asked the Minister for Education whether the immediate inquiry which he stated on the 16th April, 1958, he had directed in the case of a principal teacher at a County Cork school against whom damages were awarded for assaulting a pupil has yet begun; and, if so, when; and, if not, whether it is for the reason given by him on the 16th April that the inspector was examining another matter or for the reason given by the Minister for the Gaeltacht speaking on his behalf on the 30th April that the expiry of the time allowed by law for appeal was being awaited.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Assault on Pupil.
The inquiry was initiated on 22nd March, 1958, by my Department. The inspector who was directed to investigate the matter was at the time engaged on other urgent work and was given permission to postpone making his investigation until he had completed that other work. He has now submitted a report in the case. This is the preliminary step in the procedure followed in such cases. Until the further necessary steps have been taken it will not be possible for me to come to a decision or to make any statement in regard to the case. From what I have said it will be seen that the other parts of the Deputy's question do not arise.
Is it not clear from the delay taking place in making this inquiry, the need for which was proved in the courts as far back as March last, that the Minister has been guilty of the most serious neglect in his responsibilities and that as a result of the series of evasive, misleading and, in my opinion, downright dishonest replies given to my questions, he has avoided trying to come to a decision?
The Deputy's remarks are based on a misunderstanding of the position. The Deputy's question was directed to my Department at a stage when the teacher in the case could have appealed the decision of the Circuit Court judge.
That lasted ten days.
That had not passed at the time the Deputy put down his first question. When it had passed, I then directed the inspector to make the inquiry to which I have referred. As I said, the inspector was at the time engaged on other important work, and he asked the Department whether he should be permitted to continue this other important work or suspend it and investigate the alleged assault. He was told under the circumstances that he should continue the work he was at. He has since completed that work, made his investigation into the alleged assault and made his report to the Department. The teacher in the case and the manager of the school each has the right to submit his observations in the matter. These have now been requested and I am awaiting receipt of them. Then I will be in a position to take whatever action is considered appropriate.
Can the Minister explain why if he, as Minister, ordered an immediate inquiry, that inquiry was deferred as a result of the activities of somebody other than himself? Surely when he ordered an immediate inquiry, it should have been carried out? Can he give us any indication as to when this matter can be concluded? It is quite clear that a competent court has decided the man is guilty.
There is no question of the man being found guilty of anything. As I told the Deputy previously, it is a civil action in respect of which an award of damages was made.
On the second occasion the Deputy directed a question to me, I told him I had then directed an immediate inquiry, but subsequent to that, it came to my notice that the inspector concerned was engaged on other important work, and, as a result, I directed that he be permitted to complete that work before he undertook his investigation. That is the explanation of any delay that might appear to have taken place in the investigation being carried out by the inspector.
With regard to the conclusion of the investigation, that will depend entirely on when I receive the observations of the school manager and the teacher concerned.
Surely there could not be anything more serious than a case of gross criminal misconduct on the part of a teacher?
I should like to make it clear that there is no suggestion in this case of any criminal misconduct. The Deputy insists on making these charges.
Why did he not appeal the decision of the court? Is the Minister questioning the competence of the court or the justice of the verdict?
You are only creating "Teddy boys" that way.