Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Vocational Education (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment in the name of Senator Patrick J. O'Reilly:—
Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—
In the exercise of his powers under Section 37 of the Principal Act and Section 3 of the Amending Act of 1944, the Minister shall not require a committee to make provision for instruction in any particular subject or subjects until such committee has been given an opportunity of considering the reasons which in the opinion of the Minister make the provision of the subject or subjects appear to be desirable and necessary.
My namesake, Senator Patrick O'Reilly, was in possession last night when the House adjourned, but he does not appear to be present to-day.
He is not present.
That being so, I feel that I should give a further illustration of the desirability of an amendment of the type that I suggest. There is one remarkable example of the action of the Department, or of the Minister if you like, in relation to a particular subject, the subject of short hand. For a great many years technical schools have been virtually obliged to adopt a particular system of shorthand —that is, the Gregg system. I have an open mind on the subject, but a number of teachers think that other systems are more efficient. The virtual ban on those other systems has practically resulted in all but the one system being adopted in the rural schools. That does not apply in the case of Dublin. In Rathmines, for example, or in the School of Commerce in Parnell Square, the position is different.
The remarks of Senator Hayes set me thinking last night regarding the adaptation of the Pitman system so as to make it applicable to the Irish language. That is a matter for consideration and I suggest it is a matter that the Minister might seriously consider. It is a practical example of the desirabilty of the Minister giving reasons for his action when determining that a particular subject or, as in this case, a particular system, should be adopted in preference to others. I might be permitted to say also that some 12 months ago—the officials of the Department will probably remember it—I suggested that there should be a special course in shorthand for journalists. I had in mind the difficulties that were likely to be met. One Senator complained to me several times of the difficulty of getting his speeches accurately reported. I am not sure that that is altogether the fault of the journalist, or that it is due to any want on his part; it may be due to the acoustic properties of the House not being up to the mark.
I submit that everything suggests the desirability of the Minister accepting this amendment. It is not taking one iota from his powers. There is the old saying that the exception proves the rule. I suggest that there are times when the exception tests the rule rather than proves it and conceivably there would be a case where persons would write to the Minister and say: "We want such and such a subject included", and as long as the Act is there, no matter what personal assurance is given by the Minister, it will not bind him or any other Minister. It will not bind his successors.
A very representative body, composed of eminent members of the Church and of persons in responsible positions in public life, considered this matter. I do not think there was a single member absent when that resolution was unanimously adopted. Surely, in these circumstances, the Minister could yield and have this amendment inserted in the Bill. It would be the best possible gesture the Minister could make to orient the minds of the people in favour of the new line which he seeks to have imposed on them in this measure.
I do not know what Senator O'Reilly means by "the new line". The Senator was not a member of this House when the 1944 Act was passed. If he were, he would remember that we had long discussions on its various stages regarding some of the sections in which, apparently, he is now interested. I pointed out last night that the Minister has power to ask a committee to make further provision for continuation education without necessarily giving reasons. He also has power to raise the school-leaving age without giving reasons. It is not to be presumed, I take it, that he will take steps such as these without consulting the local committees.
I said last night, and I think it should be sufficient, that I am quite prepared to give an assurance that I would consult the local committees when asking them to teach a particular subject, but I think Senator O'Reilly rather misled the House last night. He certainly gave me the impression that he had the authority of the Irish Technical Education Association behind him. I pointed out that I had not heard from that association if they felt there had been some difficulty about instruction in certain subjects. Later on, the Senator informed us that he was referring to a resolution passed by this association before the 1944 Act was discussed by the Oireachtas and passed into law. The association did not ask that the Minister should bind himself to give an assurance that he would consult. What they asked was that he should give a general assurance.
Senator Ó Buachalla was present on that occasion and I find, by referring to the Official Debates, that the matter was raised by him on the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Seanad on March 8th, 1944, Volume 28, No. 7, column 954, and I gave the undertaking asked for. I am not aware that it has been violated. The introduction of this amendment seems to suggest that it has not been observed. If it has not been observed, Senator O'Reilly has not brought the matter to my notice, nor has his association. I gave the undertaking more than two years ago and that ought to be quite sufficient. If we are to spend the evening going over all the ground that we covered in connection with the 1944 Act, then I should say that it will be a mere waste of time, particularly if the suggestion is that we should repeal the provisions of that Act.
Is it not in the nature of the case, since the committee is the body which has to work the Act, that whether we put in this amendment or not, with conditions as they are, the committee must have an opportunity of considering the matter? It can delay for a certain time and write to the Department and it is bound to get reasons. I do not understand why we must insert this amendment, because the system provides that this must always happen.
It might not be any harm to indicate to the House how this thing works in practice. Recently the Department conveyed to the committee with which I am associated a desire that that committee might provide a course of a certain kind for a certain category of young people. The procedure adopted was this. A departmental inspector came along and discussed the whole matter with the chief executive officer. In due course the result of these discussions came before the committee. It was clear that the committee could not provide the course without asking its chief executive officer to take on a good deal of extra work. Furthermore, this special course could not be given without interfering with the organisation of certain schools and classes. But the inspector and the committee met and discussed the difficulties and they agreed on a way out of these difficulties. In consequence, the committee provided the course.
I cannot conceive of the Department, I cannot conceive of the officials in Talbot House in particular, ever adopting any other procedure in dealing with the committees. If that committee were unreasonable, they could have said: "We are not prepared to do this." But I think you can take it for granted that the committees all over the country will be very reasonable, and I think the happy relations which have so far existed between the committees, the chief executive officers, and Talbot House ought to be allowed to run their smooth way. I am not trying to argue that occasions do not arise where we would wish that the decisions of Talbot House were different; but it has to be admitted that, taking things by and large, the system as it has been operating for the last ten years is about all that one could wish for. I hope that the system as it has operated will continue to operate. If it does, the future for vocational education is secure. I would appeal to Senator O'Reilly to withdraw his amendment in view of the Minister's having repeated his assurance that, on any occasion where it is necessary to ask for the provision of any particular course, prior consultation will be had with the committee in question.
I presume that the official records of the House will show that I read the notice convening the meeting at which this resolution was unanimously adopted. I gave the date on which the meeting was held, namely, 1st January, 1944. I gave the business of the meeting as set out in the agenda: "To consider the Vocational Education Bill, 1944." How that could be said to be misleading the House I do not know. I certainly feel that the Minister should withdraw even the remote suggestion that might be read into his statement that I misled the House in the slightest degree.
I withdraw. If the Seanadóir had pointed out in the beginning of his remarks yesterday evening that he was referring to a resolution passed two years ago, it would have saved a lot of time.
I said in the beginning that this was a resolution passed with reference to a section that was sought to be amended by the 1944 Act and I pointed out the representative nature of the body. I should like to draw attention to the wording of Section 3 which I still maintain is out of harmony with the relations which usually prevail, and I hope always will prevail, between the Department and committees. The wording is that the Minister shall be deemed to have always the power to require a vocational education committee to make such particular provision as is mentioned in the said section for the supply of continuation education or technical education in any subjects which he may think fit to specify and require. It is all very fine for Senator Ó Buachalla to talk about a particular course, which means a collection of subjects as a rule. But there are isolated subjects on which considerable difference of opinion may arise between the chief executive officer and the inspector. Of course, while we talk about the Minister, we know that in actual practice it is the inspector.
It is not.
In my experience it is.
My experience is that I am responsible and I am held responsible here and not the inspector.
I can only speak from very long experience, an experience much longer even than the Minister's own, of what happens. I think the discussion has served the purpose which I had in view and, with the permission of the House and in view of the Minister's assurance, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To delete all words after the word "contained" in line 2, and in lieu thereof to insert the following words:—"in Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Amending Act of 1944, sub-section (3) of Section 99 of the Principal Act shall continue to be applicable to all officers transferred in accordance with the provisions of such sub-section".
The section as it stands reads:
"For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 99 of the Principal Act, Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Amending Act of 1944 apply to a person who—
(a) by virtue of the said Section 99, was transferred to, and became an officer of, a vocational education committee, and
(b) is the holder of an office under a vocational education committee."
In connection with that, it would be desirable in the first place to draw attention to Section 99 (3) of the Principal Act, which states:
"Every officer transferred by this section shall not, in the service of a 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."
In the case of the 1944 Act, three sections were inserted and, in the normal course, nothing could be done about these sections as apparently the Minister was advised subsequently that he could take no action whatever until Section 99 (3) of the Principal Act was amended.
I desire to draw attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.
There is a quorum present.
This Section 99 (3) was, if you like, the charter of security given to transferred officers and we have here in the case of the 1944 Act an attempt to modify the terms of that charter, which, I suggest, is a very wrong thing to attempt to do. Officers have been allowed for 16 years to continue in the belief that that was their charter, the charter under which they held office after being transferred to the service of the new committees set up by this Vocational Education Act. We then find that the Minister seeks to bring in terms under the 1944 Act the purpose of which would be to enable him to tamper with the conditions. There is first the provision regarding a retiring age. It takes power to fix a retiring age. Then there are provisions regarding dismissal and suspension. The more important of these conditions relates to the power of the Minister to do either of these two things without consulting the employer or the officer concerned. I pointed out on Second Reading that if the House approves that section as it stands, it will mean that in future officers will not regard the local committees as their employers. Virtually, their powers are gone and, without reference to them at all, the Minister may suspend or dismiss. The Minister will say, of course, that normally he will not do that but what we are concerned with is, has he the power under this Bill to do it or not? Reading the Bill, I say he has that power. Should a case arise where the officer is not satisfied that the Minister has acted justly or that the committee has acted justly, and should he decide that he will have the case tested in the courts, as far as I can read the section and as far as I am advised by those with a knowledge of the law, the last word rests with the Minister and the courts have no further functions in the matter.
I am rather surprised at the way in which certain Continental systems of government have been denounced in this country. We hear of Fascism and Nazism and so on and all the evils attendant thereon. We hear recently of the Communistic system and we believe there are features of that system that are very objectionable but we seem not to realise that we are adoptting legislation over and over again and re-enacting legislation containing powers similar to those which we love so much to denounce. As soon as the courts are removed from the arena, then there is no protection. The Minister will say there is the protection of this House, that if he acts unfairly or unjustly the matter can be brought before the House and discussed. But in what way does that protect? Does not it mean that the Minister can use his Party Whip when the matter comes up for discussion and, no matter what may be the justice of the case, he will carry the day; he will simply mechanically get his Party into motion? That is the Party system as I understand it. The result is to all intents and purposes that the functions of the courts disappear. And freedom shrieked as Koscïusco fell. That has been the tendency of our legislation and we will find, if things go on as they are, that we have no freedom left. We can have freedom if we are prepared, as Dr. Faustus was, to sell our soul to the devil.
Yesterday we heard a good deal of discussion about the Irish language and Senator Hayes and others indicated certain features. I made a note of one thing. I printed it in large letters for my own guidance should I be tempted to take part in the debate. I am glad I resisted the temptation. I wrote the word "soul" in capital letters. That is the trouble as I understand it with things generally. At present the soul is not there. Cynicism is developing generally throughout the country. People say: What is the use? The big Party power is there and reason and logic and all the rest seem to be left out. There is no good in it. Certain decisions are come to and then the Party carries them through. I think of the quotation from Macbeth: "Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased". Senator Hayes referred to philosophy yesterday, and perhaps he can tell us—I do not know—whether the mind and the soul mean the same thing, whether the mind is a function of the soul, or otherwise.
If there is a disease of the soul what can you do about it? What is the cause of the disease of the soul? Is the House going to dot the i's for the Minister and going to say to him: "Yes, you may break these contracts and let these people squeal as much as they like, they are only a small body. You may violate the contract of employment guaranteed to them." That, as I see it, reduced to the plainest terms, is the effect of tampering with a section of an Act that has been in operation since 1930.
What advantages does the Minister seek? If there are any inefficient officers it is his duty to see that they are removed and he has various weapons for getting rid of them. As I pointed out on Second Reading, committees will not usually keep inefficient officers in their employment if they feel that the Department is in earnest and that there may be danger of a surcharge. There was under the 1930 Act all the powers necessary for the holding of an inquiry. About 1930 there was a fairly well-known case where certain officials of the Department burned their fingers and got mixed up in a bit of a scrape. The judgment of the High Court is on the files and can be examined and the record of the conduct of these particular officials is there. The Minister may say that whatever these officials may have done his officials would not do it, but I say that every official is a human being. The Minister is a human being. He has all the weaknesses of human nature and that will continue for ever. Until we reach the ideal stage which seems to be retreating further and further, some protection is necessary. If the House adopts the proposal of the Minister as it stands, it will have broken faith with officers who have given very devoted service to the cause of vocational education and it will demoralise the people still further. I say it is wrong to do that.
I do not intend to dwell at great length on the main thing the Minister has in mind, the fixing of a retiring age. When the matter was first debated he stated that he could fix it at any age and would fix it according to the type of teacher or official involved. He quoted the case of physical culture instructors and intimated that in their case a lower age might be fixed, and he quoted the other cases where the age would vary, but in any case the Minister seeks power to fix any age.
I do not bother my head about officers who are not covered by the guarantee in the 1930 Act, but I certainly will fight to the very last on behalf of the officers to whom that guarantee was given and who have been misled into continuing in office as a result of that guarantee. I will fight their case to the very last ditch irrespective of what the Minister feels about the matter. I am hoping that as a result of the discussion on this particular amendment —which in a sense is the really vital one—the Minister will see his way to adopt the amendment. The effect of that would be to go back to the position that existed prior to the 1944 Act and to reassure the officers who received such a shock when that particular section was passed. That reassurance is desirable and I have drafted the amendment in that way, simply to leave things as they were. If the Minister feels like going ahead to assume those additional powers, which he thought he was getting under the 1944 Act, all I can say is that certain consequences will follow and they can be thrashed out at the appropriate time. I would suggest, however, that it would be much better for the Minister to adopt the proposal in the amendment. In that case many officers will be feeling much better about things in general.
How many officers are affected?
I do not believe there would be more than a couple of dozen but I could not give the exact number. There is one aspect of this matter which might be considered by those who have any regard for finance. It is true that a somewhat similar provision was contained in the Local Government Act of 1946; I am aware of that but whether that was a reasonable thing to have done is a matter for the officers concerned. I am not concerned with them and I do not think that their case was similar to that of the officers to whom I refer. There was a kind of charter of security in the case of these officers and the local government officers had not a similar clause as far as I know.
I pointed out on Second Reading the great difference which existed between the two cases—that in the case of the officers who are now being affected, they had no security, they had not pension rights, they had miserable salaries for a period of over 20 years at the most critical time of their lives. I say they were pioneers who did really valuable work in establishing the system. Their number is so small that there is no reason why this House—I use the word advisedly and deliberately— should degrade itself by approving of this proposal of the Minister. Various Departments have different functions, but the Minister in charge of the Department of Education is dealing with the soul of the nation. He is not dealing with the body of the nation, as appears to be the case; he is dealing with its mind and soul. Therefore any legislation fathered by him should stand every test that might be applied and might be devised in accordance with Christian principles and, this being an allegedly Christian nation, I say there is no Christianity in this attempt on the part of the Minister to break a guarantee that has been given to the officers affected by this provision.
I was reading to-day the current copy of the Economist which in its American notes says: “The new Secretary of State, General George Marshall, is at 66 one year younger than Mr. Byrnes.” The Minister, then, will not have the hardihood to say that a person who, at 66 years of age, is going to act in this most important capacity in the great American State, has not the faculties of a younger person, nor can he reasonably say that a person, acting as an officer of a vocational committee, might not conceivably be able to carry out the duties efficiently at that age. I pointed out in the previous debate that there were plenty of teachers at 25 or 26 years of age who were quite inefficient and quite unsuitable for certain duties. Therefore the age limit is not the test.
Admittedly there are some people who at 65 are not efficient. Disease has affected their faculties but it is also true that there are quite a large number of officers of this age who are able to perform the duties with much greater efficiency than officers who are very much younger. Surely, if there is one sphere of activity where age is an asset and where the experience gained through the years is an advantage, it is education. Again, judges of the High Court have very grinding mental work to perform but they can remain in office up to 72 years of age. I am not going to dwell on that particular aspect of the question any longer. I am going to dwell on the general principle, however, and I want the House to realise clearly what the Minister is going to do. That is to say, that in the 1944 Act he tried to get powers to abrogate Section 99 (3) of the original Act but he then found that because he had not repealed Section 99 (3), he dare not put it to the test of a court case. Now he comes to the House and asks the House to say in respect of Section 99 (3) that the sections of the 1944 Act shall apply to the officers protected by that provision. It has been put to me that one objection is that there is no contract of employment in the case of these officers. Certainly that is the most amazing thing I have heard for a long time. If anyone wants to put that to a test, I shall quote a case showing that in the opinion of some very eminent judges there is a contract of employment. We are told in certain text books that if you meet a man in the street and you agree with him to carry out certain work that constitutes a contract even though there is no written contract, if you can prove that he agreed to carry out the work. Surely, if a person answers an advertisement seeking applicants for a position, and is appointed by a particular body to carry out the duties of that position, that is a contract of employment in every sense of the word. If there is anybody who disagrees with that, I can quote a case where a certain act was adjudged to be a breach of contract in a particular case affecting a vocational officer and which shows that in the opinion of the High Court judge there was a contract.
Here, therefore, is a contract of employment, but after some time the Minister comes along and says: "To the devil with this contract; I want you to give me this power." We have behind this ideology or psychology the fact that there are a lot of young people anxious to shove out old people, to tomahawk them. I think it was the great Huxley who said that every man should be pole-axed at 40. If that were carried into effect, a lot of the so-called young men, including the Minister himself, would go. Still, that is the only justification for a proposal of this kind. There is one thing, and one thing only, that should determine whether a person should be continued in employment and that is the efficiency of the person concerned. I say the Minister and his inspectors should be quite capable of judging whether or not there is efficiency in the case of individual officers.
One other point is this. I may tell the Minister that I am personally indifferent as to whether or not this proposition goes through but I should like to point out this fact to responsible members of the committees: that by this provision you are going to throw out of employment quite a number of people. In doing so, you are going to inflict a still heavier burden on the ratepayers by retiring a number of people who would be well able to carry on for a number of years further. A very heavy burden is to be placed on the ratepayers because, presumably, certain younger people say: "We should get a chance." What will then happen? The young people will be floundering around making glaring mistakes, as I see them making every day; and after a number of years they will come around to the same judgment and idea as the people who are supposed to be old and no longer efficient. That will be the net result. Are we to pander to that? Is that a Christian sort of thing? You see the young people being let loose. Certain people say there must be very grave defects in our whole educational theory and system with all the youthful delinquency we see around us remaining unchecked. Is that not pandering still to the same idea? That is all it is. It cannot be justified on any rational basis. Therefore, what is the reason for it? There is no reason, except what the Minister said—the young people should get a chance. They will get their chance in the normal course. It is only a matter of a few years more and they are bound to get their chance. Why should we pander to them?
I want to emphasise that if the Minister is allowed to carry this proposition through it will increase the high degree of cynicism which already exists in the country. Many people are playing for safety. They weigh up the powers that be, and no matter how unjust, they simply play up and say nothing but keep their tongues in their cheeks. We are displaying a great lack of humour when we object to the ideology which is displayed by other people, because we can see it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have not been inclined to play up to the Minister. I do not think he can be influenced in that way.
Hear, hear.
My personal experience of him is that it is no use going to the Minister himself. He is the man who plays up most to his officials—more than any other Minister I have ever met. Let me say that frankly and to his face. That is the general feeling about him. I am not blaming the Minister for this psychology, but at the same time he must stand over it, and it is the psychology of his own officials that is under review.
I suppose that the usual freedom will be granted in Committee, and I hope I may have an opportunity to develop the argument a little further when necessary.
I said "Hear, hear," knowing that it is hard to influence the Minister, but I hope that will not be taken as meaning that everything wrong with the Bill is the fault of the Minister's officials and that the Minister is free from fault.
This question was thrashed out fully when the 1944 Act was before us. I have tried to find in the various Acts where the rights in question are defined. Not trusting to my own judgment, I asked my colleague, Senator O'Dea, to help me in coming to a definite conclusion and, although he is not present now, I make bold to say he admits he has failed. The matter is clearly one for the Superannuation Bill when it comes before us.
I appeal to the Minister to be particularly generous where certain officers have long service but have to retire before serving the full period that would entitle them to the maximum pension. He will remember that, about two years ago, I supplied him with a list of the officials concerned, with details regarding their service. I think consideration has been given to that matter to some extent, but I want to appeal once again to him, whenever the opportunity comes his way under the Superannuation Bill, to see that these people get all that it is possible to give them.
If I am in order, I would like to make an appeal for another very small class —maybe one, two or three people. There are certain officers in the service who came in from other branches of the educational service. They will get no credit, so far as I can see, for the time they served in those other branches. I would appeal to the Minister to consider these officers and give them credit for that previous service.
I appeal to Senator O'Reilly to let this matter lie, so that we may both watch the interests of those officers— and, indeed, of any other person likely to be involved—when the appropriate Bill comes before us.
This matter can be put very briefly. Would the Minister tell us, when replying, how many people are involved? Senator O'Reilly thinks it is only a couple of dozen, but he is not quite sure. With regard to what Senator Ó Buachalla has said, there is this observation to be made. It may very well be that, on a careful examination of the text of the Principal Act, it would be found that, in fact, there is no guarantee; but there can be no doubt—whatever opinion a lawyer may have now about the matter—that in 1930 certain people were clearly under the impression that this particular section and sub-section did give that guarantee and did put them in a particular position. Not only that, but it was the intention of the Minister of the period and the intention of the Oireachtas that they should be given that security. It is a common enough thing. When you take over a system, you make special provision for people who have come in at a late age and who have to go out without finishing the normal period of service to qualify for a full pension. Whatever one may write into an Act of the Oireachtas, the people believed they had a certain guarantee in the Principal Act. The Minister tried apparently in the 1944 Act and took certain action which was then very keenly debated in the Seanad—and on which the Minister escaped by one vote. In 1947, three years later, we find that the Minister did not accomplish what he was trying to accomplish and we now have a section here to remove doubts, that is, to give the Minister the power which he sought and which apparently he was not successful in obtaining in 1944.
It is undoubtedly a bad principle, if you do say in an Act of Parliament that certain people have rights, to take them away by a subsequent Act, if it can be avoided. There is no question of the power of Parliament to do it. The power is there beyond question, but it should not be used except for very grave reasons. Perhaps the Minister would tell us what his grave reasons are, how many people are involved, and, with regard to the efficiency generally, why he wants to do this.
I agree with Senator Ó Buachalla that there are people who have to be superannuated at a particular age and, in general, I am in favour of superannuation at 65—in spite of General Marshall and other examples of the kind. I agree that superannuation has to be forced on people, to force them out of the service. Every possible step should be taken to give the people who gave service under difficult conditions and in a difficult time all that can possibly be given to them in the new circumstances. It is clearly a bad principle that is being adopted in this particular section. I do not think the Minister can defend himself or that we can defend ourselves merely by reading very carefully the section of the 1930 Act, now in 1947. That would, probably, have certain results, but I think that we ought not to stand upon it. We ought to treat these people as fairly as we can and recognise that they did very important work in this system at a very difficult period.
I rise to support Senator O'Reilly's amendment and I do so for the very reasons he has given in the rather lengthy but, to me, convincing argument with which he moved his proposal. I make no secret of the fact that I am concerned regarding interference with the status of what are known as transferred officers. I knew several of these men when they took over, under the Vocational Education Act, 1930, the duties carried out by the old technical instruction committees. In strenuous times prior to that, many of these men discharged their duties efficiently. They were good teachers and good Irishmen and were responsible in many cases for the very healthy national spirit which pervaded their classes.
These men got guarantees under the 1930 Act and these guarantees should not be interfered with unless for very grave reasons. As has been pointed out, they are very few in number and unless the suggested alteration in the Bill can be supported by adducing grave reasons, I think that these people should not be deprived of the guarantees which they received under the 1930 Act. As Senator Hayes has pointed out, Parliament can do anything. It can legalise a thing to-day and illegalise it to-morrow but there should not be any interference by Parliament, above all bodies, with the existing law unless very sound reasons can be adduced for that interference. In my opinion, such reasons have not been adduced for the introduction of Section 5.
I do not propose to vote for this amendment, although I have great sympathy with the transferred officers and believe in the justice of their cause. But I shall not vote for the amendment just for their sake. So far as I can make out, the amendment would give them only the vague and shadowy protection afforded by Section 99 (3) of the Principal Act. We want something better for them than that. We want them to have a statutory right to a pension. I should like to join with Senator Hayes and Senator Ó Buachalla in urging that their case receive special consideration. We should try to recognise what they did for technical education, not only by giving them a statutory right to a pension but by securing, if they accept the imposition of a compulsory retiring age, that, if their pension be too small to meet the requirements of justice, they will have some years added to their service. Not many of them are involved and it might be possible to make special provision for them, as is made in the University. There, there is a retiring age of 65 but it is possible for the Senate to continue, from year to year, the persons concerned in their office up to 70 years. In the case of those transferred from the Royal University, I think the term could be increased.
I do not see why that should not apply to those officers. If we were to pass this amendment and give them just the vague protection—hardly more than a beneficent wish—of the Principal Act, I do not think that we should be dealing generously with them. Even the officers concerned do not, I am sure, object to a retiring age. It might, however, be hard on officials who would have to retire before they would become entitled to a sufficient pension. In those circumstances, it would be better for the officers concerned that special provision should be made for them and that they should not be forced to rely on the vague protection of Section 99 (3) of the Principal Act.
I do not approve of interfering with anybody's status. There was, I think, an example in the Local Government Act, 1941, which dealt with local government officers. That Act gave the Minister power to fix the age at which they must retire. The age limit has been fixed at 65 by the Minister for Local Government but I do not think that the Minister for Education has yet fixed the age limit under the 1944 Act. I join with the several speakers who have urged that that age limit should not be less than 65 years. I am sure the Minister will not place technical instruction officers in a worse position than that of local government officials. I should also like to support what Senator Mrs. Concannon and Senator Ó Buachalla said about pension rights. It is usual, when certain rights are taken from an official, that compensation be given to him by Parliament. My recollection is that that was extensively done under the Local Government Act, 1898. If a person had to retire, he was entitled to two-thirds of his salary, which is the maximum pension which could be given. I hope that, in the case of an officer who is retired in this case—particularly a transferred officer—under the age limit, or any officer who was employed before the 1944 Act was passed, the Minister will add as many years as are necessary to bring the pension, if possible, up to two-thirds of his salary and emoluments. When certain rights are taken away in such cases, others should be substituted. That is the least which should be done and I ask the Minister to consider the position of these officers very favourably.
Níor mhiste dá bhfaghaimís an t-eolas a d'iarr an Seanadóir Ó hAodha ar an Aire, agus tuilleadh eolais in a theannta sin. Is fearr a thuigfimís cad é an éifeacht atá ag na hAltanna seo sa Bhille bhunaigh agus sa leasúchán seo dá mbéadh an t-eolas sin i láthair ár n-aigne. B'éidir go n-inneosadh an tAire dúinn cé mhéid duine atá i gceist i gcás na bpribhléidí cosanta seo adeirtear atá sa Bhille bhunaigh. Níor mhiste, leis, a innsint cé mhéid acu atá cheana féin tar éis blianta an phinsin a shroichint, sé sin, 65 bliana. B'éidir go n-inncosadh sé dúinn an bhfuil mórán de na daoine sin atá fós sa tseirbhís os cionn na haoise sin anois.
Do réir mo chuid eolais féin, tá cuid de na hoifigigh, cuid maith, os cionn gnáth-aois an phinsin. Is áirithe gur faoi scáth chomaoin cosanta atá sa Bhille bhunaigh nó a ceaptar a bheith sa Bhille sin—a leigeadh do na daoine sin leanúint sa tseirbhís. Má bhí deimhniú cosanta mar sin acu, ní bheinnse sásta im aigne gur ceart dimhaitheasú a dhéanamh ar a stáid. Ach tá taobh eile ar an scéal. Má tá cosaint agus pribhléid mar sin in Alt an Bhille bhunaigh, an é is ciall leis go mbeadh de cheart ag na hoifigigh sin fanúint sa tseirbhís nó go dtuitfidís?
Ní ceart é sin.
Tá an cheist sin ann, má seadh—an féidir leis na daoine sin dul ar aghaidh sa tseirbhís gan spleáchas d'aon teora aoise? Sin í an cheist atá le réiteach dá riaraibh againn. Níor mhaith liom agus ní aontóinn le haon leath-chuma a dhéanamh ar dhaoine gur tuigeadh dóibh agus gur géilleadh dóibh go dtí seo go raibh pribhléid cosanta acu. Is tuigthe dom go bhfuil feidhm dá bhaint as an bpribhléid sin cheanna agus go bhfuilid ar a scáth sa tseirbhís fós. Ach tá réasún le gach ní agus ní bheinnse sásta ach an oiread go bhféadfadh daoine fanúint sa tseirbhís go mbéidís 80 bliain beidir, agus daoine óga dúnta amach as postanna a bheadh le teacht dóibh le ceart.
Do réir mar a mhol an Seanadóir Ó Buachalla agus Seanadóirí eile, beidir go bhfaghadh an tAire slí as an deacair seo, slí ina bhféadhfaí an ceart a dhéanamh le réasún agus le féile do na hoifigigh atá i gceist, agus san am chéanna go dtuigfeadh an dream óg sa tseirbhís go bhfuiltear imníoch i dtaobh a gcirt sin leis. Ba mhaith liom a iarraidh ar an Aire an t-eolas a luas ar dtúis, agus gur iarr Seanadóirí eile cuid de air, a thabhairt dúinn nuair a bheidh sé ag tagairt don cheist.
The Senator who spoke last asked for information about this matter. I should like to explain that all along in regard to the conditions of employment of officers of vocational education committees, we have followed closely the lines of the Department of Local Government and Public Health. For example, if an emergency bonus or an increase in salary is granted to local government officials, I am quite sure that the association which Senator O'Reilly represents will come along to demand that these advantages be extended to them, as is happening at present. I am being pressed very strongly about that and I have to say that we must see what local government intend to do. We cannot have two separate systems working through the local administration. Vocational education committees—Senator O'Dea is an expert and I hope he will not correct me too severely if I blunder—are really only committees subordinate to the parent bodies. If we are to have one code dealing with the conditions of service of officers under the vocational education committee or the county committee of agriculture and another for those under the county councils and boards of health, there will be anomalies.
Why would it be any more anomalous than the system of having a manager for one and not for the other?
I have nothing to do with that and I should like the Senator to allow me to deal with what I am dealing with. I would be quite prepared to agree, if it were possible, that the salaries of, for example, vocational teachers, and their conditions of employment generally, should be divorced —but that will take some time—from the remainder of the local government service, but so long as vocational education committees come from the popularly elected bodies and so long as a large part of the finances for the running of the schemes comes from the rates, it is difficult to see how vocational education could be sharply divided in that way from the other activities of local government.
The practical problem is: are we going to have an age limit or not? It is a good many years since this question first arose when it became evident that, unless steps were taken, chief executive officers, for example, were not inclined to resign when they reached the age of 65, or for a considerable period after. In some of the most important counties at present, the officers are 65 or over. In two cases, they are over 70; in two other cases, they are about 69; and in three other cases, they are in or about 65. There would be about 38 officers in all who would be affected if the Order were made soon and if it came into operation, say, next August. There are about 290 of these transferred officers altogether. If the Minister is not to have power to fix a retiring age, there are two alternatives. We either leave these important officers in charge of the administration of vocational education in large and important counties there until they die, at perhaps 80 years of age, or we get rid of them by invoking grounds of inefficiency. The local committee can do that, but will it be inclined to do it?
If I am to be attacked again after the manner in which this legislation was received here two years ago as being a person out to do injustice to these people, I should like that we would focus our minds on the realities of the situation. The retiring age for other classes of teachers is 65. It is the retiring age in the Civil Service and it was fixed by the Minister for Local Government last May as the retiring age for local authority officers. What this Section 99 (3) says is:—
"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."
If anybody can legitimately claim that these transferred officers are entitled to more than the conditions of service and remuneration in the service which they leave, then I do not know what words mean. It is probably defective, but neither I nor anyone else can say what decision the court would give upon it. It is quite obvious from the new opinions we have heard this evening that it is realised that it is defective. It does not say "the conditions at the time" and it does not say that the future conditions will be no worse than the conditions at the time. It says that the conditions in the service to which these people are going will not be worse than those in the service from which they are transferred.
Had these people remained in that service they would presumably be subject to the local government code and the retiring age fixed by the Minister for Local Government would have applied to them. As regards remuneration, they have not suffered. They have benefited very substantially. Their remuneration has gone up to the extent of 50 per cent. or more in certain cases. That information can be obtained. Their opportunities improved in that they had larger and better opportunities.
When the Act was passed in 1944 I assumed that we were finished with this matter. Following on representations that were made by Seanadóir Ó Buachalla and others we tried to meet the cases of those people who have not long service. I communicated with the Minister for Local Government. He can give added years, but he has to have regard to the interests of the ratepayers. Senators who are loud and strong telling us that we should not put an extra halfpenny on the rates for the benefit of vocational education are just as eloquent when they are putting forward claims for these officials. The superannuation of these people will, as Senator O'Reilly said, be a heavy burden on these smaller authorities. That is one of the things that we have to face—that it will be a very heavy burden indeed. I do not know how these smaller urban authorities will feel when they see the figures. Assuming that there were people who had service in another teaching capacity for which they would not otherwise get pensionable credit or that there were persons who had not sufficiently long service, persons who had come late into the vocational education service—we have, of course, particulars of the service—I wrote to the Minister for Local Government. I know that he cannot give added years in every case. He has to be very careful. There is no body of persons in this country, I think, better organised or in a better position to influence decisions affecting their remuneration than persons in the employment of local authorities. If the Minister for Local Government and the other members of the Government do not try to look at the matters that come before them from the point of view of the ratepayer, and what the country can bear, then we are going to have a very bad situation. We issued a circular on the 28th June, 1944, stating that, as regards officers who prior to appointment as officers of technical or vocational committees had served as teachers in primary and/or secondary schools, consideration would be given in the event of their retirement to proposals to add to the actual pensionable service of such officers the number of years they had served in primary or secondary schools, subject to a maximum of ten years. Officers who would have to retire with less than 25 years' service and who are under 70 years of age would also be considered and in their case the difference between the actual pensionable service and 25 years or the difference between the officer's age and 70 years, whichever is the lesser, would be added as pensionable service, subject to a maximum of five years.
That circular, of course, is in the possession of the local authorities. I do not know whether, in view of that, Senators expect that I need go further into the matter.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I would like to make one or two remarks in reply to what the Minister has said. Nothing that the Minister can say and nothing that anybody else can say will alter the fact that the Minister now is seeking power which he admits is not there already. If it is there there is no need for the taking of it now. That fact cannot be got over, no matter what is said. That new power is modified in Section 99 (3) not alone with respect to retirement but in regard to the power of dismissal and suspension in so far that the consent of the Minister is required. These facts are incontrovertible, and nothing that has been said will alter them. The Minister referred to parent bodies. His argument in regard to that may apply in the case of the scheduled urban districts and perhaps the four county boroughs, but it does not apply in all cases. Each body is a corporate body in itself. Certain urban councils cannot be described as a parent body. They must do what they are told by the vocational education committee. They must carry out certain functions and if they fail to do so the Minister can send down a sealed Order. The fact that the Minister is seeking new power now is a thing that has to be considered. Is he or is he not seeking new power, and if so, is that new power calculated to modify the charter under which the officers concerned have been led to believe they were serving since 1930? That is the whole thing in a nutshell.
I would ask the Minister to consider the suggestions made by Senator Mrs. Concannon between now and the Report Stage so that he may see his way to give an assurance when we reach that stage of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister and his advisers will agree that it is necessary to secure the goodwill of the officers of committees in all these matters. The collection of rates is a mechanical job that can be carried out by a rate collector, but in the case of education it cannot be carried out efficiently without the actual mental co-operation of the parties concerned. I have already pointed out that during a 20 years' interval the officers concerned had no protection whatever. Their salaries were very small. The Minister did refer to increases in salaries, but surely he must know that a commencing salary to-day of £130 is no great improvement on the salary of £120 in 1914.
That is really the difference between the two. There is, of course, the cost-of-living bonus, but we must remember that the cost of living to-day is, roughly, three times greater than it was in 1914. Therefore I think the Minister cannot get away very much on the question of a substantial increase in salary. The increase was not anything very much to write home about. I hope that between this and the Report Stage the Minister will see his way to give some assurance which would satisfy the comparatively small number of officers concerned.
There is the case of an Irish teacher, one of the best, I would say, in Ireland, who, if this mechanical rule is adopted, will go out immediately. Last night we heard a good deal about story-tellers and seanachies whose services might be availed of for broadcasting purposes. We have those local Irish teachers—native speakers. The one that I refer to is perhaps the best Irish speaker in Ireland, one whose work is calculated to get the very best results. He would automatically cease. I suggest the Minister should consider this matter between this and the Report Stage. In the hope that the Minister will adopt that suggestion, I will, with the permission of the House, withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 3:—
Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
The Schedule to the Amending Act of 1944 is hereby amended as follows:—
In the column headed "Number and year" by the deletion of the words and figures "No. 29 of 1930"; in the column headed "Short Title" by the deletion of the words and figures "Vocational Education Act, 1930", and in the column headed "Extent of Repeal" by the deletion of the word and figures "Section 27".
If the House will permit me, I should like to have amendments Nos. 3 and 4 taken together; they are more or less complementary. I shall dwell mainly on amendment No. 4, which sets out:—
Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 7 of the Amending Act of 1944 is hereby amended by the deletion of sub-section (5) of that section and the insertion in lieu thereof of the following sub-section (5):—
(5) (a) Suspension under this section from the duties of an office shall not prejudice the right of the holder of such office to payment of remuneration at the rate, and in the manner customary prior to the period of suspension, or in accordance with the contract of employment relating to the office provided that if on the result of a local inquiry held in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Principal Act negligence on the part of the officer suspended resulting in loss or damage to the committee's property, failure to perform satisfactorily the duties of, misconduct, in relation to or unfitness to hold the office, has, in the opinion of the Minister been established, the Vocational Education Committee may and if required by the Minister shall withhold payment of the whole or a proportion of the remuneration normally payable to the officer suspended until such committee has made an estimate of the amount of the loss actually incurred and a decision regarding the manner in which the loss or damage is to be recovered or made good or where no such loss or damage is involved the action to be taken in relation to the officer suspended is settled and approved by the Minister.
(b) Where remuneration is withheld in respect of loss or damage to the committee's property the amount of remuneration so withheld shall not exceed the amount of the loss or damage actually incurred, and in other cases the remuneration withheld shall not exceed one-third of the total remuneration normally payable to the officer suspended.
(c) Except to the extent authorised by the provisions of foregoing paragraphs (a) and (b) in relation to the withholding of payment of remuneration the right of the holder of an office who is suspended under this section to proceed with an action for breach of or any other matter arising from the contract of employment shall not be prejudiced.
I shall deal with that amendment first. The present position is—and I am prepared to admit that it applies to officers generally—that if an officer is suspended his salary automatically ceases. As a rule, further action will not be taken until a certain procedure has been carried out. The decision arising out of that procedure may take a long time. Conceivably, it might take months, and there is one celebrated case where it took exactly three years. In the meantime the officer's livelihood is completely withdrawn. Our present system has been under review by, among others, certain prominent ecclesiastics. Surely, nothing could be more hard-hearted and nothing more cruel than suddenly to tell an officer: "You are suspended and you will get no more money until we decide what we shall do about your case."
In the normal way, there will be representations made by the officer or by the local committee. These things usually take some time, and the net result is that the officer is left meanwhile without any means of supporting himself or his family. If that were tested, I believe it would be declared that it is a very wrong thing and an illegal thing. There is a contract of employment existing and that contract provides that certain remuneration will be paid to the officer. I hold that until that contract is terminated the remuneration should be paid. The Minister may believe that all the officials in his employment are different from other people; they are not human beings at all; they are perfect in every way and possess no faults. I know quite a number of them and I am prepared to admit that they are splendid men. At the same time, I know many of their weaknesses and I know of things that have happened.
I know one officer who was penalised because of a very innocent transaction on his part. He was asked a question by a man very eminent in the public service. He gave an answer quite innocently and he was never forgiven for it; he lost his position ultimately. That is a case where human nature was working and where its evils were exhibited. These things will always occur where human beings are involved. Certain friction sometimes develops between an inspector and an officer. The officer may be perfectly conscientious and outspoken, but still certain things occur and an atmosphere is created around the officer and ultimately it may result in his dismissal. Because of the misunderstanding created the committee is induced to suspend the officer; the Department tells the committee to suspend him while the case is being investigated.
In my amendment I indicate that an officer might sometimes be held responsible for the loss of some equipment through negligence. That is a case where a fine would be more correct. Nobody would object to that. Serious cases arise where an officer is suspended and where there is the possibility of dismissal. During that period and until some definite evidence, satisfactory to the Minister and the committee, is produced, it is very serious to suspend or dismiss the officer. Until a definite stage is reached there should be no deduction of salary.
When it is ultimately established that something has happened, that there is a loss of equipment or that the officer is convicted for doing something not in accordance with his duties or that would not be in keeping with the performance of his duties or that would justify dismissal—until positive, overwhelming evidence is produced, there should be no withholding of remuneration. Even at that stage, until the final scene is enacted, there should be a deduction only of some portion of his salary. I cannot see how any body of Christian men can fail to see that there is a terrible injustice possible in a case of suspension and withholding of salary. It is wrong from every standpoint and there is nothing to be said in justification of it. This is a case anyway which the Minister might favourably consider without yielding any big principle.
Let me tell you what happens if a person commits a murder. Senator O'Dea and Senator Sweetman will tell you that the Civic Guards must have certain evidence before they can arrest. When they arrest a person, they do not starve him to death. He is brought to some comfortable place and he never misses a meal until his trial. Here you withhold the means of livelihood from an officer whose family may be depending for their living upon him and starve him as it were and give him no chance of defending himself. How can that be defended in any way? Then, while awaiting trial, all his means of defending himself are withdrawn. I say this thing is wrong from every standpoint and should be revised. This at least is an amendment which should meet the views of the Minister, which should receive the sympathetic consideration of the Minister and the members of this House. It proposes a modification of those provisions which apply at present in a case where an officer is suspended and is, as it were, awaiting trial.
I am always sympathetic towards those in any trouble. My training has made me that, particularly in the case of officials, because I am an official of a local authority myself and I have great sympathy with officials. But I think that the principles enunciated in this amendment No. 4 are of a very dangerous nature. Senator O'Reilly has referred to the fact that, when a man is charged with murder, he is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. That is true. But, as I recollect the Vocational Education Acts, they provide that a person cannot be suspended unless, in the opinion of the committee or the Minister, he is incapable of discharging his duties or has been guilty of misconduct or some other similar offence. Therefore, there must be a finding in the case of a committee, which is certainly a sympathetic body. These committees treat their officials with the greatest kindness and courtesy. I think the same can be said of the Minister. Therefore, there will be no suspension unless there is very strong proof that there is either incapacity or misconduct. What could misconduct amount to? Supposing it amounted to a misappropriation of the funds of the committee. In that case, surely it would not be right to say that you can only deduct the amount that he has misappropriated and, in any event, that you cannot deduct more than one-third of his remuneration. That would be a very doubtful position.
That is not in the amendment.
I thought there was a clause in it that they could not deduct more than one-third.
No, they can deduct the full amount.
Any deduction is dangerous in a case like that. There may be a criminal charge pending, for example, and the committee would be in the awkward position that, by deducting a certain amount of what has been taken, it would look as if there was a compromise, or it might constitute a defence for the man who might say: "I did not take that at all, or, if I did, I knew it would be paid back in this way". Therefore there would be no misappropriation. It is a dangerous principle to enunciate. In my opinion, this will not help good officers. It may be a help to officers who have been guilty of a crime. It is not a deterrent; it is rather an incentive to commit a crime. For that reason, I think it is a dangerous amendment and I suggest that it be withdrawn.
Senator O'Dea has explained the difficulty of dealing with such matters. When it was before the House in 1944, this matter was also argued. I cannot follow one particular system in connection with the suspension of officials. I think I have not had any suspensions during my period of office as Minister for Education. If there are to be suspensions, I must have regard to what the Minister for Local Government practises. We have these cases of defalcations. They only come to light after the auditor's report. There are extremely sad cases. They are very agonising for the families and carry very severe penalties for the officers concerned. We have sympathy with them. On the other hand, if we do not deal with them and if we do not show in advance that the punishment will be severe, what will the situation be? I do not see any way in which you can arrange that during the period of suspension a portion of the suspended official's salary may be paid to him. I said in 1944, as Senators who were present will recollect, and it seemed to be accepted by the House as the most that could be asked for, that if the official were cleared by the courts, in the event of its being a court case, then the matter should be examined sympathetically as to what could be done for the period. But, if he is neither working nor drawing salary, it is not easy to know what one can do. Neither can the Minister shorten the period of time.
At present there is in the Department of Local Government a case of suspension which has been going on for about three years and with which it has not been possible to deal. Cases of suspension over a period of one year seem to be fairly common. We have a case at present in which the officer was suspended last May. Again, that was a question of committee funds. The case does not seem to have come up in the courts yet. That case is going to take some time and other cases like it. I do not see what can be done. It is very unfortunate that the matters cannot be dealt with in a shorter period, but we cannot control these court proceedings as there are important questions of evidence and so on. The fact is that officers of local authorities are in positions of trust. If they slip, if they make a blunder, the punishment is certainly extremely severe, but I am afraid there is no way out of it. I do not see any solution.
As regards amendment No. 3, the suggestion again is that we should go back to the position before the 1944 Act was passed and that we should have a sworn inquiry in every case. It is quite true that that provision and the other provisions were very hotly contested here on the ground, apparently, that it is all very well for the Minister to say that he did not intend to use these powers but that one could never be sure. In fact, the powers have not been used. As I pointed out a short while ago in another connection, we issued a circular to committees, and no committee, as far as I know, disagreed with it, in February, 1946, setting out in detail the method of inspection of teachers' work:—
"First report, second report, third report, fourth report. The third and fourth reports will not be issued until the teacher's work has been seen by either a senior inspector or the chief inspector. When the second or any subsequent inspection shows that the teacher has remedied the defects in his work and/or that his teaching has become satisfactory a letter will be sent to the committee notifying them accordingly. Two copies of every adverse report arising as a result of inspection will be furnished to the vocational education committee by the Department as soon as possible after the inspector's visit. One copy should be sent by the chief executive officer, through the headmaster, if any, without delay, to the teacher concerned, who should forward to the committee within ten days any observations which he wishes to make on the report. If the committee decide that there are any matters which have not been given due consideration by the inspector or inspectors, the teacher's observations and those, if any, of the committees, should be submitted to the Department at an early date and will be taken into account in connection with the next inspection."
So that there is no question of the Minister taking drastic action without reason. I explained that the necessity for the Minister to intervene in this matter was that we have a large teaching body of about 1,000 whole-time teachers and several hundred part-time teachers. We went into the matter fully here at the time and I was not satisfied that the method of having to hold a sworn public inquiry in the case of a teacher who was being dismissed for inefficiency was necessary.
That was accepted and is now the law. It has not been found necessary to act directly. If the conditions are such that an inquiry is appropriate, let us have the inquiry but if it is merely a case of a teacher from whom we have not been able to get satisfactory work over a period of years and in respect of whom, time after time, the inspectors, from the local inspector to the chief inspector, are not satisfied that he can do reasonably efficient work, then the question of terminating his services must be considered. In fairness to the children and in fairness to the committees themselves, I think the Minister must be expected to take the initiative in such cases. There is a definite procedure laid down. It has been communicated now to the committees. No dissatisfaction has been expressed with it. If, in the working out of it in particular cases it is found there is unfairness, no one will deny that such teachers will have advocates and friends on the local committees to argue their case and to do their best for them. From my point of view I must do my duty also.
The Minister has not put the case to the House in precisely the way I conceive it. I fully sympathise with the Minister in his statement regarding inefficiency of teachers. Since supervision of teaching is the main duty of the Minister and the committees, naturally it is their most important concern, but if there is a case of inefficiency on the part of a teacher the usual thing is to have the report of an inspector and, if there is no improvement, the teacher is dismissed. I am not talking about that. I sympathise fully with the idea that an inefficient teacher should be got rid of. He is a public menace. I am with the Minister 100 per cent. in that. He should be got rid of at once. He does harm to himself, he does harm to the scheme and he is inflicting very serious injury on his pupils. But in that case the moment the inspector has come to the conclusion that the teacher is inefficient, nobody can go past that. The committee has no power to interfere with the functions of the Minister in that respect and the Minister is bound to act on the inspector's report. whether he gives one report or two reports or three or any number of reports. Ultimately there is one remedy, not the remedy of suspension, but the remedy of dismissal, the termination of notice.
I am not concerned with that and I am in sympathy with everything the Minister has stated in that respect. I am considering the question of the suspension of a person from the duties of an office. It is an abnormal kind of remedy. The local inquiry was not necessarily a sworn inquiry mentioned by the Minister. Section 27 of the 1930 Act provided that the Minister might send down some inspectors to consider certain abnormal features connected with a teacher's work. If the teacher attends his classes and carries out his duties, he is bodily present even though he is inefficient, and the remedy in that case is to judge whether his teaching is up to the standard or not, and if the inspector is satisfied that it is not, no committee has power to interfere; they must accept the report of the inspector.
Suspension is a different matter. Take the case where a teacher absents himself from duty or falsifies accounts or does something which, in the opinion of the Minister or his representative, is wrong and not in keeping with the proper discharge of his duties as an officer. A teacher sometimes may be asked to do a thing he does not like to do or that he thinks he ought not to be asked to do, and that might be regarded as a case of insubordination. If the Minister then likes, under this particular section, he can say to the committee: "I suspend this man because he has done something." Similarly, the committee might do it. I have very long association with committees and I know that, as a rule, the chief executive officer can carry his point and get them to do the right thing, but we would be very blind if we did not realise that very frequently members of committees may be animated by certain personal motives —I will not say political motives—and they may then start an agitation and make things very unpleasant for a particular officer. To the outside world that action is governed by their care for their duties as members of a public body, but entirely different motives may be influencing them. I have come across several cases of that kind. An atmosphere is created which may result in the suspension of an officer who may be 100 per cent. innocent. He may be suspended by a majority of the committee. He then ceases to get his salary and the first weapon in his defence is withdrawn. He has no means of defending himself.
That is one type of case. If the Minister thinks I have any sympathy with any person who falsifies accounts or does anything like that, he is very much mistaken. Unless the man who does such things is a lunatic altogether, he is not going to try to defend himself in court. It is only the person who is satisfied that he has a 100 per cent. case who is going to take the case to the court, but then the big question is has the person the right to go to court? If the lawyers present in this House are satisfied he has under this legislation, I certainly would be perfectly satisfied. My advice is that you are taking away that man's right to have recourse to court. I am afraid that Senator O'Dea did not read this amendment. I know it is sometimes difficult to read all these sections. I do not read them sometimes myself unless I am terribly interested. I am afraid the Senator has not read this very carefully, otherwise he would not have made the statement he did.
I think there could be nothing more reasonable than what is set out in the amendment:—
"If on the result of a local inquiry held in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Principal Act negligence on the part of the officer suspended resulting in loss or damage to the committee's property, failure to perform satisfactorily the duties of, misconduct, in relation to or unfitness to hold the office, has, in the opinion of the Minister been established, the Vocational Education Committee may and if required by the Minister shall withhold payment of the whole or a proportion of the remuneration normally payable to the officer...."
As far as that is concerned, the first condition I suggest is that it shall be established to the satisfaction of the Minister by means of a local inquiry that this officer has in fact been guilty of misconduct. The second proviso is:—
"Until such committee has made an estimate of the amount of the loss actually incurred, and a decision regarding the manner in which the loss or damage is to be recovered or made good...."
If Senator O'Dea thinks that that covers cases of defalcation, I should like to say that I had no such case in mind at all because, if there is defalcation, I say the officer should not be kept for one hour in the service. I am contemplating negligence resulting in destruction of valuable equipment and certainly defalcation is not one of these things at all. The amendment goes on to say:—
"Or where no such loss or damage is incurred the action to be taken in relation to the officer suspended is settled and approved by the Minister...."
There is a gap between the verdict and the decision on that verdict. The Minister rather surprised me by mentioning certain cases, but they happen to strengthen my case. If 12 months is necessary to decide a case, what is the officer to do in the meantime? Why is action not taken earlier? What is to prevent action being taken within a month or, at the outside, within two months? On the other hand if the investigation is conducted on the Kathleen Mavourneen system—"it may be for years and it may be for ever"—the decision is deferred and then the officer cannot take up another post. If he does, he prejudices his case for superannuation. Meantime, he is without any visible means of support. I suggest that the officer should receive at least some portion of his salary during that time. That will force the hand of the Minister and the authorities responsible to have the matter brought to trial as soon as possible. I suggest in the amendment that where remuneration is withheld in respect of loss or damage to the committee's property, the amount so withheld shall not exceed the amount of the loss or damage actually incurred and in other cases the remuneration withheld shall not exceed one-third of the total remuneration normally payable to the officer. That is to say, that where there is no loss incurred to the committee's property, the withholding of one-third of the remuneration would only apply between the period when the act of suspension takes place and the decision on that act is given. If it is within the power of the committee to recover damages, if that should be necessary, even where there is no crime on the part of the officer——
Senator O'Dea is right on the question of the amount. If there was a defalcation there would be only one-third of the remuneration repaid.
The one-third only applies during the interregnum —between the time of the verdict and the time the decision on it is given.
The amendment does not say that.
It is not necessary to say it. I am saying that this withholding of one-third is only applicable between the time the suspension takes place and the time the decision on that is given.
Your amendment does not say that.
Mr. O'Reilly
I think the House will realise what is intended by the amendment We have some very eminent lawyers amongst us including Senator O'Dea. I should be very happy if Senator O'Dea, Senator Sweetman and Senator Kingsmill Moore were to get together to try to draft an amendment to carry out the intention which I have indicated. They could alter the wording of the amendment if necessary with that object. I think it will be admitted that the present position is a cruel position and unworthy of a House such as this. It should not be allowed to continue. The Minister does not impress me at all when he says that he must do what other Ministers are doing. I cannot see how on earth if one Minister acts wrongfully another Minister should follow suit. I say it is equally wrong if other branches of the service are subject to these conditions. The Minister has been so very considerate as to say that supposing the courts did find that, after all, a man had not been guilty— and again I say there is one very prominent case where that actually occurred—the Minister would graciously consider that that man had not been guilty and might say: "We have inflicted untold mental worry on this man and we shall consider whether it would not be a nice thing to pay him his salary for all that time." Should that be necessary? Would not the man be entitled to his salary whether the Minister liked it or not? Yet according to the existing provision, the Minister might not be so gracious.
Why any people who are not slaves living under the conditions which existed in the time of Uncle Tom's Cabin should tolerate this thing, I cannot understand. It is a kind of national degradation and I cannot understand how it is tolerated. I suggest that those Senators who think that my amendment is not sufficiently specific should themselves get together and draft an agreement which will carry out the intentions of the amendment I have submitted. I say there is nothing in the amendment as it stands to prevent the whole of the money being recovered in cases where loss is incurred by a committee. I am only saying that during a very limited period, until guilt is established, there should not be 100 per cent. deduction of the officer's salary, that 66 per cent. should be paid to the officer during the time that the suspension is effective and guilt has not been actually established. After that, when guilt is established by means of a local inquiry, it is open to the Minister to recover the full 100 per cent. from the officer concerned.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
Between this and the Report Stage, some consideration might be given to the point, so I will leave it so for the present, by permission of the House.
Amendment No. 3, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Amending Act of 1944 is hereby amended as follows:—
By the deletion in the fifth last line of the word "fourteen" following the words "after the expiration of" and the insertion in lieu thereof of the words "twenty-eight".
In regard to the notice of suspension, the Minister wanted something like seven days, but on representations being made to him in the other House he increased it to 14 days. I am suggesting it should be increased to 28 days. In the case of a county committee, it is sometimes very difficult to get a meeting, as there are meetings of county councils and other bodies and, perhaps, a meeting could not be arranged within the period mentioned by the Minister. The matter is a very serious one for the committee and the officer concerned, so I am suggesting that the period be increased. The period is referred to in the 1944 Act, where he sends a copy of the letter to the committee or notifies the officer directly that he is suspended or dismissed and then gives him 14 days in which to make representations. That should be made 28 days.
Will the Minister accept that?
No, I think it is not necessary. It was one of the matters considered at the time. The position is not that the officer is unaware of what is taking place until he receives this notice. There is a certain amount of preliminary work. There is also the telephone available and more expeditious means than the sending of the notice, if it should be necessary. It is possible also to call a special meeting of the committee. I do not think it would be right to amend the point formally.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6 and 7 and Title agreed to.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd January.
Will the remaining stages be dealt with on Wednesday next?
The next stage will be taken on Wednesday next. We can see about the remaining stage after that.
Business suspended at 5.15 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.