Vol. 92 No. 9
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 5, before Section 7 (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Whenever a vocational education committee suspend a person under this section, such committee shall forthwith report the suspension and the reasons therefor to the Minister.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 5, to delete Section 8 (3), and substitute the following sub-section:—
(3) Where the Minister is satisfied that the holder of an office has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of such office and is of opinion that he is unfit to hold such office, the Minister may—
(a) send by registered post to such holder at the principal office of the vocational education committee under which he holds such office a notice stating the said opinion, and
(b) on the day on which he sends the notice, send by registered post a copy thereof to the said vocational education committee,
and if the Minister, after the expiration of 14 days from the day on which he sends the notice and the copy thereof and after consideration of the representations (if any) made to him by such holder or the vocational education committee, remains of the said opinion, he may by Order remove such holder from such office.
This amendment is introduced to meet points that were made on the Committee Stage regarding the power of the Minister to remove from office. It was suggested that the length of time afforded to enable representations to be made was not sufficiently long. The point was also made that the Minister should make reasonably certain that notice of the character referred to in this section, being intimated to the holder of the office, should also be made known to the vocational education committee. The amendment proposes that the notice will be sent by registered post to such holder of an office at the principal office of the vocational education committee under which he holds such office, and, on the day on which he sends such notice, a copy thereof will be sent to the vocational education committee, and if the Minister, after the expiration of 14 days from the day on which he sends the notice and the copy thereof, and after consideration of the representations, if any, made to him by such holder or the vocational education committee, remains of the said opinion, he may by Order remove such holder from such office. I think that, even in the present circumstances, when it is difficult to establish communications and a longer time than seven days is needed, 14 days should be ample to allow the officer in question, or the committee acting on his behalf, sufficient time to send in whatever representations may be necessary. The Minister will have opportunity, I take it, within that period, to consider such representations carefully before he takes action.
The Minister has carried out the undertaking which he gave on the Committee Stage, to the extent that he promised. However, it is a great pity, as I am sure many Deputies feel, that the Minister did not see fit, in the interval which elapsed since the very extensive discussion on this section, to delete the whole section. I am quite sure that he is being inundated with a regular avalanche of representations from all quarters as to the uneasiness that is felt in the service about this Bill, particularly this section. The amendment that he has proposed to sub-section (3) does remove some of the worst aspects of the original draft; that much can be said for it; but it is the best part of a bad section, and it is, I suppose, not too late now to ask the Minister whether he is still adamant in regard to this whole section, which is the cause of all the disturbance, whether, as a compromise, for instance, he would not undertake to delete this section in the Seanad, and substitute for it Section 27 of the Vocational Education Act of 1930. He has not yet, I think, made clear to the House, despite the number of times we have asked him, why he wishes to have this Section 8 in the Bill. In the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, no such powers are taken by the Minister for Agriculture.
The Minister for Agriculture does not feel that there is any necessity to discipline the officers under his command to the extent that the Minister for Education sees fit or fears it might be necessary to do so under his Ministry. I think that we can do nothing but to accept the amendment as it stands, if the Minister is going to retain Section 8. I would still ask him to consider the fairness and justice of deleting the whole section and substituting for it Section 27 of the Vocational Education Act of 1930.
I agree that the Minister's amendment improves Section 8 of the Bill as introduced, but I agree with Deputy Connolly that it would have been more advisable to have withdrawn that section altogether. The case that the Minister made against all the points made from various parts of the House in dealing with the section on the Committee Stage was not, I think, a true case I think it was on this section that he cited, as an instance, the slowness with which the Department moves in dealing drastically with officers. He cited especially the case of teachers in national schools who for many years are allowed to continue, going from one inspector to another, before their inefficiency meets with dismissal. That may be so, and in fact I think that, in the past at any rate—I do not know whether it is the case now—that was so. For many years a teacher was given chance after chance before being dismissed. But we are not dealing with teachers only under this Bill. If the vocational education officers referred to in Section 8 were teachers only, one might be satisfied that there would be a great deal of inspection before, eventually, the Minister, to use the words of the section, would become "satisfied" that the holder of the office had failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of the office. But this applies also, I take it, to the ordinary administrative staff of vocational education authorities and these would not, I assume, be subject to inspection annually by the inspectors of the Department in the same way as teachers would be and, therefore, to make the case that he would have reports year after year in the case of these officers, as he has in the case of national teachers, is not, I think, correct. It is difficult to understand, at any rate in the case of those who are not teachers, why the Minister should not agree to have some kind of inquiry before taking the drastic step of dismissal with regard to an officer of a vocational education authority. I should like the Minister to reconsider that matter when the Bill goes to the Seanad, if such a proposal is made there.
The amendment merely lengthens the time which must expire after the sending of the notice and the removal from office from seven to 14 days. I would strongly support the request made by Deputy Connolly and Deputy Lynch that the Minister should seriously consider the deletion of Section 8 altogether. The Minister under this section is taking power to remove a vocational teacher from office merely on the report, I presume, of the inspector and, on inquiry by himself, notification is sent to the holder of the office. After the expiration of 14 days the person is removed from office without any chance of an inquiry into his alleged incapacity, inability or neglect of duties. I think that is very unfair and is a very arbitrary way of dealing with teachers. The Minister must remember that the livelihood of these men is involved. They may be removed from office at an age when they are entirely unsuited to any other occupation. All these things must be taken into consideration. The least that any man is entitled to is an opportunity to put his case before an inquiry. Would I be unkind if I were to say that he is being removed from office on the reports of an inspector who has had an opportunity of stating the case to the Minister and who is, if you like, acting the part of the Crown Prosecutor in the absence of the accused? I think this section is an outrage and that instead of proving of any benefit to the service it will create an atmosphere of suspicion and of doubt. Independent-minded teachers will hardly subscribe to it. Men of the "yes" mentality will subscribe to anything the inspector wishes but some of the best teachers we have known, some of the teachers who got the best results, were not men who always conformed to the orthodox view as enunciated by inspectors or even by the Department. Any man who is accused ought to get an opportunity of making his case at an inquiry. The conditions governing local government administration are entirely different from those which we have to consider in this case. In the case of local government administration, the Minister is responsible for the public services and, if any individual or body interferes with, hampers or brings into disrepute activities carried on in connection with these services, the Minister must have power, in the public interest, to intervene and see that the service is carried on.
There is no comparison between that and the question of deciding upon the competency of a teacher. These men have been trained and they have taken a lifelong interest in their subject. They should not be removable from their positions on the report of an inspector, without any chance of defending themselves and without any opportunity of putting their case before a committee of inquiry and stating the reason for their actions. That is a negation of fundamental rights, and I strongly support Deputy Connolly and Deputy Lynch in their request to the Minister that, before he brings the Bill before the Seanad, he will seriously consider what the effects of an arbitrary act like that would be on an individual or on the service as a whole, bearing in mind the terrible injustice it would be if one of these men were removed from office without knowing why he was removed.
May I be directed by you, A Chinn Comhairle, as to the propriety of addressing a question to the Minister in reference to certain statements which he wrongly ascribed to vocational education officers?
Though not usual, that may be done on this, the Fourth Stage, as there is an amendment down.
We have had a good deal of discussion on this matter. I do not know whether or not Deputies are familiar with the procedure regarding the removal of teachers. I do not think that Deputy Broderick can be conversant with it when he assumes that a teacher can be removed from office without even knowing the reasons for his removal.
I can see no obligation in the Minister's proposals to inform the teacher of the reasons for his dismissal.
Because that is not proposed, it does not follow that a teacher will not get every opportunity of defending himself. The position in the other branches of the service is as I have already explained. Before a decision is reached to remove a teacher because of continued inefficiency and unsatisfactory service, a second inspector is called in. The matter being of the greatest importance to the teacher, we do not depend on the report of a single inspector. When a vital decision of that kind is being made, we ask for the report of a senior inspector. In the second place, the committee will act as a shield in this case. In the case of a teacher in a secondary or primary school, there is the protection of the managers, but there is no committee of public representatives who might be regarded by those teachers as a shield.
Any reports, adverse or otherwise, regarding teachers made by inspectors under this scheme are made known to the committee. The committee has an opportunity of considering those reports. I think I am safe in saying that, before an inspector recommends that a committee should seriously consider discharging a teacher, preliminary reports will have been furnished. The inspector, in normal circumstances, gives due notice to a teacher that he is not satisfied with his work and that he proposes to hold a formal inspection upon it at a later date. Should his opinion be confirmed and should he be satisfied that the work is not satisfactory, he may report the matter to the committee if he considers it of sufficient seriousness. Normally, I take it, a certain time would elapse which would enable the teacher to improve. If the matter came up again for review, the inspector might say that he had now sufficient experience of the teacher's work to enable him to decide with assurance that he should not be retained. Even then, the normal procedure would be that the teacher would be given a further inspection by an inspector of senior rank, thus ensuring that he would not be condemned on the report of one inspector.
The Minister will forgive me if I confine myself to the provisions of this Bill. Are there any statutory regulations which make the procedure now outlined by the Minister compulsory?
No.
Why should there not be?
In the case of the national teachers—and there are 15,000 of them—there are no such regulations. Under the national education system, the procedure has been as outlined by me for a very long period. There is a greater degree of independence attaching to vocational teachers and to the vocational education service generally, but in my opinion, if only by reason of that independence, a greater measure of responsibility attaches to them, and I am not satisfied that in cases of the inefficiency of teachers it is necessary, where the reports are there in my hands and are made available to the committee, through the yearly reports which are made to them under the scheme, to have a further inquiry. If there is any case of reasonable doubt, an inquiry would be held. I have already said that, apart from the question of the efficiency of the teachers, there would be an inquiry in the case of removal from office for any other reason—that, normally, there would be an inquiry.
I do not think, however, that the Minister should be bound, in the way that the original Act binds him, to hold a formal local inquiry of a legal nature, where he is satisfied over a period of time that a teacher is inefficient and where the committee is fully aware of the circumstances. I suggest that under this amendment the committee will have full opportunity for making representations, and it is most unlikely that the case will be an entirely new one and that there will not have been preliminary discussions and a report regarding it. The efficiency of the teaching service is of the greatest importance. After all, the teachers are more important in the life of the State than almost any other body——
Hear, hear!
——and while I fully recognise that we have to depend upon their own idea of what is right, and while we have to depend in the long run upon their co-operation, upon their loyalty, and upon their devotion to duty, nevertheless, I suggest that it is only right and in the general interest that there should be a final sanction, and I further suggest that it is entirely wrong to assume that the Minister is going to take any arbitrary action or that, even because an inspector's report is unfavourable to a teacher, the Minister there and then is going to take action. The Minister will take all the circumstances into consideration and will only proceed to such drastic action when he feels that there is really no other solution.
Is the Minister now undertaking——
Does the Deputy merely propose to ask a question?
Yes, Sir. I only want to ask the Minister whether the same facilities will be given and the same procedure adopted in the case of the vocational teachers as in that of the national teachers.
No, I cannot say that at the moment.
Are we to take it from what the Minister has said that this will apply only to vocational teachers?
I have already pointed out that if there is any doubt in the case of a teacher we have a special service of inspectors who report on the efficiency of their work from year to year, and that that is not the case in connection with other public servants. In the case of other public servants, some case of misconduct or incapacity might arise which would necessitate an inquiry and, as I say, normally, an inquiry would be held. I do not say that an inquiry should not be held in some cases where the inefficiency of a teacher is in question, but I do not think that the Minister should be bound by law to hold a local public inquiry in all these cases. I think he should be given discretion to act where he is satisfied that the case is beyond remedy.
Do not the vocational educational authorities have other officers besides the teachers? My reason for asking that is that the Minister has addressed himself entirely to the teaching aspect of this matter and not to other officers.
They have a small staff.
Section 8, as it seems to me, applies to all officers, but the Minister has addressed himself to teachers only. Are we to take it, then, that the other officers are not subject to the same inspection to which the teachers are subject?
They are subject to inspection generally, but not in regard to teaching work.
And, therefore, the suspension or dismissal of an officer would be for something outside his efficiency and would be reported by the inspector at the end of the year. In my submission, accordingly, an inquiry should be held and there is no provision, so far as I can see, for that contingency here.
An inquiry may be held and, as a matter of fact, an inquiry is normally held.
I cannot see how it could be held once this Bill is passed.
Why not? The Minister can always ask an inspector or other officer to hold an inquiry.
He can, I suppose, but this Bill, if it is passed, empowers him to do without it.
Well, the Minister for Local Government is constantly holding inquiries, but I do not know whether he is bound to hold them.
Yes, I know that. We are all familiar with the Local Government inquiries, but why, then, take power to do away with the inquiry?
Sub-section (2) of Section 8 says that where the Minister is satisfied, as a result of a local inquiry, that any of the statutory grounds for the removal from office exists, he may remove the holder of such office from office. Obviously, then, under sub-section (2), he may hold an inquiry.
I wonder. I think that that is a very different kind of inquiry from the one I have been envisaging.
Is it in order, Sir, for me now to refer to the matter which I raised a moment ago?
Very well.
On the last occasion, the Minister gave certain quotations from a memorandum which he ascribed to the Vocational Education Officers' Organisation. I only wish to point out that the Minister was wrong in ascribing the statement to that organisation, and that it was actually issued by another organisation. The Minister may have been wrongly briefed and quoted the wrong document, to which he referred as "this precious memorandum" and also as "this anonymous document", but in my opinion it was a grave reflection on the organisation he mentioned, and I submit that in fairness to that organisation the Minister should state now that the Vocational Education Officers' Organisation did not issue the memorandum from which he quoted.
If the position, Sir, is as Deputy Connolly says, that there are two organisations and that I blamed one wrongly, I certainly withdraw any remarks that I may have made here in regard to that organisation.
If there is no objection, Sir, I would ask the House to take the Fifth Stage now.
Is there any objection?
I am too inexperienced in Parliamentary procedure to know whether we should take it now or not.
I see no objection.
There is no objection from the point of view of procedure. It is commonly done. There can be no amendment on the Fifth Stage, except merely verbal or grammatical.
I think it is a pity that the Minister did not listen to some of the cases that were put up during the Second Stage and the Committee Stage of the Bill, and apart from Section 8, which we have dealt with, I think it is a pity that he did not listen, especially in regard to the suggestions that were made here by Deputy Cosgrave and others with regard to adding years of service to some of these men when they are compulsorily retired at the age of 65. The vocational teachers are in an entirely different position for the most part from the national teacher—certainly from the national teacher and, to some extent, from the secondary teacher, in this, that very many of them are advanced in years before they become vocational education officers. This is especially so in the case of men who are qualified tradesmen, who have been working at their trades for a number of years and who are eventually brought into the local vocational education school to give instruction in their particular trade. Many of these would be in the late thirties, and possibly the forties and fifties, when they enter the service of the vocational education authority and, therefore, when the compulsory retire ment provided in the Bill is enforced they would have so few years of service that the pension of which they would be in receipt would be negligible.
I think the Minister should make provision for empowering a vocational education authority — subject, of course, in each individual case to his sanction—to add years to the service of some of these men when they are being compulsorily retired at the age of 65 or at whatever may be the prescribed age. That would ease the matter to some extent. Alternatively, vocational committees should be given discretion in certain cases to keep some of these officers on for three or five years beyond the maximum age. If something of that kind is not done, considerable hardship will be caused to individuals who have given very loyal service to local authorities and especially to the types I have mentioned—tradesmen and craftsmen who have been taken into the service of vocational education authorities in middle age.
This Bill is one on which I have not spoken previously. I have made no comment whatever on it simply because I know nothing about these Vocational Education Bills, and, not being a teacher or interested in the teachers, I have not very much to say on it. However, I have received a communication in connection with the Bill and before leaving the House this evening, I should like to get an assurance from the Minister on the point which I propose to raise arising out of that communication. If I get that assurance, I shall be very well satisfied. A communication was sent to me within the last five or six days to the effect that a member of the Fianna Fáil Party—his name I shall not disclose, but I am prepared to hand the letter to the Minister—stated to a Limerick vocational education teacher that this dismissal provision is intended for teachers who may be members of active organisations which are unfriendly to Fianna Fáil. I should like the Minister to give us an assurance that political influences will not operate in this connection. If the statement was made, I think it a downright disgrace that any member of the House should commit himself to the statement that political influences would be used to take the bread and butter out of the mouth of any teacher.
The Deputy knows that the Minister is not responsible for the alleged statement of an unnamed Deputy, or, indeed, any Deputy.
I quite agree, but I should like the Minister to give the House a guarantee that the principle enunciated in the statement which I allege was made by a Deputy will not, so far as the Minister can see to it, be put into effect. I shall be satisfied if I get that assurance, but from the information I have before me, I cannot let the matter pass without comment. I shall hand the letter, which states that a member of his Party said in Limerick that such provisions were intended only for teachers who were not on friendly terms with Fianna Fáil, to the Minister, if he wishes. If the Minister gives me an assurance that it is not so I am prepared to accept his word.
I am very glad the Minister is not responsible for the statements of individuals on any side. He has quite enough responsibility without that. I join in the appeal, however, which has been made by other speakers with regard to the point which has engaged our attention on this Bill, that is, as to what is the necessity for the departure from the existing practice in relation to vocational teachers and as to what failure has been found in the legislation governing these teachers that the Minister finds it now necessary to resort to Section 8 whereby they are to be denied the right of an inquiry? The Minister stated, in answer to Deputy Lynch and Deputy Broderick, that they can have an inquiry, and I think he said that a second inspector can be called in, if the report of one inspector is not relied on. If that assurance could be given, it would be something to the good, because there is the constant danger of an inspector falling foul of a particular vocational officer—and not perhaps on the very best of grounds. If that statement by the Minister could be put in print in the Bill, setting out that a second inspector's report would be called for before the original report is used as a means of determining a man's service, there would be some security.
I still support the appeal made by Deputy Connolly and others that the Minister should revert to the position under the section of the 1930 Act, which provides ample power in regard to the removal of officers. It seems to me to be a reflection upon his vocational officers—I have had some experience on a vocational committee for some years and have made rather a study of the matter generally—which is not justified or warranted. I believe the Minister has ample machinery already and that these officials should not be put in the position of insecurity in which this section puts them.
Deputy Broderick has said that when they have advanced in years and are utterly unfitted for any other vocation or calling, they are left to the tender mercies of a report by an inspector, which goes back to the Minister, who, at the end of 14 days, may determine that they are to be no longer kept in the service. These people should have the right of an inquiry. That is not too much to ask where a man's living is at stake, and before the Bill becomes law I urge the Minister to reconsider the deletion of that objectionable section.
Education has always held a very important place in our public life. It is on account of the peculiar eminence given to education in this country that the Vocational Education (Amendment) Bill has passed so far on its journey through the House with the best of intentions on both sides. We have dealt with the Minister in a very gentle fashion indeed—with kid gloves, as a matter of fact. We have tried our utmost to get him to see our point of view, but I think we have failed lamentably. It appears to me to be rather a waste of time to continue appealing to the Minister with regard to the objectionable points in the Bill. I have asked the Minister on every possible occasion the reason for the insertion in the Bill of Section 8. He has not yet replied to me. He has given no answer to that question. Evidently, there is no answer to it. When you ask any responsible person a set question a number of times, and fail to obtain a reply, I think it may be taken by all those who are logically-minded that he has no answer to it. There is no defence. One would imagine that the type of man who goes into the vocational education service is somewhat different from that which goes into the service of the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural committees: that there has to be a separate form of discipline for those two bodies of men. That really should not be so. They are much the same type, with the same educational qualifications and the same training. They do different work, it is true, but in each case their work contributes to the great aim of raising the educational standard in the country, improving the technical training of the students, and generally endeavouring to raise the standard of productivity in the country.
There is that similarity between them, and I think there should be the same standard for both of them. Evidently that is not so. For some mysterious reason, which the Minister will not divulge to us, he must insert this Section 8, which is causing all the trouble, which has led to dissatisfaction throughout the service, which has led to a period of uneasiness, and which has resulted in quite a volume of publicity and literature in regard to this Bill. This section must remain, for what reason we do not know; apparently the Minister has his own views upon the matter, and will not take the House into his confidence. He will not divulge the reason; at least he has not done so up to now, and there is no indication that he will do so. Therefore, despite all the friendly and constructive efforts of the Vocational Officers' Organisation to get some compromise with the Minister on the section, if it could not be removed altogether, we must admit our failure and go on to the other aspects of the matter.
In regard to those other aspects, too, we have not been able to impress the Minister with our case. We have made a long and complete statement of it, and I do not intend to reiterate it here, but I should like to make a constructive suggestion which might appeal to the Minister—I hope it will —in reference to Section 6, which deals with retiral at a given age. There appears to be a precedent for it. I brought it up formerly, but could not have it included in the Bill as such. However, I think it might be approached from another angle. I think it might be possible that the Minister would agree, with the approval of the Minister for Local Government, to circularise vocational education committees, authorising them, when they are awarding pensions to officers retiring under this Section 6, who have less than the 40 years' service which entitles them to the full pension, to take into account the periods of service under other branches of the Department of Education; to take into consideration also broken service under either the old technical instruction branch or the Vocational Education Board, and to take into consideration service as Irish teachers under the Gaelic League. In many cases it might be possible in that way to increase the pension by the amount appropriate to such service.
Of course, there might be limitations to that; there might be conditions attached to it, so that, for instance, if the total pension after making allowance for such service is less than the maximum pension allowed under the Local Government Act, 1925—which is two-thirds of the salary and emoluments—years could be added, for the purpose of computing pensions, equal to say one-third of the actual service, subject to a maximum of ten years, or whatever number of years the Minister may determine. It might be possible by some such means as that to enable us to overcome some of the objections to that section of the Bill dealing with retirement.
Those are the only points which I consider it necessary to mention now. We regret very much that the Minister has not been able to adopt the point of view of the vocational officers. If he had done so, I think he would have promoted efficiency and good-feeling in the service. He would have shown that the vocational education officers are a body of growing importance in the country. He would have improved their status in the community. He would have given them a sense of security and a feeling of independence which would have redounded not only to the advantage of the profession as a whole and of vocational education but of the Minister himself, as one who saw eye to eye with the officers who are working under him.
I do not know whether there is any real foundation for the assertion that Deputy Flanagan has made. If there is, I am very much surprised. I should like to assure him that there is no foundation for the suggestion that, as between one vocational education officer and another, there is any question of treating them differently by reason of their political views.
From the speeches we have heard, one would get the impression that this Bill is something entirely novel, when the position really is that, had it been introduced contemporaneously with the Local Government Act of 1931, or shortly afterwards, there would probably have been no discussion about those clauses which have given rise to what Deputy Connolly considers dissatisfaction. The point I should like to emphasise is that vocational education officers in general are not, in my opinion, legally, under the provisions of the original Act, entitled to better conditions of service in the positions in which they now are than in the service from which they were taken when that Act became law. In other words, they are not entitled under statute to better conditions of service than obtain generally in the Local Government service.
The question of superannuation is largely one for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. He sanctions the awards of superannuation, and, both in regard to superannuation and in regard to other matters such as the retiral age, the House will recognise the difficulty that any Minister for Local Government and Public Health would find in having one code for one particular section of the local government service and another code for the others. It is not merely a question of uniformity, although that is of the greatest importance from the point of view of the administration of local government, but there is also the question of doing what is best and what is proper in the interests of education. I have taken a good deal of interest in the vocational education service since I became Minister, and I am satisfied that these provisions will lead to greater efficiency in the service. With the experience the officers have had for many years past since the service began to grow and through their dealings with the Department, I fail to see how they can assume or how for a moment they can have in their minds the idea that there is some intention here of dealing unfairly or unjustly with them.
If a committee fails to act against an officer who is not giving satisfactory service, as may very well happen, then in my opinion the Minister should step in. He should not step in until he is satisfied that the committee, having all the facts before them, have refused to take the action that would be expected from them as the authority and as the employers of the officer. As I have said, where there is any reasonable doubt in the matter, even at that stage the Minister can hold an inquiry. The difference between us is that I am not prepared to make it mandatory upon the Minister to hold an inquiry in all cases. When the Minister for Local Government, as I have interjected, holds an inquiry it is really for the purpose of bringing certain facts, certain evidence, before the public. In the case of teachers, that evidence as a rule will be available through the inspectors' reports. If there is any doubt in the matter, then it can be settled by means of an inquiry.
As regards the added years, the Minister for Local Government is deeply concerned with the question of superannuation. As I have already said, superannuation is likely to increase very considerably in the coming years when the effects of the retiral age are making themselves felt. Committees may feel reluctant to give the added years unless they are satisfied that there are very good grounds for doing so. I think myself that, in the case of unquestioned national service or good service as an organiser or teacher for the Gaelic League in the old days, committees would normally be inclined to recommend additional years. The special cases I was interested in and to which I referred were those where an officer had less than, we will say, 25 years' service when he reached the retiral age. I felt that as regards those who had well over 30 years' service they could not be described as being cases of hardship and that it was only cases where exceptional circumstances could be adduced in support that the Minister for Local Government was likely to consider for specially increased pensions. If the door is opened the difficulty of the Minister will be appreciated. He is likely to be bombarded by all classes of officers for added years for pension purposes. In the case of those who have short service, less than 25 years, let us say—25 years, in normal circumstances, would not have entitled them to superannuation —the present Bill makes it possible for those who have over ten years' service to get superannuation, not 25 years as was formerly the case. Although they are getting that concession, I recognise that it may be argued—I am not saying how much substance there is in the argument— that, by virtue of the fact that a retiral age has been fixed, they are being placed at a disadvantage. I do not think anybody would suggest that it was ever intended that teachers or vocational education officers generally should continue to work until, through actual physical decrepitude, they were no longer able to attend at their offices or schools. That was not the intention. But I have consulted with the Minister for Local Government and he agrees that, in the case of officers who have less than 25 years' service at the retiral age, it may be possible to consider favourably, if applications or proposals are made to him for added years, the sanctioning of such proposals for a maximum of, say, five years, if the age limit is fixed at 65.
There is also the case of those vocational education officers who have spent some time as primary teachers or as secondary teachers. If they had continued as primary or secondary teachers, they would have secured a pension. I know cases myself of teachers in the other branches of the service who transferred to the vocational education service and are thereby going to lose. Their number of years pensionable service under the vocational schemes is comparatively short, perhaps shorter than their service as secondary or primary teachers. I think that these teachers—they may be chief executive officers of course—and these officers are entitled to special consideration. The Minister for Local Government agrees that they are and that it should be possible to consider their cases favourably and, if proposals are put up to him to grant them added years in virtue of their service as primary or secondary teachers, he may be prepared to sanction added years, but not beyond a maximum of ten years.
As to these suggestions of the Minister for Local Government, they are more than suggestions; I think we may take them as a definite promise that in cases where proposals of this nature are made added years will be sanctioned. Of course there is no promise that the maximum years will be granted in every case; but where committees put up proposals they will be considered, having regard to the fact that in the two categories I have mentioned the maximum will be five years and ten years, respectively. I do not think, therefore, in view of my consultations with my colleague, that it is necessary to put a formal provision in the Bill. It was not intended that this Bill should deal with superannuation matters. If there are certain cases that are not included in the categories I have referred to, and which I regard as substantial, we can look into them specially or, when the Minister for Local Government is introducing his Superannuation Bill, the matter could be looked at again. But I think they cover the cases fairly well.
