§ 66. Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the diversity of judicial opinion which exists on the question whether a teacher in an elementary school can be dismissed on grounds not connected with the giving of religious instruction without the consent of the local education authority; and whether he will introduce legislation providing that in such a case a teacher cannot be dismissed without such consent?
§ Mr. FISHERI am aware that there is some doubt as to the law on the subject; but the doubt gives rise to no difficulty in practice, and I do not propose to introduce legislation on the subject.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance of this matter to teachers if only that they may know what is their term of office, and will he consider the strong desirability of bringing the law into accordance with the intention of Parliament when it passed the Education Act?
§ Mr. FISHERI have carefully considered this matter in view of the question of the hon. Member, and I have come to the conclusion that no difficulty ever arises in practice as a result of this particular ambiguity in the law.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERDoes my right hon. Friend know that this difficulty already exists, and comes into effect in practice, because there have been three lawsuits? No one knows what the law is about.
§ Mr. FISHERI am quite aware of these lawsuits, but in every case the managers of non-provided schools have based their action upon the fact that the teacher has not been satisfactory on religious instruction; they have never based dismissal on the ground that the teacher has been unsatisfactory on secular subjects.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERIs it desirable that the teacher should be put to the great cost of litigation to determine whether or not he has been dismissed rightly or wrongly?
§ Sir E. CARSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if a man is presumed to know the law when the law is doubtful?
§ Mr. FISHERThat is a point upon which my right hon. and learned Friend is better able to judge than I am.
§ Mr. G. BALFOURDo I understand my right hon. Friend to admit the ambiguity of the law at the present moment; if so, will he take the necessary steps to remove that ambiguity?