Before we adjourned last evening, I asked the Minister why he was definite, about maintaining Section 8, because that would determine our attitude on this amendment. His explanation was very difficult to follow. It was to the effect that the sole aim of the proposal was to bring the general body of legislation governing officials and local authorities into harmony and to see that the highest standard of efficiency was maintained. With that we would all be in agreement. The only instance he gave as to why he was adamant about retaining this section was to bring his staff into line with prevailing conditions. The Minister instanced the removal of a chief executive officer and quoted a document for which no Party in this House was responsible. It was an extraneous document and it was bad taste of the Minister to quote it. I hold that that should not constitute a good reason for maintaining this section. It is on a par with the method of reasoning adopted by the Minister in reference to the question of fixing the retiring age not lower than 65. He mentioned the necessity of lowering the age of physical training instructors. As the Minister admitted, there are probably two or three officers of that class in the whole service, so that he would hardly require legislation to govern these exceptional cases. I do not think we can maintain that there is likely to be any other case of a chief executive officer continuing in office long after the age which might be considered reasonable or at which he would be competent to carry out his duties. I cannot follow the reasoning of the Minister as to why this section is to be retained. With due consideration of the points made, I consider it necessary to press this amendment.
Vocational Education (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1943—Committee (Resumed—Amendment No. 22).
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 23:—
To delete sub-section (3).
The only defence that could be made for retaining this sub-section was that there was a similar one in the Local Government Act. That raises a question as to whether it is a good defence in a legislative assembly to argue along such lines. It would much more likely be considered correct if it were raised from the judicial point of view. If the Minister were a judge it would be quite correct for him to say, as a defence for a certain kind of action, that it was already the law of the country, that the legislative assembly had passed it and that nothing further could be done. Our function here is to change the laws for the better and, if a section included in another Bill is detrimental to a certain class of officers, then we should avail of this opportunity to rectify a mistake made by this House on a previous occasion. An argument on the same lines was used by the Minister for Agriculture, but on the Agricultural Bill Deputy Corry stated that two wrongs did not make a right. I agree with him. We have an opportunity of rectifying the position now. When the original Act was passed, Deputy Corry stated that the House was then considering more important things. This sub-section slipped through and is now duplicated in other Acts. As far as can be gathered from an examination, the tendency is to shift the balance of power from local committees to the Minister's Department. That deprived these local groups of whatever power they had in the past. It should be remembered that while the officials of other local bodies come under the county manager, and while the argument in their case might be much stronger, there is a slight difference in the case of the vocational education committee's officers in so far as they do not come under the county manager as yet. They are exempt from that. As far as we understand, these local bodies are democratic bodies and whatever power still remains to them should be left untouched. That is the whole point of our argument against the section. It would, I think, take the sting out of a great deal of Section 8, against which we have put up a strong opposition, if even sub-section (3) were deleted. Accordingly, I move its deletion.
Mr. Lynch
I should like to support Deputy Connolly on this amendment. It would appear to me, reading this sub-section, that the Minister takes on himself the right to remove people from office without holding any inquiry. If that be so, it is entirely uncalled for. I do not think that any of these officers should be removed without having the matter properly inquired into. This is an extraordinary provision, even though I understand it is a repetition of what has appeared in other Bills. It provides:
"Where the Minister is of opinion that any of the statutory grounds for removal from office exists as regards the holder of an office, the Minister may send by post to such holder at the principal office of the vocational education committee, under which such holder holds such office, a notice in writing stating the said opinion."
That is, in other words, that he is of opinion that one of these statutory grounds for removal from office exists in regard to that officer. The section goes on:
"... and if the Minister, after the expiration of seven days from the sending of such notice and after consideration of the representations (if any) made to him by such holder, remains of the said opinion, he may, by order, remove such holder from such office."
I think that that is really a bit thick. No matter what the holder of the office in question may put up by way of representations to the Minister, if the Minister decides to dig his heels into the ground and ignore anything said by the holder of the office, he will just merely inform him: "I still hold the opinion that I formally expressed by notice to you," and he will forthwith proceed to remove him from office. I think any removal from office should be after inquiry duly held, at which the person charged would be in a position to put up a defence. Even though the inquiry would be held in the ordinary way by the inspector of the Department, the holder of the office would probably come with a case prepared in his defence in a way which would be far more convincing than a case made in a letter to the Minister replying to the notice referred to in the sub-section. I think that this section should go out, and as far as I am concerned I am strongly in favour of the amendment.
I am also in favour of the amendment. I think that the proposal contained in this sub-section is most arbitrary and high-handed. The Minister here constitutes himself judge and jury and denies the officer any opportunity of defending himself, except whatever he can do by personal representations to the Minister by way of correspondence—it may be by pulling strings, for all I know. It is a most objectionable sub-section. Surely if an officer is charged with dereliction of duty, he is entitled to an opportunity of defending himself? The Minister has made no effort whatever to justify this provision. I suggest that it is only ordinary justice to give any man charged with dereliction of duty an opportunity of defending himself and that an inquiry should be instituted at which he will be able to avail himself of legal advice. I think that the sub-section ought to disappear. There is ample provision already in the Bill to cover cases of suspension and I think a very full investigation should be made as to the circumstances before removing any individual from office and that a report should be made to the Minister by a competent person after the holding of an inquiry. The Minister has not attempted to justify this provision and, in our circumstances, there is no justification for it. It is a denial of justice.
I agree with Deputy Connolly and other Deputies because I think the sub-section goes even further than Deputy Hughes suggested. Deputy Hughes stated that the Minister was constituting himself judge and jury. He is doing far more than that. No judge of the High Court or of the Circuit Court, or no district justice dealing with a criminal matter, has powers anything like those which the Minister takes in this sub-section because an aggrieved person, if he is not satisfied with the sentence imposed upon him in any of these courts, has at least the right of appeal. Under this sub-section the person aggrieved has no right whatever to have the matter reopened. I cannot see why the Minister should want this power because this sub-section obviously is not put in to deal with what one might term the more serious offences such as, for instance, if one of these officers were convicted of a criminal offence. In sub-section (4) the Minister takes power to remove from office any official who is convicted of an offence which in the opinion of the Minister renders him unfit for such office. One can quite understand that, but as far as this sub-section is concerned I cannot understand why the Minister should seek such powers.
Even assuming that some type of inquiry were held, my experience of similar inquiries is that everything is weighted against the accused, if I might put it that way, and in favour of the Department. My experience of inquiries as regards national teachers is that, while I have found the inspectors very fair, it is practically impossible to conduct any kind of defence before them. The person about whose status the inquiry is held will get a notice that he or she is entitled to be legally represented but that the person who represents him or her is not entitled to examine or cross-examine witnesses or ask questions. The legal representative of a teacher brought before an inquiry such as that has to write down any questions he wishes to put to witnesses, hand them to the inspector who can then decide whether the question will be asked or not. Even in that type of inquiry, the scales are weighted against an officer. I cannot see why the Minister should assume these powers of removal from office and base them merely on his own opinion, which may be right or wrong, and give the aggrieved person no right of appeal whatever.
There is another point in the sub-section which is most objectionable. It provides that the Minister may send by post to the holder of an office under a vocational education committee a notice in writing. I can quite visualise the case of a vocational officer in Bantry whom the Minister, this evening, considers should be removed from office. He posts a letter to the principal office of the vocational education committee in Cork City. First of all, it would take two days at present for such a letter to reach the office and it may affect a person very seriously. It would take two days to get to the main office, and the Lord knows when it would get to the man in Bantry, and it is quite possible in the present circumstances in outlying districts that the period would have expired before the unfortunate man would get it at all. I do not see why this sub-section should be retained.
I would suggest that this clause is entirely unnecessary, and I would urge on the Minister to agree to its deletion on account of its objectionable nature. He has all the powers necessary to deal with any officer who offends against the statutory grounds named. There is another aspect to this. It would have far-reaching effects as far as the staffs themselves are concerned. If this section stands they will feel that they will have no shield at all as between the local inspector who holds the inquiry and reports an officer to the Minister, and the belief that the inspector will have to report according to the views that the Minister may hold. Therefore I suggest there should be some local shield, so far as the officer is concerned, as the Minister already has all that he requires in sub-section (2). I put it to him that the only need for a section of this kind would be if there were widespread cases so far as vocational committees generally are concerned. My own experience is that the present procedure has worked rather smoothly and, that being so, why should the Minister consider it necessary to throw a spanner into the works?
I would urge on him the absolute necessity in the interests of an important staff to agree to the deletion of that section.
Sílim go mba chóir don Aire fo-alt a trí d'alt a hocht den Bhille seo d'aithbreithniú. Is léir domhsa, ós na litreacha agus na meamraim a tháinig chugham ó Chumann na Múinteoirí Gairm-Oidis, go bhfuil imní mór ortha i dtaobh altanna áirithe den Bhille seo, pé aca atá cúis leis an imní sin nó ná fuil. Is dóigh liom féin ná beidh an scéal chó holc is a meastar a bheidh. Ach maidir leis an bhfo-alt so, sílim go mba chóir go mbeadh caoi éigin ag oifigeach go mbainfeadh sé leis chun athcomharc a dhéanamh. Dá bhrí sin, táim á iarraidh ar an Aire an fo-alt so d'aithbhreithniú idir so agus an chéad chéim eile den Bhille, agus tá súil agam go mbeidh sé sásta é dhéanamh.
Our Party are entirely opposed to this sub-section on principle and on the grounds that it is putting into the hands of the Minister the powers of a dictator, and I think it is very objectionable that the Minister should have such complete powers without having relation, at least, to the views of the vocational committees. Those are the views of my Party and we intend to stand firm on this amendment.
It is interesting to find Deputies who were present in the House when a proposal similar to this one was inserted in the 1941 Act now proclaiming that something very tyrannical was done. If this is a tyrannical attempt on the part of the Minister to assume dictatorial powers in regard to a limited branch of the service under the local authorities, then the Minister for Local Government, upon whom the House—the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party in particular co-operating—conferred these powers, must be certainly a far greater dictator than I could possibly aspire to be.
The fact is that it was an agreed amendment. I think that if Deputies will look back on the reports of the proceedings they will see that the Minister reconsidered his original proposals in accordance with objections that were made, and that the proposal, as it now stands in Section 25 of the 1941 Act, was received with general agreement. I explained to the House last night that there are some 900 teachers, and that if a situation arises where, if the repeated reports of inspectors are to have any weight as to the continued inefficiency of a teacher, and the committee fails to take action against that teacher, the only remedy at present available to the Minister is to have a sworn inquiry locally. I fail to see how an inquiry, with all the embroidery that Deputy Linehan as a legal man would like to see about it, as to whether in fact a teacher's inefficiency is such as to render his continuance to hold his position undesirable, can have two authorities in this matter.
It seems to me that since inspectors report upon teachers in the other branches of the service they must be considered to be equally competent in regard to teachers under the vocational education authorities. There must be some finality. It is not merely through a casual visit of an inspector that this situation arises. I explained the procedure last night—that notice is first given to the teacher. The inspector then carries out a formal inspection. He may report the matter to the committee. If the situation still remains unsatisfactory and the teacher fails to improve, the inspector, as a result of a further inquiry, may recommend to the committee that his services should be dispensed with. The teacher then, in the other branches of the service—and it would certainly apply to this branch—would be accorded an opportunity of having an independent inspection by an inspector of senior rank, and all that procedure would be known to the committee. If necessary it can be brought under the notice of the committees officially. I am quite prepared to set out the whole of the procedure very carefully and to call the attention of the committees to it.
I think that is a form of inquiry that is sufficiently public, because in the normal course of events the reports of the inspectors go to the committee and these find plenty of space in the local Press. So that the question would be one about which public opinion would have an opportunity of expressing itself, and the members of the committee and all concerned would have intimate knowledge of the matter right through. If necessary, also, I am prepared to amend Section 3 to ensure that, as well as sending the notification that the Minister regards the holder of an office to be unsuitable for retention to him, a copy would be sent to the committee, and also that the committee, as well as the officer in question, should have an opportunity of making representations.
It is quite true, as Deputy Linehan says, that a period of seven days may appear short, but that is the period laid down in existing legislation to cover the great body of officers of local authorities. When I have asked the question whether officers of vocational education committees are seeking more beneficial conditions than other officers of local authorities, I have not got the answer that they are. I think it has even been admitted that they seek only the same conditions. It was certainly never intended that they should get more beneficial conditions than other officers. I am quite willing to see whether the period might be extended to ten or 14 days, but I do not think it would be possible to accept the other amendments. Generally, my position is that, in the case of teachers, I feel there is no necessity to have a sworn inquiry. There is a certain procedure which, if necessary, can be brought before the committees by official circular and the committees, if they wish to do so, may suggest amendments. We can set out for their information the form of procedure to be followed in cases of inefficiency of teachers.
I should like again to stress—and those who have any acquaintance with what takes place in cases of inefficiency of national school teachers or secondary teachers know—that between the first notice and the final action of removing a teacher, a very long time often elapses. It may be up to two years or three years, and it has frequently come under my notice that teachers who were inefficient have, by reason of the fact that chances were given to them from time to time, in fact remained teaching for considerably more than three or four years, so that I think that Deputy M. O'Sullivan is perhaps underestimating the position of the committees in the matter when he suggests that there will be no shield. I suggest to him that if amendments are introduced by which the period will be extended so as to make quite sure that some time will be given for representations to be sent in, and that, if a committee wishes to make representations, it will have legal power to do so, it should be quite sufficient. Unfortunately, the Deputy and other Deputies who have spoken were not here last night when I dealt with this question and explained that there may be certain cases where the facts are admitted. I stated in my Second Reading speech that where there was any doubt whatever, an inquiry would be held, and I said last night that except in the case of teachers, where, I think, the procedure should follow that in the other branches of the service. I could assure the House an inquiry will be held in every case.
Mr. Cosgrave
I had three amendments down in connection with this sub-section, all of which would hang together.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 certainly go together.
Mr. Cosgrave
The purpose of them was to ensure that whatever action was taken by the Minister in a case of this sort, the approach would be to the committee, which would be directed to deal with the officers, and further, that where a sworn inquiry was requested by the holder of an office, such request would be put by the committee to the Minister. Looking at the section as it stands, it appears to me that the Minister must have some such power as there is in sub-section (3), if it is to work, but although it is necessary for him to have the power, it does not follow at all that he should get such powers as might inflict injustice. The first sub-section says that the word "office" means an office under a vocational education committee; which is not a very informative description. When I first read that, I understood it to mean some person in the office, but I gather from what the Minister has just said that it means a teacher. These are two entirely different interpretations.
With regard to the statutory grounds for removal from office, one would imagine that one of the first grounds would be neglecting to perform the duties of the office; but that is not a statutory ground here. A man may be quite fit to hold office and still not do his duty, but that is not a statutory ground for dismissal. I do not think the House or a committee would stand for keeping an official who neglected to perform the duties of his office. In an earlier section, that is mentioned as one of the reasons for holding an inquiry. I see no earthly reason why, in the event of an office holder, whether a teacher or an official, asking a committee to send forward his request for a sworn inquiry, the committee agreeing with him in that request, he should not have the privilege of an inquiry.
Does the Deputy think that, in the case I have outlined, the prolonged inefficiency of a teacher over a period perhaps of years, it is necessary to have a sworn inquiry?
Mr. Cosgrave
The Minister is asking me to accept that position with regard to prolonged inefficiency. I would not stand for inefficiency for one month. If it has gone on over a period of months or years, there is something wrong. The initial complaint in that case, I should say, is with the committee, but if the Minister or his office was aware of it, it seems almost inconceivable to me that some action was not taken to rectify the situation. I am not standing for that, but, with the very best of intentions, there may be a lack of harmony between an official in the State Department and the official or teacher in another section of the service. I have known it all my life; I knew of it 30 years ago in connection with the administration of affairs here in Dublin. I want to avoid anything of the sort happening.
Everybody is prepared to concede to the Minister ample powers to deal with inefficiency, to ensure that the boys and girls attending these schools will be properly taught and that the persons teaching them will be properly qualified. We are prepared to concede all that, but we want a safeguard in respect of a person so qualified and so teaching, so that the retention by him of whatever office or whatever teaching position he holds will not be at the whim of any official and so that, if charges are made against him, he will have an opportunity of rebutting the charges, of making a defence and making good his title to his position. That is not unreasonable. The Minister surely does not hold that an official or a teacher, properly fulfilling all the conditions of his office, whether in the office of the vocational committee or in the class-room, a competent teacher getting proper results, should be "fired" at the whim of an inspector? That is all we are anxious to guard against.
In the three amendments we are endeavouring to let the administration of this measure, and Vocational Acts generally, run between the committee and the officials, and the Minister should use the committee as a buffer in dealing with teachers or officials, not to have, as it were, two masters, as they may please one and displease the other. Let there be only one, and I suggest it should be the vocational committee, and supervision in connection with these matters should have the co-operation rather than the hostility of the committee. That is really the purpose of the amendments.
If it were only a case of dealing with the inefficient teacher, then there would be no quarrel on our part. We have stated that we have every intention of maintaining the high standards of our profession, and we are at one with the Minister in his attempts to weed out inefficiency, if he can show that it exists. But he has not shown us that it does exist.
The Minister has talked about the system of inspection, and one might enlarge on that somewhat to show there could be no prolonged period of inefficiency on the part of the teacher. Not only is there individual inspection by an inspector who arrives without notice, who walks into the class-room whenever he desires, and who checks up on the work of the teacher, but there is also a general systematic inspection by several inspectors who descend on the vocational school at the same time. These would include the senior inspector, the assistant senior inspector, and three, four or five inspectors. They take over the school and run it, with the teacher in the background, and they have the best opportunity then and there of examining his work. In addition to that, they have regular conferences in the case of general inspections, and, practically every quarter, two or three inspectors hold a staff meeting and discuss points with the teachers, showing them where their methods of teaching are not, perhaps, up to the best standards, and generally bringing the teachers into line. Under such conditions, where could inefficiency exist? Unless the Minister has some knowledge of which we are not aware, it would appear to me that there is little ground for this talk of inefficiency.
We have heard references to unfitness for office. If we knew that the Minister was talking about inefficiency in teaching, taking the technical acceptance of the term, there would be no question of trying to restrain his powers to deal with the matter. But unfitness for office may not mean educational unfitness at all. It may not mean that, so far as the Minister is concerned, but some succeeding Minister may hold that a teacher with advanced republican views is unfit for office; he may hold that a teacher with advanced sociological views is unfit for office; a teacher may have advanced agricultural views, and he may be considered unfit for this educational office; a man may be a crank, he may have his idiosyncrasies and all sorts of ideas, and in the opinion of some future Minister he may not be considered fit for this office. That is why there is this rumpus about the section, not because of unfitness, but because there are so many things which might, in the opinion of some future Minister, constitute unfitness on the part of the official.
The Minister stated that this is in the 1941 Act and that this was an agreed amendment. An explanation of that is here, in the words of Deputy Corry, who was a member of the House at the time. He said: "The fact that the House at that time, when they were fighting larger issues, did not realise the importance of these things, is no reason why we should allow them to remain for ever." The Minister put the question again and again, whether the officers require better conditions of service than other officers. Categorically, we do not, but we say the purpose of a legislative Assembly is to advance, to progress, and if the officers, through some negligence on the part of this House, let these things slip through, as Deputy Corry says, then there is no reason why, when we get this opportunity, we should not try to rectify a wrong. That is our point: we are trying to rectify a wrong.
It was mentioned by the Minister, to my astonishment, that there had been no discussion on this—that it was an agreed amendment. I looked up the records to verify that and I found that the Minister, when he was discussing this part of the Bill, talked about embezzlement—that it was to deal with questions of embezzlement on the part of local officials. That is rather remote from any question concerning vocational education officers. They do not hold money. The chief executive officers have charge of any funds and there could be no question of embezzlement by them. Therefore the whole case falls to the ground. There was this question of what might be done with officers accused of embezzlement. In the Seanad there was a reference by Senator O'Donovan, who pointed out, as Deputy Linehan has, the difficulties of postal services in Cork.
There is another point raised in a later amendment. I did not specifically refer to it, because I thought it would come on later, but now I find it may not come on later. It is in reference to the word "sending", in line 48 of sub-section (3).
The Deputy need have no doubts about amendment No. 25, as it may be moved. If a division is challenged on amendment No. 23, it is my intention to put the question thus: "That the first two lines stand", and that procedure will save amendments Nos. 24 to 28.
Perhaps we might be satisfied if the word "receipt" were inserted. Deputy Linehan and other legal personages could tell us that for the slightest misdemeanour—for instance, not having a bicycle lamp—the Guard has to swear that he actually delivered the summons; he has to prove receipt of the summons. Here the Minister merely wishes to send out the document; he merely has to say that he sent this message to the teacher and whether the teacher got it or not is no concern of his. We have been told the Minister is reasonable, and we are prepared to believe he is, more particularly as he says he will bring forward an amendment to the section. If the Minister will give us more information with regard to the amendment he proposes to bring in, I am prepared to drop my opposition to this section.
Deputy Cosgrave has suggested an amendment which, I feel, does not cover satisfactorily the point I have referred to dealing with cases of inefficiency among teachers. However, I shall look into the matter and see if it is not possible to bring forward an amendment along that line. I think, then, that it is scarcely necessary to continue the discussion.
The trouble about a receipt is: in what way are we to ensure that it is received? If a registered letter will be considered sufficient evidence, or if any other simple proof of that nature can be devised, I see no objection to amending it.
Put the word "registered" into the section.
"Registered receipt".
That would be all right.
We are agreeable.
Amendment withdrawn?
Yes.
The others, I presume, will not be moved? No. 32 is out of order and No. 33 falls if Section 8 stands.
That relates to existing officers—I wonder would the Minister consider the representations already made on this question?
Is the Deputy speaking on Section 8 or on Section 9?
On Section 9.
I thought the Deputy might not be aware of the fact that Section 8 had been agreed to.
Well, on Section 9, on the Second Reading we talked on this matter of the hardship inflicted on many of the existing officers. "Many" is relative to the number of those affected by the immediate enactment of the retiral age and so on, but I wonder, now that the Minister has listened to these representations, whether he would consider that he might make more definite the statement that he has already given us, that he will consider every case on its merits. Would he confirm with regard to Section 9—I do not want to traverse the whole case again—that where the border-line cases I have mentioned are concerned, he would have the same power under the Act? Then we might finish the business.
What does the Deputy mean by a border-line case?
We have talked about the question of officers. It is stated that immediately there is a declaration that this Act comes into force, the position of such an officer is altered in regard to tenure, age, and so on. Section 6, sub-section (3) (a) affects the officer who may have very nearly the service that would entitle him to the maximum pension. I have given instances before where the officer might be 63 years of age and yet might be only, say, 38 years in the service. Actual facts indicate that he could not receive the maximum pension, because he would be retired immediately, and there is no possibility, under the Act, of his being allowed to continue for another five years, or whatever shorter period would be required to enable him to secure the actual pension. There are cases of that nature where the Minister has stated, if I understood him correctly, that he was prepared to consider each case on its merits in view of the record of the officer and without interpreting the Act in a harsh and arbitrary manner.
We have the position in the case of existing officers where, first of all, the Minister is taking definite power to break an existing contract duly entered into. That has already been fully discussed, and it appears to me that officers of that type are entitled to some rather special consideration. By legislation here you are going in the first place to break the contract, and, in the second, there are officers who, in peculiar circumstances, enter the service late in life, some of them coming over from the technical schools when the Vocational Education Act was passed.
Some of those broke their service through doing a course after the 1925 Act. Because of their breaking their service they will have only a small number of years' service for the purpose of computing superannuation. From the fact that some of them have entered the service rather late, it appears that many would not be entitled to the maximum pension at all, or would not approach 40 years' service. Then, there is the question of added years. The Minister might be prepared to assure the House that particular circumstances would be taken into account, and he might point out to the House that there is provision under the 1925 Act to add the number of years for service, but the difficulty I see is this: that a definite precedent has been established, so far as the application of the 1925 Act is concerned. For a long time the practice has been that over 60 no years have been added for pension purposes. Where such a definite precedent has been established in the application of the 1925 Act, no matter what pious wishes we may subscribe to or assurances we may get from the Minister, I think there will be a great difficulty in getting over this established precedent.
I am sure the Minister will have sympathy with certain cases when this Act comes into operation, if say, the retirement age is going to be 65 and men are required to go out at that age on a small pension. The Minister might be prepared to deal sympathetically with cases of that sort. But, will he be in a position to deal sympathetically with such cases if a definite precedent has been established by the operation of the 1925 Act over so many years when the principle has not been applied? I am aware of no particular case, where representations have been made for added local service by a local authority, that has been sanctioned by the Department of Local Government. Their policy has been definitely established, and that determines it. I wonder if the Minister could tell the House, in view of his sympathy, how he proposes to get over that difficulty?
I do not know why Deputy Hughes persists in speaking of a breach of contract. Of course, this would really be a matter for the courts, but it seems clear to me that a vocational education officer can only claim that Section 99 of the original Act assured him that in the service to which he was transferred in 1930 he would not suffer any loss which would make the new conditions of service inferior to those in the service which he was leaving.
Surely they were not aware that their services were going to be terminated at the age of 65, if that is the age the Minister proposes to fix?
There may be men who have no idea that one of the great problems in this country is to get employment for those young graduates coming out of our own universities, who are pestering every one of us every day to help them to get positions in our own country. Am I to take it that Deputy Hughes, in his anxiety for educational and agricultural advancement, desires officers to continue to 75 or 80 years of age?
I never suggested that.
Oh, no. The point is that I am informed by those who have some knowledge of the position that we are never likely to deal with problems of unemployment unless we cut down at the other end. If we do not try to make openings below for new entrants, then our problems will become very difficult. I have told the House that the matter of superannuation is entirely one for the Minister for Local Government. If a body recommends added years, it is a question for the Minister, and I cannot say what attitude he will adopt.
I have explained also to the House that added years are intended to cover only cases where it is difficult to find an officer to fill a particular post at such an age as would enable him to draw his full pension. In cases where such an officer came from an outside post and gave up a position demanding high qualifications at a mature stage of his life, the Minister for Local Government has stated, officially, I think, that he is prepared to consider sympathetically an application for added years of service. We cannot give added years of service in all cases. I wonder whether Deputies who are interested feel that Deputy Connolly's case is a strong one in the case of the officer who is about to reach the age of 65 and who has 37 or 38 years' service. Such an officer, when this Bill becomes law, will be doing far better than the average civil servant and the average man who has been given the weight of responsibility of a large Government Department on his shoulders for many years, because that officer will only get a pension of 30/60ths at most, even if you add in that he will get a gratuity of a year's salary as a lump sum when he is leaving, still, I think, his position is not as favourable as that of the officer for whom Deputy Connolly is now claiming this favourable treat ment, who will get 37 or 38/60ths.
The Minister for Local Government is going into the question of superannuation and it may be possible to bring about an improvement in certain aspects of the superannuation code. In considering the matter he must have regard to the fact that, whatever concession he grants to vocational education officers, there will naturally be a demand for similar concessions to all other officers in the employment of local authorities, so that his position as the authority in these matters is that he cannot very well agree that officers responsible to the educational authority or, let us say, to the agricultural authority, should receive better treatment than the ordinary run of officers, and very much better treatment than the Civil Service is getting.
The type of case I had in mind was that of the officer who, in spite of the fact that he or she is reaching the age of 65 years, has short service—say, somewhere about ten years. If the retiral age were fixed next year, and if he or she had to go out on a comparatively small pension, it might be hard treatment or might be considered to be so. There might also be a type of case of a teacher or officer who had service in other branches, officers, say, teachers who had service as Gaelic League teachers, and who have already been dealt with, in so far as the vocational education committees can give them added years of service for their period of work as Gaelic League teachers or organisers. In a particular case, at any rate, a committee has jibbed at giving the full amount of additional years' service. As a superannuation matter. I do not think that, before the next stage of the Bill, I could deal with that problem now. Even if I were able to introduce an amendment to enable committees to give the added years of service in certain contingencies where, say, a teacher had given proved service as a secondary teacher, there is no assurance that the vocational education committee, unless perhaps the service had been given in its own area, would be prepared to give the teacher the full added years of service. In the long run, all that we can do is to make it permissive.
Most of them have followed what the Minister has laid down. The only exception, I think, was the one committee that the Minister has mentioned.
I am speaking now of the other cases where the pensioning authority, in the case of a national teacher or of a secondary teacher, is the State, and where the pensioning authority, in the case of the vocational teacher, is the local authority. The local authority will naturally ask why it should pay the full added years of service. If special reasons such, for example, as national service, come into the matter, the committee may be prepared to agree or it may not. As I have said, the most that we can do is to make it permissive.
In connection with the fixing of the retiral age, I promised that I would see whether it would not be possible for the Minister to declare any specified age to be the age limit for a particular class of officer. I will have to look into the point and see whether the fact, as my friends on the Opposition have suggested, that the phrase in the Bill as it stands on the fixing of an age limit is "for all offices or for such offices" will not make it difficult to deal with particular cases in that way. The cases that I had in mind were cases of officers who would have short service, and not officers who had almost reached the full period of service which would entitle them to the two-thirds pension.
These are the cases that we had in mind because of the greater hardship that would apply to them. I think the Minister should not try to misrepresent the intentions of the House. We stand for efficiency just as much as he does. We are not opposed to this provision to retire people at the age of 65 in order to make room for young fellows who are coming along. We know that young men starting out will, when they enter the service and make a contract with the local authority, be aware of the fact that they must retire at 65. Here we are dealing with a group of existing officers who, at the time they entered into their contract of service, were not aware that it could be determined by the intervention of legislation at this particular time. We are simply saying that because of the intervention of this legislation those officers are entitled to special consideration.
The Deputy must admit that this question of the retiral age has been discussed for years and years— long before it came into the 1941 Act. That is a matter of common knowledge.
It was not compulsory then, and was not discussed at the time of the passing of the original Act.
I hate to repeat myself but, from what the Minister has said, I think it may be necessary to indicate briefly again that we do not stand for the continuance in office of any officer under the vocational education scheme beyond the age of 65. We have no intention of making a brief for anyone to continue in office until he reaches the age of 70 or 80 years, as the Minister has stated. We are very interested in trying to find berths for our young graduates, just as much interested in that as the Minister is. What we do say is that there are cases of officers who came into the service many years ago when this matter was not being discussed. They came in away back in the period when the technical branch under the old Department of Agriculture was set up. We are asking the Minister to give special consideration to these cases. He does not appear to be concerned with them, or to be sympathetic enough but, on the other hand, he has shown that he will give consideration to cases of short service in which there would undoubtedly be hardship on the enactment of this Bill. I think that is all that need be said.
We would like that the age of retiral would be reduced even to 60. After all, 40 years is long enough to be engaged in teaching or in any other job. I think we would all like to see the age reduced. It was not the age that concerned us so much as the question of the pension rights of those officers. We have been trying to mitigate any hardship that would fall upon this rather small section, a section that, as years go on and as death takes its toll, will be eliminated and will be no longer under this or any other Act. It is for these cases that we are asking special consideration. I trust that the Minister, despite his statement just now, will turn a sympathetic ear to the representations which have been made to him.
Can we have an assurance that when the Minister for Local Government comes to fix the superannuation the Minister for Education will consult him?
Yes, in cases of hardship—where the hardship arises from short service.
The Minister is giving an assurance to the House that that will be taken into account?
Yes, but, of course, I cannot make any promise. I can promise that I will consult the Minister and explain the interest that the House has taken in the question. It is not to be assumed that the case of every officer going out on retirement is to be considered a case of hardship. I am not taking up that position.