Each of the Deputies will have five minutes and the Minister will have five minutes to reply.
Adjournment Debate. - Corporal Punishment in Schools.
I regret the absence of the Minister this evening. At approximately 3.17 this afternoon the Minister for Education stood up to answer three questions, Nos. 24, 25 and 26. Question No. 24 in the name of Deputy Noel Browne asked the Minister if he has concluded his consideration of the question of the total abolition of corporal punishment in schools. Question No. 25 in the name of Deputy Horgan asked him when he expects to be in a position to make a policy statement on the matter. Question No. 26 in my name asked him if he would make a statement on his intentions concerning the abolition of corporal punishment in schools.
Despite those three clear question the Minister proceeded to give a summary of the opinions he had received from the various vocational interests involved. At approximately 3.35 p.m. Deputy Horgan and I requested the Minister to complete his answer in writing. That was an unprecedented request on our part but it was because of our frustration at the manner in which the Minister chose to treat the House. As spokesman on Education for Fine Gael I deeply regretted having to do that.
The Minister could have answered the question in relation to the opinions he had received by saying that he would circulate them with the Official Report. That is a normal procedure which would have been acceptable to the spokesmen for Fine Gael and Labour. We requested from the Minister—we did not receive it in his reply—his conclusions and his policy in respect of corporal punishment in the schools. Obviously the most vital area is the primary schools but we have not received the clear policy statement from the Minister which we requested.
We also request a clear policy statement in relation to secondary schools. I am aware, in relation to the vocational schools, that corporal punishment is not part of the discipline in them. I am not aware that corporal punishment is an integral part of discipline in community and comprehensive schools. I am fully aware of the need for discipline in all our schools and for the continuation of a policy of pastoral care by the many teachers who do an excellent job throughout the country.
I am looking for a clear statement from the Minister in regard to his intentions on corporal punishment and in relation to the rules for national schools, when he will revise those rules and if he will allow corporal punishment to form part of those rules and regulations. The Minister obviously tried to evade the whole question today in the manner in which he treated the House and in the grossly unsatisfactory reply he gave.
I want, from the Minister of State, whom I take to represent the Minister, a clear indication of the Minister's position in respect of corporal punishment. I want a clear "yes" or "no" to the question: "Does the Minister intend to abolish corporal punishment as an integral part of the policy in relation to discipline in schools throughout the country?" It does not need a debate. Many people throughout the country are waiting for the Minister's answer. Unfortunately, he was cowardly in his answer today. I look forward to the answer tonight from the Minister of State.
Like Deputy Collins, I was absolutely flabbergasted by the extraordinary and unprecedented approach taken by the Minister in relation to a comparatively simple question. I do not know if he was over-reacting to the attitude of a previous Minister for Education who once caused a lot of controversy in the House by answering 17 questions in four lines. If he was he certainly overdid it in a way which must cast some doubt on his willingness to face up to the basic issues involved.
The Minister's answer, which I received this afternoon, had two main characteristics: (1) it was as long as his speech introducing the NCEA Bill in the House some time ago, and (2) it actually failed to answer many of the questions it was supposed to answer and spent a great deal of time supplying information which no Deputy had asked for. I am speaking now particularly in relation to my own question which asked the Minister for Education if he has now heard from teaching and managerial associations in response to his request for their views on corporal punishment in schools, the associations which have replied to date, the associations from which he is awaiting a reply, when he expects to be in position to make a policy statement on the matter and if he will accord the Dáil an opportunity of discussing such a statement.
I asked the Minister if he had heard from the associations to whom he had written. The simple answer to that was "yes". In place of that simple answer we got an amazing, verbally delivered, screed of quotation from the organisations and associations in question. A lot of this information is very useful and very valuable—I do not deny that for a moment—but the proper way to give this information is by circulating it with the Official Report. He did not answer the question which asked him when he expected to be in a position to make a policy statement on the matter. He did not answer the question in which I asked him if he would afford the Dáil an opportunity of discussing such a statement.
In my comparatively brief period in the House I have learned to expect that when a Minister answers a question at inordinate length it is at least partly with a view to attempt to confuse the Opposition and blind them to the fact that he is avoiding one of the key issues. Certainly when one gets to the end of this very lengthy reply it is clear that the key issue is avoided.
It is interesting that quotations are not normally permitted under the rules of order at question time and certainly not by Deputies in supplementary questions. When the quotations are over we turn to the last page in an attempt to find out anything about the Minister's intentions concerning the abolition of corporal punishment in schools or anything about whether the Minister has concluded his consideration of the question. We find nothing but a three-line bromide which states that the views are carefully thought out and responsible and they indicate the very high ideals that motivate the various organisations. I have no doubt that the organisations concerned are motivated by high ideals.
Two things occur to me from the Minister's reply, the first being the strong volume in favour of abolition from teachers and, secondly, the relatively small input to the survey by parents. We must record our disagreement with the Minister's handling of this question and, in particular, with his failure to answer the basic question. It is not clear from the answer he gave precisely what question he asked the various educational associations. I believe it is now clear that he probably asked the wrong question. It was probably a general question about their views on discipline. If the Minister had had the courage of what I think are his own abolitionist tendencies, he would have asked them straight out if they would now have any objection to the abolition of corporal punishment. That would have given him a far firmer basis for a positive innovation in the area of discipline than this series of replies, however worthy they may be.
By the length and manner of his reply, the Minister seems to be evading his ultimate responsibility for the overall conduct of education. The whole concept of discipline and punishment is something which goes to the root of education and it is because the Minister must ultimately face up to this responsibility that we have put down these questions. We will continue to press the Minister on this until we get a satisfactory answer. The Minister has a couple of years to do it but we would prefer he did it sooner rather than later.
The House and, I hope, the two Deputies who have spoken will accept that controlled freedom in school, as in all human activities, is essential. I think Deputies Collins and Horgan would not presume to argue the opposite. If they were to do so, I would suggest that they, having had experience of schools as I have had, would not relish the occasion where anything other than the need for this controlled freedom would operate.
Ideally this control might be self-imposed and based mainly on the recognition by the individual of the rights of others. We must continue to strive for the ideal and must not blind ourselves to facts as they exist. Young people and adults experience difficulty in living up to this ideal in any situation. For the establishment of this control and its maintenance, a code of regulations is necessary. Such a code must provide for the imposition of sanctions in the event of a deliberate, serious and repeated transgression. In the case of schools, the sanctions may take various forms and there will always be a variety of views among parents, teachers and others as to the best approach to these sanctions and the best manner in which the overall aim of schools may be achieved.
The same is true in countries where they have abolished corporal punishment.
Will the Minister abolish it?
If the Deputy will bear with me——
Tempus fugit.
The manner in which I am employing it is as important as the manner in which the Deputy employed it. If we are to have a discussion Deputies must accept that there are two sides. I am surprised that Deputy Collins should say it is a simple matter of have it or not. That is not in accord with the interest of teachers. If Deputy Collins, as spokesman for Fine Gael on this matter, says that this is a matter of a simple "yes" or "no" he is doing a disservice to that spokesmanship.
Rule 130 of the Rules for National Schools under the Department of Education deals with this matter and states:
Teachers should have a lively regard for the improvement and general welfare of their pupils, treat them with kindness combined with firmness and should aim at governing them through their affections and reason and not by harshness and severity. Ridicule, sarcasm or remarks likely to undermine a pupil's self-confidence should be avoided.
Deputies know as well as I do that there are forms of punishment worse than physical punishment which can be imposed on any child. Are we to pursue the elimination of those?
They are ruled out under Rule 130.
Yes, but I do not hear the Deputy in pursuit of this. He knows that a teacher, if so disposed, can be far more vicious and act in a manner much more detrimental to the welfare of the child by unseen sanctions. Does the Deputy propose that we pursue each teacher and examine his or her disposition or personality to discover whether or not he or she is likely to impose these on the students? If the Deputy gives an answer to that, then I will accept that this is a simple matter.
We have the report now of 21 interested parties and I would suggest that the debate can be of benefit to Deputies if they examine this report. Then we will reach the conclusion which the Deputies wish in this matter. I share the desire to reach a conclusion, but not in the hurried, irresponsible fashion Deputy Collins would suggest.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 7 December 1978.