asked the Minister for Education the basis under which a teacher is permitted to assault or beat a pupil in school.
2.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Corporal Punishment in Schools.
1.
asked the Minister for Education if a teacher may use corporal punishment on a child in school against the express wish of the parents.
3.
asked the Minister for Education if the parents of a child in (a) national or (b) secondary schools have a right to insist that their child shall not receive corporal punishment in that school, notwithstanding the existence of a policy in the school in question of allowing such forms of punishment.
With the permission of the Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
As the maintenance of school discipline is a matter, in the first instance, for the management authorities of each school, any arrangement for the exemption of an individual pupil from a particular provision of the disciplinary code of the school would be a matter for agreement between the parent or parents of the child concerned and the management authorities of the school concerned.
Would the Minister not agree that a child has the same protection in law as any individual in society against assault by another member of society?
The word "assult" is an emotive word, as the Deputy will realise.
An adult beating a child.
I agree with the general thesis of the Deputy that a child has the same rights as anybody else in law.
Would the Minister not agree that he, as the Minister with the power, should take a decision in respect of this continued practice of adults beating little children in our schools? Is it not a fact that all the eastern and western European countries and the United States can maintain discipline without the use of corporal punishment in schools, except for British schools and they are now under threat in a decision of the European courts——
The Deputy is making a statement, not asking a question.
——where it has been decided that the practice in the Isle of Man is a degrading punishment? Surely the Minister could take a decision at last? I have been asking this question for nearly 25 years. Could the Minister not act now and remove the disgrace from our name of adults beating little children?
We cannot have statements at Question Time.
I am aware that corporal punishment is not used in many of the western or eastern European countries. I am not very sure about my power to remove it from the system. As I said in my answer, the question of discipline is a matter for the school authorities in the first instance.
This is parliament.
What is a parent to do in the absence of the agreement he spoke about? In other words, if a parent does not want his child to be beaten in school and the school says he will be beaten if the teacher thinks he ought to be, what can the parent do?
That is a good point. I would like to read paragraph 4 of a letter which was issued in October 1969 by the Department of Education in the context of the teacher being in loco parentis so far as the child is concerned and its relevance to the Deputy's supplementary.
As has already been pointed out the sanction for use of corporal punishment in schools does not arise from Departmental regulations. It proceeds from the legal relationship between pupil and teacher, which is that the teacher stands in loco parentis and therefore may use such means of discipline and correction as might be used by a wise and prudent parent. In that the teacher stands in loco parentis it follows that the parents of a particular school or of a particular educational area, if they object to the use of corporal punishment, may insist, through the school manager or the appropriate educational authority, that the use of corporal punishment does not form part of the school disciplinary code. Because of this a manager of a school may forbid the use of corporal punishment in the school. On the other hand no parent has the right to claim that a child of his who through indiscipline disrupts the life of a school should be retained in that school.
Would the Minister not accept that this provision which he read out and which is not widely enough known, refers only to a situation in which a majority of parents in a particular school want the school to take this policy and that it does not affect the minority parents, or one individual parent of a school who does not want his child subject to the school's policy in this regard, and that this does not give any power to the individual parent to prevent a school from adopting this policy in regard to his child? Is that not an actual state of affairs?
As the word "parents" was used in the circular of October 1969, it would seem that the Deputy's interpretation is correct, although in the final sentence it says that "no parent has the right", the singular form is used there.
Would the Minister consider revising the circular to give individual parents this right?
I will consider it.
Bearing in mind that the Minister did not give any decision on this matter yesterday, although when speaking he appears to approve of the abolition of corporal punishment, and in view of what he stated earlier that it is up to the board of managers of each school to determine its position in relation to corporal punishment, would he now consider amending the rules for national schools and specifically state that corporal punishment shall not be used?
I will not undertake to revise the rules in that way although I think there might be a more fruitful way through Deputy Horgan's suggestion.
Is it not a fact that a parent in law does not have the right to strike a child? The Minister said he is not sure that he has the power to change regulations. Surely a Minister in a sovereign parliament has the right to change the law in any way he wishes? When is the Minister likely to complete his consideration of the matter having regard to the fact that he received the compendious information he gave us yesterday?
Deputy Browne's first question was about the law. I do not claim any expertise in law, but I do know that in Roman Law such a right did exist and how far that right has transferred to other law I do not know.
It does not exist.
The Deputy's second question dealt with power to change the regulations. If the Deputy reads carefully the statement which I did not succeed in finishing yesterday he will see that I had the views of the people who are involved in education. There is a point of view that you can send a ukase to the factory workers and must make them obey it, but I do not think our society works that way. As Poignant said in his report on west European education, if you do not have the people directly involved, namely the teachers, convinced of any move you make in a school, it is very difficult to make that thing stick. It is all right saying that a dictate should go forth, but it is a different thing altogether to force the people who are working in that situation and who feel confident that a certain rule is necessary and who guarantee they will not abuse the rule.
Is it not transparently obvious that this is rubbish and rot on the part of the Minister?
That is not a question.
Is it not a fact that Ireland is the only country in the three groups I mentioned that cannot legislate this iniquitous practice out of our schools?
That is just argument. I am calling Deputy Horgan for a last supplementary.
If I may be allowed to answer Deputy Browne's question——
The Minister should be ashamed of himself—pretentious humbug.
The fact is the system as it obtains here——
Is barbarous. An adult beating a child. How can the Minister defend it?
I am not defending it.
The Minister is defending it. He has the power to do something about it and he is doing nothing. It is the same shameful record of his predecessors, Hillary, Lynch, De Valera, Mulcahy, Burke——
The system as it obtains here is not the same as it is in other countries. The extent of the ownership of State schools is not nearly so great here as it is in other countries, and the Deputy knows that.
Would the Minister not agree that on the basis of the information he has given there is a very substantial body of teacher opinion in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment, and in the light of that, what excuse can he now offer for delay in implementing such a policy?
He is afraid of a belt of a crozier.
I am afraid of nothing. I have great respect for the views of the largest teaching union in this country, who seem to be satisfied with the rule covering this point. If the Deputy took the trouble to read their very well reasoned submission to me he would see that for himself.
Do I take it from the Minister that he does not intend to change the status quo in relation to the present regulation governing corporal punishment in schools?
The Minister intends to respect the views of the people who are actually involved in teaching.
They are clearly in conflict with him.