The Minister resented earlier in the debate on the other section that anyone should speak of injustice in connection with his Bill. But this is a clear case of legislating with the eyes open to the consequences of what is being done. Section 9 clearly empowers the Minister to commit breaches of contract. It is legalising a breach of contract. An officer has been employed under an engagement on certain terms as to salary, tenure of office, and so on. When Section 9 is passed he has no such tenure; he has no claim to such remuneration; it is whatever the Minister may decide. I do not like to use the word “barefaced”, but it is an open, naked, and unashamed violation of the old tradition of sacredness of contract. The number of people concerned in this cannot be very large. It would be easy to arrange other terms, just as, similarly, when there was a refusal to grant additional years of office for the calculation of superannuation for men going out under the operation of this Bill, it would be easy to have put into the Bill that they should get a gratuity. But there is no mention here of anything that the Minister is empowered to do to soften the blow. No! Let the great axe fall. It does not matter what the terms or tenure of office may be, the Department of Education decides that AB shall go and he goes. Where there is no power for the Minister to recommend, or for the employer, the local education committee, to make a grant in compensation for this disturbance in office—not a word in the Bill—I think I am entitled to protest against it and I desire to have it on the records of this House, although I know it is absolutely as a voice crying in the wilderness.

Mr. Monahan

On the Second Reading, I drew the Minister's attention to the fact that I considered Section 9 the most vicious of these four sections, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It should be obvious to any intelligent member of the House that Sections 6, 7 and 8 were only put in as a chain or link beguiling the Legislature to believe that nothing was intended, but, as Senator Magennis said, the axe is going to fall. Why should an existing officer, who proffered his services to the State in 1930, be debarred by this section from contending that he is entitled to hold on to his rights? It says very plainly and clearly, showing the obvious intention of the Minister:

"The fact that an officer is in office at the date of this passing of this Act, shall not be a ground for contending that Section 6, 7 and 8 of this Act do not apply to him."

In fact, it means that the Minister is debarring the officer from claiming his pension, his right to superannuation or his right not to be dismissed. I suggest to the Minister that, in all fairness to a class which has given efficient service, it is a very unjust measure.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I wish to join with Senator Magennis in protesting against what I consider to be a legislative act of bad faith.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Crosbie

I wish my protest to go on the records of this House with the protests of Senators O'Connell and Magennis and the other Senators who are against the injustice which will be done under this section. Senator Magennis has aptly described the provisions of this section as being a breach of contract. In commercial circles, there are words and phrases that are used to describe breaches of contract.

This evening this House has witnessed a very unique debate, a debate in which no quarter was sought or given, in which the voices of Senators from both sides of the House were raised in protest against injustices in Section 8 of this Bill. The amendment was defeated by a very narrow majority, a majority that by no means reflected the discussion which had previously taken place. The defeating of that amendment was the result of the Minister's whips; but there was one thing unique about that debate: while the Minister could whip his followers to enter the division lobby, he did not succeed in getting a single voice raised here, besides his own, to defend the section under discussion.

I would suggest that, if the Minister, with a full sense of his responsibilities, desires to embody in his legislation the wishes of this House, then he will seriously consider redrafting Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 between now and the Report Stage. In that event, he would certainly be meeting the wishes of a very large proportion of the House and, taking it from every angle, he would be producing a far better Bill.

Mr. O'Donovan

It puzzles me why there should be such a prolonged debate on the clauses now before the House. Many of those who have spoken here to-day were here in 1941, when the Local Government Act of 1941 was passed, with precisely the same wording and the same clauses. Without referring to the debate, I may say that very few Senators criticised those clauses. I myself referred to the period of seven days not being sufficient to give a local authority time to consider the notice of the removal from office by the appropriate Minister. That was enacted by both Houses of the Oireachtas at that time, with the seven days standing. In this Bill, it has been increased to 14 days, as I pointed out on the Second Reading. Another improvement has been inserted—that the notices must go by registered post. Under the 1941 Act, they were merely to be sent by post and there was no guarantee that they would ever reach the officials of the local authorities for whom they were intended. Now, the Minister is assured that the notices will reach the person concerned and he has 14 days under the Bill in which to consider his position.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

May I remind the Senator that we are dealing with Section 9?

Mr. O'Donovan

I submit that what I am urging is relevant to Section 9 because it states, in effect, that Section 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill apply to an officer in office at the date of its passing. I am merely referring to the substance of Section 9. Sections 6, 7 and 8 were embodied in a previous Act of the Oireachtas and we had not anything like the extensive debate we have had here to-day. I cannot see the force of deleting Section 9 if it is intended that these sections should not apply to existing officers. The question of worsening their position does not arise. There is nothing in this Bill about remuneration. It is a question simply of retiring age and removal from office. What would be the position if Section 9 were deleted? I think that you would have chaos, that an existing officer of a vocational committee could continue as an officer until the Lord called him. Surely this House does not think that that position should obtain.

Nobody has pointed out to me how we are interfering with the terms of appointment of anybody. We are doing no injustice and we are breaking no faith with existing officers by having Section 6, 7 and 8 applied to them. It is simply a matter of dealing with the duties of their office and their removal from office for any delinquencies or irregularities. We made that provision in a previous Act, which Act applies to a greater number of public officials than this Bill will affect. On the Second Reading, I pointed out that I was anxious to see co-ordination of services and a fixed standard of remuneration for all local authority employees. I should like to see a comprehensive standard of employment for all local authority officials, whether they be vocational education officials, officials of agricultural committees or officials of ordinary public bodies. Until we have such a standard, uniform system of employment, it will be very difficult for the Minister to bring in a comprehensive pension scheme for officials of local authorities—a thing which has been long promised by the Local Government Department. I want to raise my voice as emphatically as I can against the deletion of this section. I am as much in sympathy with officials of vocational education committees as any other Senator. I cannot see what objection Senators can have to this section in respect of officials of vocational education committees since they had no objection to a similar provision applying to a greater number of officials of local authorities under the 1941 Act. I think that all this talk of injustice and breach of faith is moonshine.

Mr. Ruane

I support the deletion of Section 9. Section 99, sub-section (3), of the Vocational Education Act, 1930, was definitely intended to protect the rights of transferred officers and that section will be undermined if Section 9 of this Bill be allowed to pass. The Vocational Education Act of 1930 definitely provided for the protection of officers who had been working under the Local Government Department in certain capacities if transferred to any new service under that Act. I hold that this is a rather strange amendment of the Local Government Act, 1941, and is plainly intended to deprive those transferred officers of rights to which they are legitimately entitled. That is not fair. If that class of officers can be regarded as having no rights now, no legislation can be enacted in future to safeguard such rights, because it will always be subject to change by new laws. I hold that there is no reason why this section should be included in the Bill. If the officers affected by it are expected to give the service they have given for the past 10 or 12 years—and it is to such service any success which has attended the vocational education scheme is due—then, this section will be very harmful. I hold it is not a proper way to treat people engaged in such work—to have the sword of Damocles always hanging over their heads. They were transferred on the understanding that the rights they formerly enjoyed would be secured to them in the new offices which they were to fill. If this section goes through, they will be sadly disillusioned. I urge that it should be deleted.

Mr. O'Connell

Senator O'Donovan has said that he cannot see how Section 9 interferes with any existing rights. I wonder why he sat silent during the last debate when everybody who spoke pointed out where and how it interfered with existing rights. He did not demonstrate to us then that we were "talking moonshine." He cannot see any reason why vocational education teachers should have this special consideration. He appears to forget that there was an Act, referred to on several occasions during the last debate, which dealt specially with vocational education teachers and officers and which gave special rights to these employees, as such. These rights are now being taken from them.

Mr. O'Donovan

On a point of explanation, I have to apologise. Unfortunately, I was not in the House during the greater part of the last debate. I should like to be enlightened now as to what specific rights are being withdrawn.

Mr. O'Connell

If I were to enlighten the Senator, I fear I would be ruled out of order. I was not responsible for the Deputy's absence. The Leas-Chathaoirleach would not permit me to quote the speeches made in the last debate. I can assure the Senator that the rights given under Section 27 of the Vocational Education Act are now being removed not only from the people coming newly into the service but from existing officers. That is what we are objecting to—the removal of vested rights.

Mr. O'Donovan

The Senator, I think, could have taken less time with his speech and given me a few examples to show where rights were being taken away.

Mr. Derrig

I think that Senators who speak of rights being taken away ought to answer the question that Senator O'Donovan has put. Apparently, the right which Senator O'Connell considers is being taken away is the right to have an inquiry.

Mr. O'Connell

It is a very important right.

Mr. Derrig

There are Senators present who are lawyers, and at least one of them has spoken of rights being taken away. But here is what sub-section (3) of Section 99 of the Principal Act says:—

"Every officer transferred by this section shall not, in the service of the vocational education committee to which he is so transferred, receive less remuneration or, subject to the provisions of this section, be subject to less beneficial conditions of service than the remuneration to which he was entitled and the conditions of service to which he was subject in the service from which he is so transferred."

Those who have been reading the literature which has been circulated have been adding in "at the passing of the Act". There is no reference in the sub-section that I have just read to "the passing of the Act". It only refers to the conditions in the service: that in the new service—the vocational education service—the transferred officers shall not enjoy less beneficial conditions than those to which they were subject in the service from which they were transferred.

I have already asked Senator O'Connell, and I now ask him again, if the 1930 Act had not been passed, and if these officers were still employees of the local authorities, would they not be subject to the provisions of the 1941 Local Government Act? What exactly are the rights which the 1930 Act covers? It does not refer to the remuneration or conditions of employment which they were enjoying at the passing of the Act. If that were intended, why were not those words put in giving them a definite guarantee in that respect?

What was the legal position of these officers before the 1930 Act was passed? Is it not a fact that the technical instruction committees had no distinct statutory identity or authority: that they were simply committees of the parent corporation or council? If proof of that statement is needed, may I refer to the legal action taken by a well-known vocational education officer —he was then a technical education officer—against the local authority? He did not take action against the committee; he took it against the local authority which set up the committee. I think that is substantiation of what I have said: that these committees had, in fact, no distinctive statutory authority. They were simply committees of the local bodies, and their officers were subject to the same conditions of service generally as the officers of local authorities. Therefore if they had remained in the service of the local authority, and if the 1930 Act had not been passed setting up the new service, they would, without the slightest doubt, have been subject to all the conditions which now appertain to these officers. The fact that sub-section (3) of Section 99 is in the Principal Act does not give these officers any special privileges.

Senator O'Connell referred to special rights. What are the special rights which these officers are entitled to under the 1930 Act that their comrades in the general body of the local government services are not entitled to? There is no justification whatever for drawing a distinction. If any distinction were to be drawn, I suggest it might be drawn by me in this way: I might show that, since the 1930 Act was passed, these officers have succeeded, through administrative and other action, in greatly bettering their position as compared with what it was before and, possibly, have bettered it in comparison with those who have remained in the local government service proper under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Local Government.

In the first place, we introduced a scale of salaries for them which, although not mandatory, was accepted and which improved their position as far as remuneration was concerned by at least 60 per cent. beyond what it was in the old times. The service has extended, and there are more opportunities in it for promotion and improvement, far more than in the case of primary or secondary teachers. The position is that these officers have altogether more freedom than teachers in the primary or secondary branches. For example, they have not to deal with managers. They are under the rather wide, lenient and, very often, easy supervision of committees.

With regard to the three sections in this Bill, which affected them, Section 7 is merely a repetition of the existing law passed in 1926. Section 6 deals with the retiral age. Does Senator O'Connell suggest that the Seanad should accept an amendment the effect of which would be to throw out this section and, with it, to throw overboard all the provisions with regard to retiral age which have been discussed at such length in both Houses? If that provision were thrown overboard then, of course, the advantages in the way of added years will go overboard with it. The opportunities for advancement and promotion for the younger and more efficient officers in the service will not be open to them if we are going to have the position, as Senator O'Donovan has said, that these officers, who have gone beyond the stage of giving efficient service, are to be continued.

I do not want to re-open again the subject matter of Section 8 beyond saying that in my opinion this provision, like Section 6, will lead to more efficiency in the service. It is necessary that there should be direction and control. I do not care what form of safeguards Senators think should be introduced in a matter of this kind, they ought to keep in mind, first of all, the fact that it is not entirely a question of the officer's service. There must be the question of seeing that efficient service is given. If the Minister is not going to see to that, who is going to see to it? While the committees have power of dismissal and suspension, why is it assumed that it is quite wrong to give the Minister power to act in cases where committees refuse to carry out what would be their duty if they were taking their responsibilities seriously? Surely Senators ought to take that aspect of the matter into consideration. They ought to realise that, in the general interests of the service, direction and control are necessary at headquarters.

This is a large and growing service. It is necessary that young entrants to it should not be under a misapprehension or hold a wrong idea about it: the idea that, when you get into a service of this kind you are safe for life: that unless you commit some act of grave misconduct you can carry out your duties in a routine manner without taking much interest in them: that you are quite safe, that your job is secure and that nothing can happen to you. The Seanad ought not allow itself to be associated with a philosophy of that kind, but ought to make it clear to the country that they stand not merely for the minimum of efficiency but for the maximum of efficiency, not for the type of efficiency that enables a man to say "I have carried out my duties," but for the type of service in respect of which he could say "I have done my utmost; I have been a devoted teacher and have done everything possible that I could do." If Senators are satisfied that that is the condition in the service, then there may be some foundation for their doubts, but, surely, no human service could be like that. After a certain period, no matter how good we may be, we are likely to fall back; we may get brilliant men from the point of view of educational qualifications—they may have degrees—but they may be quite bad teachers. They may have a certain desire to teach but they may not have a true vocation and they may not have the necessary temperamental qualities to control students. In these schools we have boys up to 17 and 18 years of age and as in the case I referred to this afternoon—engineering work— you want to have men of strong character who will maintain effective discipline over boys who are at the most dangerous period of their lives, particularly when they are dealing with machinery, tools and valuable equipment. All these considerations must be taken into account and are being taken into account as far as they can be by the inspectorate. If there is any question of the dice being loaded I think it is loaded pretty heavily on the side of the teacher. Once he is established as a whole-time pensionable officer then, even with the powers that are now sought here, if he gives any kind of reasonable service, is not the position that he is not likely to be interfered with and that he is going to have a secure position for the remainder of his life?

Mr. O'Connell

The Minister, unintentionally, I have no doubt, has given the impression to the House that those who are opposing this Bill are in favour of maintaining inefficiency. I do not think it is necessary for me to say again that I do not stand, one minute, for inefficiency but what I speak' of is proved inefficiency. The Minister said at the beginning of his statement that if the 1930 Act was not passed would I not say that the 1941 Act should apply to these officers. Where is the use of putting a hypothetical question like that or of asking me to answer it? The fact is that the 1930 Act was passed and it is there, and because it is there I want to urge that the provisions of that Act and especially the rights given under that Act should be left to those teachers.

Senator O'Donovan appeared to think that there was no reason at all for any grievance on the part of these teachers. All I can say on that is if it is his view he must have a very poor opinion of the teachers concerned who unanimously agree that there is a grievance. I was rather surprised to hear that the Minister paid a rather left-handed compliment to the vocational committees when he said that they were easy-going. The only inference to be taken from that statement is that the committees were not very particular whether the work was being carried on efficiently or not. I think that is a poor compliment to the committees.

Mr. Derrig

The Senator is deducing something from my remarks that I did not intend.

Mr. O'Connell

I would be surprised if you did intend it.

Mr. Derrig

The Seanad heard the facts of the County Limerick case, and I will leave it to them to judge whether my statement that committees may be lenient in dealing with matters is an exaggeration.

Mr. O'Connell

I would be surprised if you intended that, but that was the inference I took from your remarks. In my opinion the purpose of this section is to ensure that any rights that existing teachers had shall, if they have them at the passing of this Act, be removed by this section.

Mrs. Concannon

I do not intend to support this amendment but in view of my stand on the previous amendment I want to explain my position. I agree with Senator O'Donovan that if the amendment was adopted, then conditions would be chaotic. Some officers would be governed by one set of rules and other officers by another set. That, perhaps, is a minor detail and not very serious, but the point in relation to the age limit is rather serious. We have adopted the principle that there should be an age limit and Senator O'Connell has signified that he is in agreement with that.

It appears to me that if we accepted the amendment then for the existing officers there would be no age limit. I am thinking of this from their point of view. If they had to be removed it would have to be done by drastic action, on the grounds of unfitness or whatever grounds there are and they would be deprived of their pensions. I think the most serious grievance of the vocational teachers—and I am surprised they have not stressed it—is the question of statutory right to pensions. As far as I can make out they have no statutory right to pensions. We hope in the days to come they will have the same statutory right to pensions as other teachers have. That postulates the retiring age and the retiring age postulates pensions. For that reason I do not think it would be in the interests of teachers themselves that there should be two sets of teachers: those to whom this Act applies with the conditions about retiring age, suspension and removal that the two Houses have passed, and then there would be the other class of teachers. Conditions would be very unsatisfactory and for that reason I cannot give my adherence to Senator O'Connell's amendment.

Question—"That the section stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Section 10, 11 and 12 agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Sections 13 agreed to.

Schedule and Title agreed to.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

When will the next stage be taken?

Mr. Derrig

Now.

Mr. O'Connell

I object.

Mr. Derrig

The position is that the Bill has been fairly well discussed in both Houses. It is only an amending measure following on other legislation of a similar kind. I understand that next week or the week after the Seanad will be taken up with the Vote on Account. I ask the Seanad to take the remaining stages of the Bill now.

Mr. O'Connell

But the Minister himself indicated during the discussion that he might reconsider the question of the 14 days, for instance.

Mr. Derrig

Is the Senator really serious? Is not the position as I have explained that if I should desire to issue a notice under Section 8 of the Bill there is nothing to stop me getting on the telephone to the chief executive officer of the committee and fixing a suitable date with him? Surely I am not, nor is any Minister, going to issue a letter of that kind without giving the committee an opportunity of meeting in the interval to discuss the matter. I can give the Senator that assurance and I do not think it is worth while calling the Seanad again to discuss this matter or to introduce an amendment to deal with it. We have already discussed it in the Dáil.

Mr. O'Connell

But will the Seanad not be meeting next week?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think not.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.