asked the Minister for Education if his attention has been called to the report in the Press on the 11th instant of the remarks of the Circuit Court Judge at Skibbereen on the 10th instant, in his decision in an action against a national school teacher for cruelty in punishing a girl of 10 years of age, a pupil in his school, where the judge, having stated that the punishment in question was a most wicked thing, had to dismiss the action, in view of decisions in the High Court in such matters; whether the Minister would state what were those decisions; and further, whether, if the law in the matter of the administration of corporal punishment is not in conformity with his policy, he will take steps to have the law amended to render such punishment illegal.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Skibbereen Court Case
My attention has been called to a newspaper report of the case referred to and to the comments of the judge.
The present policy of my Department with regard to corporal punishment in national schools is indicated in the official regulations on the subject. The regulations, in the modified form, of which I have recently approved, are as follows:—
(1) Corporal punishment should be administered only for grave transgression.
(2) The principal teacher, or another member of the staff authorised by him, should inflict the corporal punishment.
(3) Only a light cane or rod may be used for the purpose of inflicting the corporal punishment. The boxing of children's ears, the pulling of their hair or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden, and will be visited with severe penalties.
(4) No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment.
(5) Frequent recourse to corporal punishment will be considered by the Department as indicating bad tone and ineffective discipline.
My Department takes disciplinary action where it is found that the regulations have been violated.
Assuming that the learned judge made, on the occasion, the statements attributed to him in the report, I am not in a position to state the decisions of the High Court which he had in mind. I am aware that decrees have been made against individual teachers for unreasonable punishment. In the circumstances, I see no reason for amendment of the law as suggested in the question.
Would the Minister not think it advisable to ask the Circuit Court Judge what decisions he relied upon when dismissing this case?
I doubt the propriety of my approaching the judge to ask the grounds upon which he based his decision. It seems to me that it would be rather questioning the decision of the judge, and therefore I do not feel at liberty to take the step suggested by the Deputy.
Is the Minister aware that before asking this question besmirching the character of an honoured member of an honoured profession, Deputy Sir James Craig made no inquiry as to the facts or as to the accuracy of the report? Is the Minister further aware that that omission was due to the fact that when the Deputy was a schoolboy he was not sufficiently belaboured, and will the Minister see that effective steps are taken to prevent a similar omission in the case of present and future pupils?
No reflection on the character of anyone is contained in this question.
I merely asked a question whether the Minister had received a report.
The report is inaccurate.
I passed no reflection either on the Deputy or on his friends.
Arising out of the question, is the Minister satisfied that the law is in accordance with the policy of his Department?
I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Would not the decision of the Circuit Court Judge in this case give the Minister reason to believe otherwise?
Not necessarily. I have not seen the actual decision—only the report in the paper.