Last night I moved this amendment which proposes to delete sub-section (3) of Section 8. This sub-section and Section 9, with which I shall deal later, are the two provisions in this Bill which have caused most uneasiness to those principally concerned. I confess that I did not read the Dáil debates on the Bill, but so far as I have listened to the Minister I have not heard from him or from anybody else any satisfactory explanation as to why these provisions were introduced. I did hear the Minister say—a similar statement was made by the Minister for Agriculture when the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill was before the House—that the object of the two Bills was to effect some degree of uniformity between these particular officers of local authorities and officers under the Department of Local Government. The Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, to which I have referred, does not contain the sub-section that I am moving to delete from Section 8 of this Bill. In fact, it does not contain sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) of Section 8. When we examine the Local Government Act on which this is supposed to be modelled, we also find that there is no provision in Section 25 similar to that which is now contained in sub-section (3) of this Bill.
In this provision the Minister takes power to himself to dismiss an officer and to remove an officer without giving him the right of inquiry. That right is not taken from an officer under the agricultural committees nor is it taken from an officer under the Local Government Department. In the Vocational Act, 1930, which made all provisions for the operation of the vocational committees, for the transfer of teachers and for the conditions under which they were to be appointed and to operate, there is a special section—Section 27—which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House. The section says:
"The Minister may by Order, either upon or without any suggestion or complaint from a vocational education committee, remove from his office or employment any paid officer or servant of a vocational education committee (whether appointed by or transferred by this Act to such committee) whom he considers unfit or incompetent to perform his duties, or who at any time refuses or wilfully neglects to perform his duties or any of them, and may direct that a fit and proper person be appointed in his place in accordance with the law relating to appointments to such office or employment."
That is sub-section (1) of Section 27. Here is sub-section (2):
"The Minister shall not remove under this section from his office an officer or servant of a vocational education committee unless and until he has caused a local inquiry to be held under this Act in relation to the performance by such officer or servant of his duties as such officer or servant and considered the report of the person who held such local inquiry."
Now, that was a right given to the Minister under the Act to dispense with the services of any person who was unfit or incompetent to perform his duties, but it also provided that this action could not be taken until a local inquiry was held at which all charges against the person concerned would be fully investigated.
The Minister on the Second Reading, referring to the criticisms of this particular section, pointed out that this inquiry was of a legal nature. Yes, it is provided under the Vocational Education Act, 1930, that the officer appointed by the Minister to hold a local inquiry may by summons in the prescribed form signed by him require any person to attend at the time and place (not being a place more than 30 miles from the residence of such person) named in such summons and there and then to give evidence or produce any document in his power, possession, or procurement relating to any matter in question at such inquiry or do both such things. The Act then goes on to say that evidence may be taken on oath. The Minister said that as this inquiry set out in the Vocational Education Act was of a legal nature where evidence is taken on oath, witnesses are summoned and counsel may be employed, then he did not see any reason why the Minister for Education should be bound to hold such an inquiry in a case where he was satisfied that a teacher was giving unsatisfactory service.
This Vocational Education Act has been in operation for some 12 years. The Minister himself has paid tribute to the successful manner in which it was operated and that is a tribute in which we can all join. I want to know, however, why he has thought it necessary at this stage to introduce this particular provision in this Bill? Has he been in any way hampered or impeded in operating the Act or in getting rid of any person who was proved to be unfit, because he could do so only after holding a local inquiry? I do not think he can say that. I would be surprised if he could. I know, and every Senator here knows, that his action in bringing in this provision taking away the right to be removed from office only on the result of a local inquiry has caused uneasiness and heart-burnings among the teachers engaged by the vocational committees. They have seen no necessity for it and they do not understand why this right should be taken away from them. If the Minister is of opinion that an officer is incompetent or is discharging his duties unsatisfactorily, that opinion is formed on the report of an inspector, and it is no reflection on inspectors to say that they are human like the rest of us, that they are fallible, that they are liable to make mistakes and commit errors of judgment.
I have been too long associated with inspection and have experience of inspectors long enough to know that errors have been made and that inspectors may form different opinions of the same work, of the same officer or of the same teacher. I do not at all agree that an inquiry is superfluous in the case of dismissal or of removal of a teacher from office for inefficiency or for alleged inefficiency. There may be many matters which would come out at an inquiry of that kind which would go a considerable distance, go the whole distance, in fact, towards refuting the suggestion that this teacher was inefficient. After all, inefficiency is a matter of opinion and it is often based on wrong conclusions. We know, too, that an inspector going into a school spends a very short time in that school and he has to sum up in that short time his opinion of the work which that teacher has been doing over a very long period, perhaps over a whole series of months. The adverse circumstances that may be affecting a man's work—his own possible illness, the illness of his family, bad attendance of pupils—all these things may be factors and important factors, too, in determining whether the teacher should be continued or not in his work.
I cannot see for the life of me why it should be thought necessary on the rare occasions on which this occurs— and they are bound to be rare occasions in which it is necessary to remove a teacher because he is alleged to be inefficient—for a Minister to put in a provision taking away the right granted to the teacher under the Vocational Education Act. I cannot see why that should be done, especially at a time like this when we are anxious that the whole machine should run smoothly and when our whole industrial and economic future may be said to be dependent on the work of these vocational schools. Nobody will stand more strongly for efficiency than I will, but I want to make sure that inefficiency is proved home before a man is deprived of his livelihood because of a charge of inefficiency.
If the Minister were wise, he should not be content that he alone would be satisfied; he should take steps to show that other people interested were satisfied that the teacher was inefficient—that even the teacher himself would be convinced of his inefficiency by the facts that would come out at an inquiry, that his committee would be convinced, and that there could be no suggestion or allegation that injustice was done to him. I think even that consideration is something that would make a full inquiry of the kind set out in the Vocational Act necessary and advisable.
I ask the Minister, in the interest of the smooth running of the educational machine—the effective operation of it—to reconsider the wisdom of including this particular sub-section that I want to delete. I trust that Senators, in all fair play, will bring such pressure on the Minister as will induce him to reconsider it. It is our duty to see that anything that causes discontent and uneasiness in the ranks of a body of public servants, such as these teachers, should be removed, unless there is a very great necessity shown by the Minister for its existence.