asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that at the recent inquiry held at Raharoon national school, Cork, the parents of the children whose complaints had brought about the inquiry were not permitted to give evidence to the inquiry Inspector; that the doctor who had attended some of the children presented himself to the Inspector, but was not permitted to give evidence; that one of the parents who signed a document asking that the teacher be retained admitted under crossexamination that his daughter had been beaten but that he signed the document because he wanted his child safe in future; that the fact that the inquiry was held in secret is a cause of grave unrest; and whether in these circumstances he will arrange to have a full and open inquiry into the allegations which were the subject of the complaint.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Cork School Inquiry.
The nature of the Deputy's question makes it necessary that I give once again the salient facts of this case.
Three matters fell to be considered by the recent inquiry. These were:
(1) the allegation that since court proceedings taken by a Mr. Hurley against the teacher concerned, this teacher had ignored the Hurley children;
(2) allegations by a Mrs. O'Sullivan of ill-treatment of her children;
(3) the further allegation by Mrs. O'Sullivan that since the court proceedings to which I have already referred her child had been ignored by the teacher.
The senior of the three National School inspectors who conducted the inquiry found from the school records that none of the Hurley children enrolled in the teacher's class had attended school since the court proceedings. Accordingly, the allegation in the case of the Hurley children that the teacher ignored them had no substance —the teacher could not have refused to teach children who were not in his class. That being so Mr. Hurley's allegation did not fall to be considered by the inquiry and he had no locus standi in relation to it. Incidentally, Mr. Hurley has since acknowledged the fact that he did not send the children concerned to the school since the court proceedings.
The evidence which the doctor was being called on to give related to matters which were the subject of the court proceedings. These matters having been disposed of by the court and having been previously investigated by me and action in relation to the teacher having been taken by me in regard to them, there could be no question of reopening them at the inquiry.
I have seen the record of the evidence given at the inquiry. It is not true that one of the parents who signed a document asking that the teacher be retained admitted under crossexamination that his daughter had been beaten but that he signed the document because he wanted his child safe in future.
There can be no question of inferring from the fact that the inquiry was a non-public inquiry that it was a secret inquiry. Everyone who had any locus standi in relation to it was allowed to be present, to be legally represented and to call any witness that he desired to be called.
The question of grave unrest in relation to the inquiry because of secrecy does not, therefore, arise nor does the remainder of the Deputy's question.