Maidir leis na comhachtaí atá ag an Aire faoi Alt a 3 den Bhille, le iachall do chur ar choistí gairm-oideachais le teagasc a chur ar fáil in ábhair áirithe, an dtabharfadh an tAire deimhniú go racha sé i gcomhairle leis an gcoiste sara gcuire sé iachall ar an gcoiste an teagasc ins an ábhar áirithe do chur ar fáil?
Vocational Education (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1943—Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Ba mhaith liom a rá leis an Seanadóir O Buachalla nach bhfuil sé beartuithe aon rud a dhéanamh faoi'n alt sin a chur i bhfeidhm ar choistí gairm-oideachais ná a iarraidh ortha teagasc in abhar fá leith a chur ar fáil, gan dul i gcomhairle leobhtha. Gí go bhfuil cead generálta ag an Aire a dheimhniú go mbeidh córus teagaisc á leanúint i gceart ní leor san. Níl aon abhar speisialta i gceist againn, ach dá mbeadh faillí á dhéanamh ag coiste fá theagasc in abhar bunúsach tábhachtach mar, cur i gcás, Teagasc Criostaí, sílim go mba cheart nach mbeadh aon amhras ach go bhféadfadh an tAire a chur ar an gcoiste teagasc oiriúnach a chur ar fáil.
Cé air go mbeidh an dualgas an Teagasc Críostaí sin a mhúineadh?
Sin ceist a socrófar le lucht na hEaglaise. I mBaile Atha Cliath fá lathair tá socrú déanta le lucht na hEaglaise go ndéanfaidh siad féin an obair.
Sin mar atá sé ar fud na tíre.
In reference to the term "his partner", I should like to ask why there is no definition of the term "partner" in the interpretation clause. Under the Married Woman's (Property) Act, a married woman may carry on business, as the Minister is aware, in her own right. A. B. may form a company and his wife, as partner, might hold a preponderating amount of the shares in the company and enter into such contracts as are dealt with in this clause.
On a point of order, I think Senator Magennis is dealing with Section 2 rather than with Section 3.
Does the Senator's point arise on Section 2?
Yes.
We are now dealing with Section 3.
It was passed then very hurriedly.
I will permit the Senator to make his point.
That is really all I want to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Mar gheall ar cheist a luaidh an Seanadóir O Buachalla ar an tarna léigheamh den Bhille seo, níor thuigeas go ró-mhaith céard a bhí i gceist aige. Dubhairt sé go bhfuil méid na rátaí atá le fáil sna contaethe saibhre mar Co. na Midhe agus Co. Luimnigh níos fearr ná méid na rátaí sna contaethe bochta mar Co. na Gaillimhe agus Co. Mhuigheo. Tá sé sin ceart ach isé an bunús atá leis an gcórus airgeadais ná gur socruíodh nuair tháinig an Príomh-Acht i bhfeidhm go dtabharfaí deontas ón Stát do réir an méid a bheadh ar fáil o na rataí thar an minimum a bhí leagtha síos: Punt ar phunt i mBaile Atha Cliath agus sna contaethe agus £2 ar phunt i gcás Dún Laoghaire agus £4 ar phunt i gcás Chorcaighe agus na baile-cheanntair a bhfuil scéimeanna ionta. Agus má táimid le tuille airgid a chur ar fáil ón Stát, is dóigh liom go mbeidh orainn gearradh síos a dhéanamh ar an méid atá ar fáil sna contaethe saibhre ó Chiste an Stáit.
Níor thuigeas go ró-mhaith ón Seanadóir an raibh sé ag súil go mb'é sin an rud ba cheart a dhéanamh. Má táimid chun tuille airgid a chur ar fáil, níl aon amhras agam ná go mbeidh lucht airgeadais á iarradh go mbeadh tuille le fáil ó na rátaí, ach mar gheall ar na contaethe a bhfuil ceanntracha Gaedhilge ionta, mar Gaillimh agus Muigheo, d'fhéadfainn deontais speisialta a chur ar fáil fá alt a 103 den Phríomh-Acht agus tá sé sin tugtha againn i gcuid de na cásanna. I gcathair na Gaillimhe féin, mar gheall ar an gceárd-scoil ansin, do bunuíodh é le socrú mar sin; agus thíos in Iarthar Chorcaighe cuireadh ceárd-scoil ar bun i mBéal Atha an Ghaorthaidh—agus gheibheann an Coiste i gCorcaigh deontas speisialta mar gheall air sin. D'fhéadfaimís, b'fhéidir, más gá, níos mó fós a dhéanamh faoi'n alt sin chó fada agus a bhaineas sé le ceist na Gaeltachta ach taobh amuigh de na Ceantracha Gaedhilge, níl aon amhras ná go bhfuil an ceart ag an Seanadóir go bhfuil sé an-deacair i gcuid de na contaethe atá fíor-bhocht scéimeanna d'oibriú agus a chur chun cinn mar ba mhaith linn. Cuir i gcás Contae Liatroma, contae fíor-bhocht í agus, i gcomparáid le Co. na Midhe agus Co. Luimnigh, gheibheann sí fíor-bheagán o 1d. sa phunt sna rátaí, agus mar sin tá faitíos orm go mbeidh orainn an scéim ar fad a bhreithniú.
Ní féidir liom a rá an mbeidh tuille airgid ar fáil o Chiste an Stáit. Caithfimid féachaint isteach sa scéal o thaobh na gContaethe atá sáthach saibhir féachaint an bhfuil siad i ndon dul ar aghaidh gan an méid atá le fáil aca fá lathair.
Tá mé sásta go maith leis an bhfreagra atá tugtha ag an Aire. Níl aon phráinn ró-mhór ar an scéal i láthair na huaire ach do réir mar atá éileamh ag teacht isteach ar an gceárd-oideachas i gcuid de na contaethe is léir dúinn nach bhféadfaimís é a dhéanamh ar an ioncum atá againn o na rátaí. An rud a thugann sásamh dom go dtuigeann an tAire an locht atá ar an scéal agus, ón méid a dubhairt sé, go ndéanfa sé scrúdú air o am go ham agus go ndéanfa sé socrú chó luath agus is gá. Tá mé sásta go bhfuil sé toilteanach an cheist a scrúdú o am go ham agus a dhícheall go dhéanamh nuair a thiocfaidh an cheist os ár gcóir go práinneach.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), line 31, after the words "specified age" to insert the words "not below the age of 65."
I move this amendment in order to limit to some small extent the very wide powers the Minister proposes to take under the Bill. He proposes to fix "any specified age" limit for all officers, for a number of officers or for one particular officer, so that the Minister may of himself decide at what age a particular officer of a vocational education committee must retire. Having done that, he is not obliged by anything I can see to submit that decision to, or get approval for that decision from, any House of the Oireachtas. He can simply make an Order that a man or woman shall retire at any age he deems proper and that man or woman must thereupon retire. Such a person will be deemed to be disqualified for service after that. I think that is altogether too wide a power to give to the Minister.
As a defence, the Minister will probably say that this is the same provision as is contained in the Local Government Act dealing with Local Government officials. I maintain that vocational education officers are not at all in the same position as the ordinary officers of county councils or local authorities. These teachers work under a special Act, the Vocational Education Act, 1930, and, to go back further, the original Technical Education Act, 1889. What I should like to see, and what I believe to be absolutely necessary, is a special pension scheme for vocational teachers. It may be said that we cannot have that because these teachers are employees of local committees. The same might be said of national teachers, and to a lesser extent of secondary teachers, who are not employees of the Government. Yet, each of these bodies has a special pensions scheme, especially suited to their conditions. I could never understand why there was not a similar scheme for vocational teachers. The usual argument against my proposal is that no injustice would be done by the present Minister; that he would not do anything but what was perfectly fair, and that we are not concerned with the actions of future Ministers. As the Minister knows, there has been a case, which I mentioned in this House on the Agriculture Bill, and for which the Minister has been actually responsible, where an advantage or, if you like, a privilege, which certain teachers enjoyed for 25 years was taken away, on the ground that it was necessary to do so, so that younger people would get employment. If we give to the Minister the power he seeks we may find, even if he fixed the age at 65, 60 or 55, that at some future time a number of young people will be looking for employment and in order to give it to them some older people must retire. Something similar has been done by the present Minister about another body of teachers. In the amendment I put the age that I wish to have fixed as the ordinary retiring age, but even then many teachers, especially those in the service of vocational committees, owing to the peculiar circumstances that exist, will not at 65 be able to qualify for the full pensions.
This is a new service into which men and women went at ages much later than is the case with teachers who are now entering it. I understand that certain calculations have been made, which show that the average age of those who were taken over under the Vocational Act would be about 33 years and that some 300 of them, even at 65, cannot qualify for full pensions. It is possible that they may get added years. I understand that a certain suggestion made to that effect would depend first on the goodwill of the Minister, secondly, on the goodwill of the Minister for Local Government, thirdly, on the goodwill of the Minister for Finance and, finally, on the goodwill of vocational committees. By the time that a teacher got around and induced these four bodies he would be very lucky if he succeeded in convincing them to add some years to his service. We know that some vocational committees are very good in that respect, inasmuch as they recognise the claims of their teachers and do everything they can to help them, but there are others— not many—of whom the same cannot be said, and who are not always ready even to give the privileges which the Minister for Education or the Minister for Local Government would be prepared to give. I understand that one or two committees have not even paid an emergency bonus to their teachers. The proposal I make is a reasonable one, which it would be in the interest of the Minister to accept. If it should happen that the Minister fixed the age for a particular individual—as he is taking power to do—it would put him in a very invidious position, and may cause some difficulty when he is justifying his action in dealing with such a case. It would be much better if there was some general age fixed, below which the Minister could not force retirement. I suggest that 65 is a reasonable age, and is the usual one for compulsory retirement from all public services.
I desire to support the amendment and to endorse the remarks of Senator O'Connell. Even if the amendment is accepted, several transferred officers will be very seriously affected unless the Minister takes a compassionate view of their cases. I refer to officers who were the real pioneers of the work of vocational education and who had not security of tenure or pension rights until the passing of the Local Government Acts, 1919 and 1925. Some of these men were appointed at low salaries and at a time when the striking of a rate for technical purposes was not compulsory on the bodies administering the Act. As a result people who took up the service one year found that a local body might refuse to strike a rate the following year. These teachers received very meagre salaries and had no fixed centres. They had to move about from place to place, very often on bicycles. The salaries were so meagre that they could not marry until late in life. I ask the Minister to take particular notice of these cases, because they are deserving of consideration. Many of these men carried on their work at certain times at the risk of their lives. They are undoubtedly entitled to special consideration in regard to pension rights. I trust the Minister may see his way to accept the amendment and that he will not be forgetful of the services of these officers.
It would seem from this amendment that Senator O'Connell is in favour of fixing a retiring age. That being so, then the only difference is as to whether that age should be 65, 60 or, in certain cases, even less. What we have to remember in connection with this matter is that the vocational education service is not comparable with the primary or secondary education service; the type of subjects taught, the conditions under which teachers have to work, are very different. I had experience for a considerable time of vocational teaching and I may point out that it meant considerable travel in all weathers, late and early. Looking back and remembering these experiences, I should be very happy to feel that men and women engaged in certain aspects of the vocational education service could retire at an age earlier than 65 instead of having to work all their lives under these trying conditions. Unless something is done to enable certain classes of teachers to retire at an age earlier than 65, I am afraid many of those I have in mind would never live to enjoy a pension, at least for any reasonable period.
Take, for instance, some of the lady teachers who have, in the course of their work, to travel from one centre to another. I know of cases myself out in the country where the hardships such teachers have to endure in travelling are of a very slavish nature. What I should like to stress is that provision be made for giving these people a reasonable number of added years in order that their pensions might be brought up to a reasonable level. I have myself a list of teachers who are likely to be affected. Very many of them are Irish language teachers, old Gaelic League teachers, who came into the service at rather late ages, and if these people have to retire at 65, there is no doubt they are going to suffer considerable hardship. These are the lines, that is, the provision of adequate pensions, on which I should like to see this aspect of the problem tackled. What is important in regard to the vocational education service is that it should be an efficient service from the point of view of education, and if it is essential that an age below 65 should be fixed, then, in the interests of education, we should take our courage in our hands and fix the age at the proper limit; but again let me say I should like to see the question of pensions adequately covered. It would seem, however, that this is not the place to have that dealt with; I understand a Bill will come along later on which we shall have an opportunity of discussing this particular question. On the whole, having examined the matter thoroughly, not alone by myself and for myself, but in conjunction with one of the most responsible bodies in the country dealing with vocational education, I am satisfied that the power to fix the age should be left as it is in the Bill. I have not heard anything since the debate opened to convince me of the opposite view. I am sorry I cannot agree that it is in the interests of education that the power to fix the age should be taken from the Minister.
I am inclined to agree that it is very difficult arbitrarily to fix a retiring age, in the case of these officers, particularly an age as high as 65. I think Senator O'Connell rather indicated that his grievance was not so much the actual age, as the fact that certain officers, owing to the special circumstances—some of the older members of the present staffs—if they are to be retired before 65, will suffer certain hardships. There is no doubt, as Senator O Buachalla has pointed out, that work in vocational schools is not of the even nature of work say, in a national school or in a secondary school. A secondary teacher in one particular school can go on teaching Latin, and a secondary teacher 100 miles away can continue teaching French normally until they reach the age of 65. Vocational teachers, on the other hand, embrace a very large and varied number of classes and I think there is a necessity to have power to fix different ages, but the anxiety really is to see that, if different ages are fixed, injustices should not be done. As time progresses and as the scheme goes on and people are recruited in the ordinary way, the matter should be very simple as the situation will be the same for everybody and there will be no danger of injustices, but what people are anxious about is that certain persons who entered the service and did good work before the State was set up, should not find themselves in their old age in difficult circumstances.
I think that Senator O Buachalla will find that the Minister for Education has power to recommend to the Minister for Local Government that people who taught Irish under the Gaelic League and later continued under the vocational education system, should have their services under the Gaelic League counted for pension purposes.
If the committee recommend it.
There is power that the thing should be done eventually. I take it that people who taught even before the Irish Free State Act came into being are also to have their services regarded as continuous, but what we are really endeavouring to do here is to cater for particular cases in legislation dealing with everybody. I think it is correct to say that we cannot do that. The best thing we can do is to leave the Minister power to fix the age and to see whether the Minister can do anything for people who might be harshly dealt with if they were made to retire at 65. We certainly cannot do that, I think, by inserting an amendment. We cannot in this way remedy particular grievances no matter how much we should like to remedy them.
I should like to say that I did not forget at all that the power is there to give these added years in the case of old Irish teachers. Even so, there is still reason to be anxious about this point, because recently we became aware of the case of a committee which refused to make the necessary recommendation for added years and, as a consequence, a certain teacher had to go off with a very much less pension than that to which he was entitled. When I say that I am anxious that this matter should be carefully looked into, what I have in mind is that, if it cannot be done in this Bill, whenever the proper Bill comes along, we should see to it that the Minister will, if possible, have the power, notwithstanding the attitude of any committee, to make these added years available for the computation of pension.
Senator O Buachalla stressed that our principal object in the vocational education service should be to have an efficient service. The corollary to that is to have a satisfied service. Therefore, it is necessary that we should not do anything that would make vocational education officers feel that they are getting a raw deal or that they are being treated otherwise than members of other services. I agree with Senator O'Connell that these officers should not feel that an age limit for classes could be fixed in an arbitrary manner, but I do not think there is any possibility or likelihood of such a thing happening. It would be preferable, I agree with Senator Hayes, not to fix an age in the Bill, not to bring even the numeral 65 into the Bill, because it may well be, as time goes on, that the retiring age would be fixed at a higher level. It would be much safer for us first to see how things will work out. We should try this Bill for a few years and then we shall see what a proper retiring age will be. If we put the numeral 65 into the Bill, 65 will be accepted as the normal retiring age. It may be put in as the minimum retiring age, but figures are imperative kind of things, and I think it would be better to leave them out of this Bill. Another difficulty I find in supporting Senator O'Connell's amendment is that there is no such provision in any other similar Act we have—the Local Government Act or the Agricultural Committees Act. We discussed the age question when we were arguing the merits or demerits of those Acts, but there was no insertion of any amendment such as Senator O'Connell proposes. If we put in such an amendment now it seems to me that injustices, inequalities and anomalies would arise. I naturally think of women. There are women working under agricultural committees, and they have not what Senator O'Connell would call the protection of his amendment.
I tried to give it to them.
I do not quarrel with that, because we hope to give them better protection. The women employed under the vocational education committees would have a certain thing specified in their terms of service that would not be included in those of women doing identical work in another service. There are women teaching in the rural domestic economy schools and there are poultry instructresses and dairy instructresses, and no amendment, such as Senator O'Connell proposes for the vocational teachers, has been incorporated in the Acts dealing with them. Therefore, I think it would be much better, in the interests of the teachers themselves, that we should allow this particular clause to stand for the present in order to see how things work out and that we should not insert any numerals in the Bill.
I support the amendment moved by Senator O'Connell. I think the amendment is a very fair one. The Senator does not fix any age, but he asks that these teachers and employees of vocational education committees should not be asked to retire below the age of 65. He does not suggest, if vocational education committees so desire, that they may not retain these people in their service, after 65. For a man of my age, 65 is a comparatively young age. When I was a lot younger, a man of 65 appeared an old man to me but, as I got on, I discovered that 65 was not so old. Not so very long ago we considered 70 years of age was the normal retiring age. Lately 65 has been accepted as the general age for retirement. Possibly it is a good thing. It has its advantages. It leaves vacancies for younger people. But, at any rate, nobody ought be asked to retire below the age of 65. In addition to that, there will be the psychological effect of retiring a man or woman below 65. Often, when people are retired when they are comparatively young, they feel that, so far as employment is concerned, they are finished and the only thing they have to look forward to is simply to fade away like old soldiers.
I am not impressed by the point made by Senator Mrs. Concannon. We raised this point on the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill. But the type of people envisaged in that Bill and the type of people we are dealing with in this Bill are quite different altogether. It was pointed out that those people would have to cycle long journeys throughout different counties and that 65, and possibly below it, was the age at which they should be retired. But here you have people who, in the main, have given good service, people who have to have very high qualifications for many of the posts. It ought to be assured, at any rate, that they shall have a certain number of years service before them to qualify for pensions. I think the main point is that these people ought to know the minimum age at which they will have to retire. I think that is the point Senator O'Connell wants to make, and I heartily support it. If people have pension rights, they ought to know when they will be retired, and we are not asking too much when we ask the Minister to agree that these people will not be retired below the age of 65. As to the question of added years for Gaelic League teachers, I should like to ask the Minister has there been any case where a request of that nature has been turned down.
Might I ask the Minister at what stage is he to declare a specified age to be the age of compulsory retirement for various offices? Is it to be in the announcement of the vacancy and the invitation to applicants for the post, or in what way? It is very difficult where I sit, I regret to say, to hear the words of wisdom that flow from the lips of my colleague, Senator O Buachalla. But I think I heard him say—I possibly misunderstood as well as misheard him—that the reason for this fixation of a retiring age is to create vacancies to which younger men may aspire; in other words, that, in view of an overcrowded market, competent men are to be dismissed—because that is what it amounts to—in the fulness of their powers and efficiency, in order to make room for others.
May I inform the Senator that I made no such statement?
Did the Senator say anything even distantly resembling that?
No, I do not think so.
At any rate, I should like to ask is that the reason for this section being in the Bill, because, if so, with your permission, Sir, I shall have something to say on sub-section (4) of the present section, if it would be in order to deal with that.
I should like to say that, if the Minister came to the House with proposals fixing the age for certain classes and if, as Senator O Buachalla said, we took our courage in our hands and did fix a certain age for certain classes, the Oireachtas would have an opportunity of discussing the matter and hearing the case in favour of fixing the age below 65 perhaps for a particular class. But here the Minister takes power entirely into his own hands to do that and does not consult the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas will have no opportunity of seeing, before that age is fixed, whether it should be fixed for that particular class or not at the specified age at which the Minister thinks it should be fixed.
Senator Magennis raised a very important point. He wished to know whether the age will be fixed only in the case of vacancies for incoming teachers. My reading of it is that the Minister will be able to, and possibly will fix a retiring age for those already in the service.
Certainly, under Section 9.
In this Bill, anyhow, that is his intention: that is what he proposes to do. That is possibly the reason for the great uneasiness and discontent which exist in the service at the present time. We all know that a discontented service is a bad service. I do not suggest that all should go on to 65, or be compelled to go on teaching till 65. Provisions can be made—and are made in other services. —whereby an officer may retire voluntarily at an earlier age and get a pension based on his appropriate service. I think it is very essential that teachers should know what the retiring age is. The power that is given to fix any age the Minister may choose is entirely too wide a power to give to the Minister with regard to these particular teachers. That was my purpose in moving this amendment.
I cannot recommend the Seanad to accept this amendment. Apparently, Senator O'Connell now believes that, at least, the retiral age may be fixed, and perhaps those who disagreed with the proposal in the first instance will now agree with Senator O Buachalla—who, I think, can claim to speak on behalf of the Standing Council of Irish Technical Education—that the provision will lead to greater efficiency in the service. I see no reason why, in the matter of the retiral age, a distinction should be drawn between one type of officer in the local service and all the other officers governed by the corresponding provision in the Local Government Act, 1941, particularly when it is known that there is a retiral age for the Civil Service and secondary and primary teachers.
I indicated, on the last occasion I spoke here, that a valuable concession had been granted to those who might be regarded as having cases demanding special consideration or worthy of special treatment, in that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health had promised that, if proposals came up from committees to give added years, particularly in respect of those who had teaching service in other branches, he would consider them favourably.
In reply to Senator Magennis, I may say that the way in which this matter would be dealt with is that the Minister would make a general Order fixing the retiral age, either for vocational officers generally or for particular classes of officers. The intention I have at present, if it falls to me to make the Order, is to fix the age of 65 for officers generally. I have explained in An Dáil, and wish to emphasise here, that there may be reasons why a lower age might be fixed for certain classes of officers. When a person enters a service, whether local or national, at about the age of 25 and gives 40 years' service, bringing him to the age of 65, the 40 years' service is generally regarded as a full life's service, entitling the officer to full superannuation. As Senator O Buachalla has pointed out, the work in the vocational education service is probably more arduous, as there is more organising work and more travelling to be done. Generally speaking, officers would require to be more healthy and active than even in the other branches of the teaching service. Therefore, when I say 65, I say it because the Minister must have regard to the retiral age fixed for corresponding branches in the service.
At the same time, before fixing any age, the Minister ought to consider all the relevant circumstances—I assume that the Seanad will agree with that—and while, in general, the age should, I think, be 65, I am not prepared to say here and now, as I have not examined the matter closely enough, that 65 would and should be the age for all types of officers or even for particular classes of officers. All I can say is that that would be the intention unless, after close examination of the whole problem, it is found that there are very strong reasons— and there would need to be very strong reasons—for departing from the general age of retiral, even for special classes of officers.
I have mentioned the case of physical training instructors as an example. They are only a small body, but it will occur to Senators that there may be officers of a particular class who it may be found upon examination will not be, on the average, giving efficient service at the age of 65. Any Order that is made will have regard to the general interests of the service and also to the interests of the particular officers in whom Senators are interested.
The question for solution is whether we should keep on those officers who have not sufficient service to enable them to get full superannuation, and let them remain on teaching until say 70 years; or whether we should ask them to retire at whatever age is fixed—supposing it is 65, at 65—and then try to deal with their cases by way of added years. I think it is a better solution, and more in the interests of the service and its efficiency, that they should retire at whatever the retiral age may be, in the ordinary way, and that their cases can be considered on the basis of giving them added years.
I wish to make it clear that I am not against the fixing of an age. What I am protesting against is the giving of that power to the Minister. He said now, and we all agree with him, that an officer with 40 years' service gets the full pension; but the Minister himself—as I have said more than once—withdrew a privilege from a certain number of teachers. He withdrew the right to get the full pension on 40 years' service and forced them to retire after 35 years' service, without getting the full pension. That is an example of what can be done when the Minister has wide power of that kind. I am anxious to put some limit on the wide powers given to the Minister.
In justice to myself, I think I should explain that, if Senator O'Connell is referring to the fact that women teachers have now to retire at 60 years normally——
Yes, that is right.
—I am not conscious of breaking any obligation in that matter. As the Senator knows, it had been the custom, even before the Irish Government came into office, for teachers to retire at 60. It is true that, more recently, since the Irish Government came in, women teachers remained on until 65. There is nothing whatever to show—and I would like Senator O'Connell to indicate that there is, though in my opinion it is rather irrelevant to the discussion— that there is anything binding on the Minister for Education or ever was anything binding on him to permit women teachers to remain on after 60 years of age. As I say, the rule fell into desuetude and had to be revived owing to the number of young teachers that we have unemployed. Unfortunately we have had that position and this is the only way, rightly or wrongly, we have been able to devise to deal with it. If the position were to improve and if it were possible to see greater prospects of employment for our younger people then we might be able to relax, but at the moment I do not see any such prospect.
I presume this is the same phraseology as in the Local Government Act, 1941?
It follows it.
It is the same phraseology, I think. From the discussion, I was more or less in favour of the amendment for the reason that I could not picture any vocational education teacher who would not be fit to carry on to 65 years of age. When dealing with the Local Government Act we pictured the case of a fire brigade member who should necessarily retire earlier than a clerical worker because he would not be physically fit to carry on until he reached 65 years of age. Now we are thinking of physical culture instructors. I think even a member of the Seanad would not be able to turn a somersault at 65 years of age.
Some of us do nothing else.
I bring up that point because the Minister mentions that these instructors would not be, possibly, physically fit at the age of 65. Members of the Seanad, indeed, would not be able to turn a somersault at the age of 65 years.
By way of explanation, in reference to what the Minister said regarding the retirement of women teachers, may I say that I never said it was binding on the Minister not to do this? He was legally entitled to do what he did, but he took away from the teachers a privilege which they enjoyed for 24 years—from 1914, at any rate.
Will the Minister agree to watering down Senator O'Connell's amendment? Specifying an age is a nebulous thing—specified at the whim solely of the Minister himself. If the Minister were prepared to incorporate the sentiments he has expressed here to this House that, conditions being suitable, he would fix the retiring ages for varying classes, then I think the Bill would be acceptable to all sections of the House.
Is not that the same thing?
I do not wish to press the amendment. It is not much use.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
On sub-section (4) of Section 6 I want to point out that the Minister, in his last reply, seemed to indicate that there was very little difference between vocational teachers and the ordinary members of the Civil Service. I am unable to agree with that view, but that does not, of course, mean that the Minister is wrong. The ordinary civil servant has a specified number of hours to attend to office duties and when the clock strikes at the termination of that period and he goes home, he may occupy himself in any way he pleases. The vocational teacher, like all other teachers, really begins the hardest work of his day at the particular time at which the ordinary avocation work ceases. He has a variety of classes and he has to prepare what he is to teach them subsequently. His position, therefore, is rather more than the professional civil servant or the professional employees of county councils whose cases were dealt with when the amending Act to the Local Government Act was before the House. On that occasion I put up, as usual, an ineffectual plea to take the ordinary considerations of commonsense instead of rigidities and hard and fast rules of a certain class of mind which wants to reduce to uniformity things that are different.
I am not pleading for any particular class of vocational employee that he may not have a grievance, but if I am at liberty I want to repeat again what I said in regard to the former measure. The taxpayer has to be considered as well as the individual officer. When a low age of retirement is fixed regardless of efficiency or inefficiency, the satisfactory or unsatisfactory nature of the discharge of duties, the result is that we can have a duplication of salary holders. After all, superannuation payment is really deferred salary and the taxpayer is obliged to pay deferred salary in the name of superannuation and to pay also the salary accruing to the actual occupant of the office. I submit with all respect that that consideration is lost sight of when we proceed to discuss retiring ages. I am not making the point now that one man may be highly capable at 70 and another man totally incapable at 40 or 35. Undoubtedly, there is an element of arbitrariness allowed for in giving power to a Minister to specify any age he pleases for any office he pleases. Who are to pay these salaries? We dealt with portion of that already and passed it in Section 4 of the Act relating to local authorities. Are they not to be considered as to whether, with their knowledge of a given officer, he is in their judgment competent to continue? Is the Minister to receive no representations? Is there to be no consultation in regard to whether A, B or C is really to be dispensed with?
When I raised this point before I had the valuable assistance of Senator Rowlette, who spoke for the medical officers in the employment of county councils. Much of what he said in regard to them is equally applicable to vocational officers. The Minister for Local Government at that time and many of my colleagues since argued what I thought I heard a Senator argue to-day, that the older men must make room for the younger men. Do we take the broad view that a man entering service, say, at 25, can contemplate employment for no longer than 40 years, that in fact the engagement, therefore, is for 40 years? Let us grant that and when he retires should not the reasonable view taken of his retirement be that the contract is ended? He has accomplished the task which he was engaged to discharge. He has had his 40 years and he goes out. But look at this monstrous proposal—I say advisedly monstrous proposal—in sub-section (4). Certain persons who come under a preceding sub-section, when they are to be subjected to compulsory retirement, are not to go out as men retired by virtue of an ordinance agreed upon by the Legislature, but are to be deemed to have become incapable of discharging the duties of such office with efficiency through old age. Any man would be quite willing to go out when he had reached the retiral age for the office he held, but would he be willing to be branded in this way—that he has gone out of office because he has become inefficient through old age? Is it not quite enough that he must cease to draw his higher salary, that he must cease to do the work in which his heart is and which he believes himself still competent to discharge, without having this stigma put upon him—that he is deemed by an enactment of the Legislature to have retired because of incapacity to discharge the duties of his office with efficiency? Personally, I am quite satisfied to go out of any paid office I hold because the appointed time has come for my retirement, but if I feel, and am adjudged by others to be, as competent as ever to discharge the duties I had been discharging in preceding years, am I to be asked to accept this stigma of having become inefficient? I deny I have become inefficient, while should willingly consent to be retired I think that there is a certain reckless ness in deeming something or other to be what it is not, or, at any rate, need not necessarily be. I desire to make that representation to the Minister for his consideration.
It may be sometimes necessary to deem something which——
Is a lie?
——might not appear to Senator Magennis to be quite in accordance with the facts, in order to secure an advantage. I have no doubt that, if an advantage were being granted, even on that basis, the Senator would not be disposed to accept it, but I can assure him that the effect of the sub-section in this case is to grant a concession to vocational education officers which, if this provision be deleted, they will not receive. Since it is a concession, they may be prepared to accept whatever stigma the phraseology connotes, having regard to the financial advantages that accompany it.
Is there no other method of giving them that advantage than to ask them to go out under the description of having come to years of inefficiency? Surely another procedure could be reasonably followed. I am aware of the advantage to which the Minister refers, but what I am objecting to is the crudeness of the language used and the crudeness of the procedure of which the language is the expression.
May I apply balm to the wounded feelings of the Senator? If you deem A to be B, it is because you know perfectly well that A is not B. It is the regular legal method of getting over a difficulty; you assume something to be the case when it is perfectly obvious that it is not the case. If a person was being retired because he was incapable of carrying on his business, there would be no difficulty. But if you are retiring a person for convenience, although he is perfectly well able to do his work, you deem him to be incapable of doing it. So far from placing any stigma upon him, that implies that he is capable but that, for certain purposes—calculation of pensions and gratuities, which is what the section of the 1925 Act refers to—you deem him to be incapable. There is a joke in the Civil Service that, if you want to resort to extreme measures for a particular purpose, you deem the object which you want to attack to be a musk rat. That is because, when musk rats were endangering the foundations of the dykes in England, they passed a series of measures which allowed you to do anything you pleased with a musk rat—tear him from limb to limb or crucify him head downwards. Since then, if you want to get rid of any other animal, you can get rid of him by deeming him to be a musk rat. I do not think that any person deemed to be incapable of discharging the duties of his office has the slightest stigma put upon him.
In reply to that very ingenious Nisi Prius lawyer's point, I am perfectly aware that, in law, for the purpose of convenience, A is sometimes deemed to be B, although notoriously A is not B, but it is never to the disadvantage of the person concerned that the “deeming” goes on. A man may be allowed to retire so as to mitigate the ignominy of being dismissed and he is deemed to have resigned his post from such and such a date. That is very reasonable and very fair, but to ask him to agree to be deemed to be something that, in the eyes of the public, is disability, that his powers are decayed, that, in short, he is an incapable—that is inequitable and nobody knows that better than Senator Kingsmill Moore.
It was mentioned by the Minister a few moments ago that service as a Gaelic League teacher may be taken into account for the purpose of fixing pensionable service. The Minister is to recommend to the Minister for Local Government that that be taken into account. There are teachers with service as primary and secondary teachers and with service under the Congested Districts Board and, so far as I know, this service is not to be taken into account for pension purposes, though it could be so taken if the Minister would recommend to the Minister for Local Government to accept it. I suggest to the Minister that local committees should be authorised to take such service into account. When a man gives service to the community in one or other of these capacities, it is only right that it should be taken into account when his pension is being fixed.
If local authorities refuse to take those years of service into consideration, will there be any redress? It might happen that a person employed under one local authority would have his years of service as a secondary teacher taken into account for pension purposes and that another local body would refuse to grant a pension commensurate with the number of years' service of a teacher similarly circumstanced. Will the Minister have any power to compel such a body to take service of this type into account?
The position is that the county council is the body which pays the superannuation. As I have already stated, there is no compulsion on a county council to grant any superannuation.
That is very unsatisfactory.
It is by way of custom that superannuation is granted on a certain basis. With regard to the added years, a committee, as in the case of the County Roscommon Vocational Education Committee, may decide in their wisdom or unwisdom not to grant an officer who had service as a Gaelic League teacher the full number of added years which it would be possible to give him on the ground which, I understand, was the reason given by the Roscommon Vocational Education Committee, that while they were willing to give him added years in respect of the period of his service within the county, they were not prepared to give him added years for service outside the county.
That question will certainly arise with the vocational education committees if they are being asked to add on a considerable number of years by way of superannuation for service as a secondary or as primary teacher which had not been given within their own county and, having regard to the heavy liabilities in regard to superannuation that will be falling on local authorities, there may be some disinclination to put up proposals. But, as I said on the Second Reading, I think that, generally speaking, committees will be disposed to treat these cases considerately. If a committee refuses to recommend an officer for the full number of added years to which he may be entitled, he has the right of appeal to the Minister for Local Government. If he does not appeal within six months, then his case goes by the board. That is what actually happened in the Roscommon case so that it cannot be reopened now.
The case of the Congested Districts Board officials who are now in the service can be dealt with if they can be considered to be special cases. The Minister for Local Government, in promising me that he will give special consideration to cases of officers who would not receive superannuation of a reasonable character as they would not have, let us say, 25 years' service, and extra consideration, if I may use the term, if they had primary or secondary teaching service to their credit, does not exclude other types of cases where there might be hardship. It is part of the understanding with the Department of Local Government that, if there are other cases, they can be considered so long as there are special circumstances relating to them, and they are recommended by the committee to the Minister for consideration. The Minister has not promised that the number of years I mentioned in the Second Reading debate will be given in all cases. They would be the maxima. The intention was that every officer with less than 25 years' service, for example, when the age of retiral affected him, might be granted up to a maximum of five years' additional service. If he had a number of years' service as a primary or secondary teacher he might be granted ten added years. That would be the maximum. That does not, as I have said, exclude other cases which had special circumstances relating to them and were deserving of consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), to add at the end of the sub-section the following words:—"and such inquiry shall be held as soon as conveniently may be after the date of the suspension".
I need not spend any time on this amendment because an identical one to an identical section in another Bill was accepted by the House less than five weeks ago. A section similar to this appeared in the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill. I moved exactly the same amendment to it that I am moving now to this section. It was accepted by the Minister and passed by the House. I think it would be unfair to the House to repeat the reasons for an amendment which was accepted so recently. The acceptance of this amendment will bring the sections in the two Bills into uniformity, a matter about which we heard so much.
I supported a similar amendment to the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, and I also support this amendment. Its acceptance will help to clarify the position so far as a suspended officer is concerned. There will be some guarantee to the officer that the inquiry will be held within a reasonable time. We have the precedent for the acceptance of an amendment of this nature by the Minister for Agriculture. I hope, therefore, that this amendment will be accepted to this Bill.
I desire to support the amendment. Its acceptance will ensure not only that the inquiry will take place as soon as possible, but that from the drafting point of view the section will be better.
I have no objection to the acceptance of the amendment, although I do not know that it is really necessary. The meaning that I take out of the expression "as soon as conveniently may be" is "as soon as possible", having regard to the circumstances. If, for example, an officer is suspended by reason of the misuse of funds under his control, it may happen that a special audit, which will have to be made, let us say before the inquiry, will be rendered necessary. Therefore, even with the greatest desire to get the matter dealt with urgently, in justice to the suspended officer, there may be an unavoidable delay. I take it that Senator Kingsmill Moore appreciates that.
I do, and that is why I phrased it "as soon as conveniently may be" to prevent undue delay and the possibility that the threat of suspension could be used unfairly.
Will the Minister take into account that the words in sub-section (1) of the section are:—
"...such alleged failure, misconduct or unfitness is being inquired into".
If a considerable lapse of time occurred between the suspension and the holding of the inquiry into the justification for the suspension, there might be a very considerable loss of salary in the event of the accused person being found wrongly accused. The very words in the sub-section that "such alleged failure, misconduct or unfitness is being inquired into" postulate that the inquiry ensues upon the suspension with the least possible delay.
It does not always.
I am pointing out that the wording of the section implies it.
I take it that if the officer is reinstated, in spite of the appearance of the section otherwise, the matter of his remuneration during the period of his suspension might be considered. But, of course, if he had given no service during that period there would be a question. I do not think, however, that the door should be closed against reconsidering his case.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (3), line 14, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "or the appropriate vocational committee".
Under this section, the vocational committee itself, or the Minister, may suspend an officer, but only the Minister may remove a suspension, and that does not seem to me to be right. I am proposing that the appropriate vocational committee may terminate a suspension under this section and I do not think there is any need for me to dwell on the arguments in favour of it. I think it is common sense that if the committee suspends, the committee should have the right to terminate the suspension, just as when the Minister suspends, he has the right to terminate the suspension.
I desire to support that. Remember that the vocational committee is the body that appoints the teacher who has been suspended, and the members are in touch with the particular teacher's work. If it comes to their knowledge that something has occurred necessitating the suspension of that teacher, and subsequently they find out that their action in suspending him should be modified and they should remove the suspension, I think they should have the right to do it. I thoroughly agree that if a teacher is suspended at the instance of the Minister, only the Minister should have the right to remove that suspension. When a teacher is suspended by the body appointing him, that body should have the right to reinstate him when it has had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances.
The amendment, as it appears to me in any case, does not really accomplish what Senator O'Connell and Senator Ruane have in mind. If the amendment were accepted the clause would read:—
"The Minister or the appropriate vocational committee may terminate a suspension under this section and every such suspension shall continue until so terminated."
I take it from that that whether the suspension is made by the Minister or the committee, the committee would have power, if such an amendment were carried, to terminate the suspension.
That is not intended, anyhow.
That may not be the intention. If it were clear that the amendment referred only to suspension imposed by the committee itself, and sought to give the committee power to terminate it, there might be something to be said for it, but even there, I think, such an amendment ought to envisage the sanction of the Minister being necessary. If the committee were to be able to terminate the suspension of an officer, having first suspended him, without any reference to the Minister, I think that would be unfortunate. I believe the sanction of the Minister should be necessary, and it is clear that the committee could not be given the right to terminate a suspension imposed by the Minister. That would give rise to confusion.
My want of knowledge of drafting must be responsible for leaving the amendment open to the interpretation which the Minister sees in it and which, I now agree, it contains. I intended only that if the vocational committee suspended a teacher or an officer, it would have the right to terminate that suspension, but I did not propose or suggest at all that if the Minister suspended a teacher the committee should have the right to terminate it. I am glad to hear that the Minister admitted that something might be said for what was my real intention and, therefore, with the permission of the House, I will withdraw this amendment and try to get a suitable form of words for the Report Stage.
I was going to suggest that there is a second danger that something in the nature of shuttle play would eventually develop if the power is given to committees to cancel suspensions as they think fit. Suspension is a very serious action and it could be that committees would take it into their heads to use this weapon of suspension too often to bring a teacher to heel.
They can do it now, cannot they?
Of their own volition, or, perhaps, under pressure, they might withdraw the suspension; and then, again, they might find it necessary to use the weapon and I think there might be a danger inherent in the Senator's proposal. If it is the intention, as it seems to be, to withdraw the present amendment and to consider a further one, I would suggest to Senator O'Connell seriously to consider whether it would not be far better, in the interests of the teachers and of the committees, to leave the matter as it stands in the Bill.
The committees have power to suspend now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Under sub-section (3) of this section, the Minister may terminate the suspension of a teacher. Sub-section (1) provides for two different authorities. The first is the Minister. Where there is reason to believe that certain things have happened, he can suspend the man against whom the allegations are made. Under sub-section (3), the Minister may terminate a suspension. What I am not clear about is this: does that apply to a suspension other than that made by the Minister himself?
Yes.
It does, of course. The Minister may terminate a suspension arbitrarily or on grounds stated. Is that act of the Minister taken in substitution for an inquiry? It is clear that where the vocational education committee is the suspendor, an inquiry is to ensure, with a view to determining whether or not the suspension is to be permanent. In other words, is there to be dismissal along with the punishment of having portion of the salary sequestrated? But where the Minister is the suspendor, he is empowered by the section to terminate the suspension, as a result of an inquiry, or merely as a result of representations made to him, or merely because he has come to the conclusion that the offender is sufficiently punished. It seems to me that there is quite an amount of vagueness and want of proper determination in the wording of that clause. So much for sub-section (3). With regard to sub-section (5), the Bill declares:
"The holder of an office who is suspended under this section shall not be paid any remuneration in respect of such office during the continuance of his suspension...."
The Minister said, just now, that in the case of the suspended officer making a good defence, or on its being discovered that he has been unjustifiably suspended, compensation can be paid to him, but I thought he added some reservation in regard to that which I did not quite clearly apprehend. It is possible under sub-section (5) that the holder is not paid any remuneration in respect of his office during the continuance of his suspension which may be unduly prolonged owing to protracted investigations.
"... the remuneration which he would, had he not been suspended, have been paid during the period of suspension shall be wholly or partly forfeited, or paid to him, or otherwise disposed of, as the Minister shall direct."
I can see nothing in the wording there but the conferring on the Minister of very arbitrary power. By implication he is permitted to fine. He is not a court of law; the Minister is not a court. By implication in this section he is permitted to fine by withholding the whole or part of the salary. The Minister, incidentally, in a previous reply said: "He was not employed during that interval," meaning, as I took it, he therefore had earned no salary. Let us not forget that he was suspended by his employers because of some allegation or other which has not been sustained, in the supposititious case that I make of the man being cleared in regard to the offence with which he is charged.
It seems to me this is very arbitrary and, with regard to that, I should be so audacious as to say that the Minister has been very badly served in the draftsmanship of his Bills. This is not the first Education Bill which has been a mass of words, clauses within clauses, exceptions within exceptions, until we have had just now one section where there was a sentence I counted of 35 lines. It is very hard for anyone to follow the complexities of these statements. I take it on myself to allege that Section 7 is a particularly bad example of draftsmanship:—
"Whenever in respect of the holder of an office under a vocational education committee there is, in the opinion of such committee"——
This Bill abounds in "suches"—
"or of the Minister, reason to believe that such holder has failed to perform satisfactorily the duties of such office or has misconducted himself in relation to such office"——
whatever that means—
"or is otherwise unfit to hold such office, such committee or the Minister (as the case may be) may suspend such holder from the performance of the duties of such office while such alleged failure, misconduct, or unfitness is being inquired into..."
If that is not verbiage, I do not know what verbiage is. In attempting to understand it, I can only say that sub-section (5) amounts to conferring on the Minister the power of penalising, inflicting a penalty, and that, as I understand, under the Constitution, belongs to a court or a tribunal equivalent to it. There is a want of thought about the whole matter, as if the thing were arrived at hurriedly. I regret to say that, but I feel it my duty to say it.
The House may not be aware that Section 7 is based on Section 11 of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act of 1926. Lest it might be made to appear, therefore, that I am seeking to secure new powers as regards the suspension of officers, I want to make it clear to An Seanad that this power has been always there. It is true there are two new sub-sections.
I am not attacking the Minister's power to suspend. If I have expressed myself to that effect, I have made a mistake. I had no intention of derogating in any degree from the power of the Minister to suspend.
The two new sub-sections are (3), which empowers the Minister to terminate a suspension, and (4), which makes provision for the handing up of all books and documents held by the officer who is suspended. As regards sub-section (5), sub-section (3) in the original Act of 1926 reads:
"An officer who is suspended under this section shall not receive any remuneration from the local authority during the continuance of his suspension, and at the termination of his suspension the remuneration which he would have received during the period of suspension if he had not been suspended shall be wholly or partly forfeited, or paid to him, or otherwise disposed of, as the Minister shall direct."
I have been operating these powers for the past 11 years and I do not think I have ever had a case of suspension of that kind—perhaps I might have had one or two. I certainly think that Senator Magennis's fears are groundless—unless we are to deprive Ministers of all reasonable discretion in dealing with cases of suspension by endeavouring to put down in black and white, in advance, all the circumstances that may arise. It may happen that the Minister, if he took a severe attitude in regard to a suspended officer, might press for his dismissal. On the other hand, he may consider that the suspension over a period has been a sufficient punishment—and the Minister may not be wrong in that. According to Senator Magennis, perhaps there may be some constitutional point at issue——
Yes.
——but, on the whole, I think that it is reasonable to permit the Minister to have a discretion in the matter.
I should like to say that the fact that there is a similar provision to this in legislation already passed, does not necessarily make this right or justified. The Minister has power, should he wish to use it, to refuse to pay any remuneration to a teacher for the period of his suspension, even though the charge may be unfounded. I do not see any reason why, if the complaint on which he has been suspended is found on investigation to be unjustified and unsustainable, he should not get full payment for the period of suspension. All the Bill says is that it might be wholly or partly forfeited, or it might be paid to him or otherwise disposed of. But there is no assurance that, even if he is found not guilty of the charges made against him—even if it is found that there is no justification for the complaint on which he was suspended— that he will be paid his salary for the full period of his suspension.
I can cite for the Minister's information a case which occurred under a previous Government, before he was appointed Minister for Education, of a teacher who was arrested and charged with an offence. Some considerable time elapsed before his trial came on and he was then found not guilty. In the meantime, another teacher had been appointed in his place and was being paid by the Department. When the teacher asked that he should be paid for the period of his suspension, the answer was: "We cannot pay two people for the same job at the same time. We have already paid a teacher and we cannot pay you."
Eventually, and only as a result of a threat of legal proceedings, of bringing the Department into court, they did pay up. They could have been taken into court only because they made a technical mistake at the beginning, but only for that the teacher could have gone without his salary, just because another teacher was paid in his place. It is not fair that there should not be a full assurance to the teacher concerned that if charges against him prove to be frivolous or unfounded, he will get his salary for the period of his suspension.
The Minister has not replied to my inquiry with regard to sub-section (3): "The Minister may terminate a suspension under this section." My question was whether he did that by his absolute flat, or as a result of some inquiry or substitution for an inquiry. On the constitutional point, may I be permitted to give a parallel out of my own experience? For the first five years of the operation of the law in respect of the censoring of films, I had the unpleasant office of chairman of the Film Appeals Board, and, according to the law, the film renter's representative here was at liberty to appeal against the decision of the State censor refusing a certificate of exhibition, on depositing the sum of £5. If the chairman of the appeal board decided against him, that is, in favour of the State censor's refusal of a certificate, the £5 could be, and frequently was, forfeited.
At the end of my period of office, when the "talkies", as they are called, were beginning to make a threatening appearance above the horizon, I wrote a report on the operation of the film censorship legislation and the work of the censorship by way of advice to the Government, and I pointed out that, in exercising this function and withholding from the film renter the reimbursement of his £5, I was, in effect, inflicting a fine. I fined him £5 for daring to appeal against the State censor without being able to win, and I drew attention in that report to the fact that there was nothing in the Constitution entitling our Film Appeals Board to fine anyone, for that was the function of a judge, according to the Constitution. In our new Constitution, because of that representation, I take it, there is a specific article empowering bodies which are not in the strict sense courts of law, or individuals who are not in the strict sense judges, to do certain things which are equivalent to acts of a court. I regret that, speaking extempore, I am not able to cite the number of the Article, but I know it is there.
Surely if, as was pointed out by Senator O'Connell, the Minister is authorised to withhold payment of his salary from a man who has been suspended, even though it is proved in the last resort that he has been unfairly suspended, it is analogous to that of the chairman of the Appeals Board on films fining the renter's representative for not having succeeded in his appeal. I suggest, with all respect, that the Minister should take this Bill back and reconsider its wording. As Senator O'Connell very properly says, the fact that it was passed in 1926 does not make it valid in 1944, when it undergoes revision, or ought to undergo revision. A great many things pass through without being adverted to, which subsequent reflection will show should have been considered at greater length and in more detail. There is one thing we ought to avoid, and especially in an Act for the beneficial improvement of the education of the people, that is, injustice. It is an irony to introduce the power to do an injustice into a Bill which purports to be for the betterment of the educational system of the country.
I am sorry I had to leave the House on the business of the Seanad. I wanted to make a point on this sub-section. Vocational teachers are not extremely well-paid. They can ill afford to lose an income, and if a man is suspended and it is subsequently found that there was no reason for his suspension, it is quite unjust that for something over which he had no control and which occurred through no fault of his, he should be deprived of two, three, or perhaps six months' salary. The Minister who knows these circumstances as well as we do should provide that where a man is found not guilty, against whom nothing is proved and whose suspension proves to have had no reasonable grounds, he should not suffer. He belongs to a class of people who are not well paid and the loss of a few months' salary is a very serious matter for him. If the committee or the Minister has made the mistake, then the committee or the Minister should pay for it, and not the victim of the mistake.
I should like to know what is the meaning of the words "or otherwise dispose of". If a man is not paid his salary during suspension, I can quite understand his salary being withheld, if he is found guilty, and if there are extenuating circumstances and a man is reinstated, I can quite understand a partial payment being made. It would be a matter between the paying person and the employee, but how the Minister can take power to dispose of it otherwise, I find it very difficult to understand. I find it difficult to see that there would be any moral right to dispose of it otherwise, except maybe by paying it to the man's family.
It might be given to the man's family. Only one or two cases have arisen during my period of office, and the legislation generally regarding these matters of suspension is in conformity with the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1941. Generally speaking, the disciplinary code which is enforced through the Minister for Local Government and Public Health would be similar to that enforced by the Minister for Education, so far as the vocational education service is concerned. The hypothetical cases mentioned do not get us very far. Even if, to meet the point made, a definite amendment were put into the section, providing for the case where it had been proved that a suspension was wrong and unjust, there would still remain, I presume, the position that the Minister would have to be satisfied before the suspended officer could be paid. I do not think you could give the power to the committee, any more than you could give them power to terminate the suspension without reference to the Minister. I do not think you could give the committee power to pay an officer, without any reference to the Minister, as to whether the circumstances justified it. In the long run, you either have to accept the position that I mentioned in reply to Senator Magennis, to leave the Minister discretion, and agree that he ought to be satisfied or you do not.
Perhaps I did not fully realise the point made by Senator Magennis and did not go as far as I could have gone in meeting him. I should have made it clear that I have no doubt whatever, where it is proved that the suspension was wrong, or unjust, or should not have been made, that the Minister would direct that payment should be made to the officer for the period of his suspension. Even if the amendment was introduced, I do not see how the matter could be settled without reference to the Minister, in the last resort.
The Minister's point is that the practice will be, where an officer's name is cleared, that the salary will be paid in full?
Yes.
Would that apply if a committee was obliged to pay a substitute during the suspension?
I think so.
That is fair enough.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 36, to delete the word "lawfully", and after the word "office" in line 37 to insert the words, "by any person or body duly authorised to give such order."
The object of the amendment is to clarify what is set out in the section and, if I may put it that way, to make it more readily understood. The word "lawfully" in relation to any order may have a legal meaning that would not be clear to the ordinary man in the street. There is no need for argument in favour of the amendment which I believe makes more definite what is intended by the section.
Surely what the Senator desires is covered by the section as it stands? A lawful order can only be lawful if given by a person duly authorised to give it.
I think the section as it stands covers the point as to the authority of the person issuing the order, and its legality for the person who receives it and is asked to carry it out. The amendment covers only one point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:—
To delete sub-section (3).
This is a very important amendment from the point of view of officers and teachers engaged under vocational education committees.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is now 5.55 p.m., and this amendment may give rise to extended debate.
Shall I move to report progress until after the tea interval?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Before the Senator does so I should say that I understand it would be convenient if it could be arranged to take the Second Stage of the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill this evening, and I am informed it has been agreed, through the usual channels, that it might be taken at 7 p.m. I presume that arrangement meets with general acceptance. When that business has been concluded, we will resume on the Committee Stage of this Bill.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again later to-day.
Business suspended at 5.55 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.