I hope the same good spirit will prevail for the remainder of our discussion as has prevailed during the last hour on the Succession Bill. The motion deals with recent changes in the Rules for national schools and invites the House to have a look at them and perhaps go back to what the Rules were prior to last January. Inevitably, in the discussion which has taken place so far, the main emphasis has been on those sections of the Rules dealing with corporal punishment, in particular in the national schools.
It is no harm, at this stage, to remind the House that the motion does not contain any condemnation of the teachers or any suggestion that they are a strange, savage tribe or anything like that. Therefore, it is unreasonable on the part of certain people in this House to launch an attack on the mover of the motion on the basis that he had suggested in some way, in the course of his remarks, that the teaching profession, the national teachers in particular, were a dangerous group.
I find myself bewildered by the fact that responsible Senators did not put their minds to the actual subject of the motion but instead concentrated on what I can only describe as a personal attack on the mover of the motion. I am not here to defend the mover of the motion. There is nobody better able to do that than he, but it is necessary that somebody should clarify the position apart from the mover of the motion in the light of the reports that have appeared in the papers. When I say the papers, I mean the public Press. It would appear, with the exception of one or two, that the sole subject of discussion in this House was the teachers. The contributions made by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party were, in my opinion, scandalous in their effort to misrepresent the position and the statement of the mover of this motion.
Let me put it quite clearly. The personal opinion of the mover of this motion does not matter as far as corporal punishment is concerned. If he wants to get rid of corporal punishment, he is entitled to that view and to express it. He asks us in this motion to reconsider the position as far as the Rules are concerned and to go back to what they were last January. As far as corporal punishment is concerned, it was clearly laid down, up to last January, that when corporal punishment was to be carried out, a cane, and a light one at that, was the only legal weapon to use and it could be used only on the palm of the hand.
This Minister is not responsible for altering that Rule. His predecessor who now holds another portfolio had responsibility at that time. I am not criticising him today, especially in view of the fact that he has shown a certain amount of courage within the past week or ten days in dealing with vested interests. I certainly appreciate that, but the fact that he made a mistake on the issue of the alteration of these rules of punishment in the national schools is no reason why his successor should stand over that mistake.
Another Minister brought in the Succession Bill and before it had passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas Deputy Lenihan had taken over as Minister for Justice. Many changes were made which were an improvement on the Bill. That Minister was not afraid to alter the proposals first made by his predecessor. That did not make him any smaller, and he did not lose any public regard. In fact, his stature has grown because of his attitude. The Minister for Education, who has said many things of a progressive nature in his short term of office so far, should not fail to say what he really thinks on this issue of corporal punishment and he should not be afraid to go back to what the Rules were in January last.
Many Ministers have good views on this question of punishment generally. For instance, in spite of the backwoodsmen who argued otherwise in the Dáil and on television, the Minister for Justice has said he believes the birch and the cat should not be brought back for young offenders. He made a very strong case that that is not a deterrent, and that, in fact, the use of the cat brings a savage reaction and coarsens the individual who suffers that punishment. He has said it is not a deterrent and that it does harm to the individual. If that is the view taken in the case of hardened young criminals, why is it felt that the use of the cane and the fist and, as someone has said, the leg of a chair—and these things are not forbidden under the new regulations—will have a good effect on tender youth? If we forbid the use of corporal punishment for criminals, why should we allow it for young children during the most formative periods of their lives? That is something that deserves consideration and the Minister should examine it.
I suppose the Minister feels a certain sense of loyalty to his predecessor. I believe that is the only reason why he faces this House and puts up the arguments he has put up so far for the retention of the present regulations. The previous Minister expressed the view that he favoured parent-teacher groups, as did the present Minister, but I am very chary of pronouncements made by Ministers over the years because I have seen so few of them brought to fruition. In the Dáil in the past I heard agreement expressed that the school leaving age should be raised. That was back in 1958 and this is 1965, and there is no sign of it happening yet.
The Minister's predecessor was in favour of parent-teacher groups. He left office and now we have his successor. We have no guarantee that the present Minister may not be gone inside another 12 months in another game of musical chairs so far as Ministerial office is concerned. We all agree that one of the most important Ministries in the State is the Ministry of Education. One would think that when a man is in that Ministry, he should be left there to do a good job. All I can say of Ministers for Education in the past 15 years is that the more they change the more they remain the same. That is the position as I see it so far as results are concerned.
I suppose the Minister cannot contribute to this debate again, but I should like some member of his Party to tell us for him why the Rules were changed last January. That is the kernel of this discussion. Why were the Rules concerning corporal punishment changed? Who thought it up? Was it the Minister? Was it the Department? Or was it someone outside? We had two very excellent contributions from Senator Brosnahan and Senator McAuliffe giving their views on the regulations. Both were very eloquent spokesmen for the teachers' organisations and both said the National Teachers Organisation did not ask for the alteration and did not know anything about it. They were not consulted. If they were not consulted, who was consulted?
Why were the Rules changed? If we could get an answer to that, I am sure there are a number of Senators who are not at present too sure of their position who might be persuaded to support this motion. If we are not to get an answer, the only thing I can say at this stage is—and if I am wrong, I want my statement challenged and contradicted—that I believe the Minister's predecessor really intended to tighten up the position and to restrict the opportunities for corporal punishment, and that in some unfortunate way his wishes were not translated into effect in the regulations which were made at the time. We have often seen something discussed at length in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann and passed into legislation, and the minute a county manager or a higher civil servant got at it, he took a completely different view of the legislation from what Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas had in mind when the legislation was being passed.
I believe the Minister did not contemplate such a loosening of the control that could be exercised under the regulations relating to corporal punishment. That is my belief, and when I say that, I should like to know if I am correct. If I am correct, then I think there is nothing in the world wrong with asking the Minister to go back to what the position was last January. I may say, at this stage, that when Senator Brosnahan, for instance, discussed the change he welcomed the change that the Minister brought about. That does not alter the fact that his organisation were not consulted.
Senator Brosnahan put forward the case here that it was a good idea for the Minister to remove from the previous Rules references to pulling hair, and so on, and various forms of punishment which are in vogue in certain schools. Senator Brosnahan's point was that the impression created on visitors from abroad was not a good one: I think I am not misquoting him when I put it that way. That is a point of view. Personally, it does not weigh very heavily with me under these circumstances.
I believe it is much more important to ensure that there is no harm or cruelty to the young children rather than to give a good impression to foreigners with regard to the rules in national schools. I should prefer to see justice done at home rather than to satisfy visiting dignataries. The same argument goes when people come here and are shown O'Connell Street and some of our fine buildings. We make perfectly sure, in the tour, that we keep them away from the dilapidated and broken-down parts of the city. We want to create a good impression abroad and to show the foreigner that we are up to date and civilised. As far as schools are concerned, we would not dream of putting anything into the rules that would give an indication or an idea to an outsider that these particular types of punishment are utilised in our schools. However, it is a point made by one of the teachers' representatives and I must say that I do not agree with it because these things are being done. The pulling of hair goes on. The severe pinching of young people's cheeks goes on. The twisting of ears goes on and the use of other than light canes goes on in the national schools. I am satisfied from my own investigation that these types of punishment are carried out in many of our schools.
In the past week, I went specially to a number of schools to find out for myself whether I had been in sufficiently close contact with the situation. I found that not alone were those punishments being carried out but that they were being carried out for not knowing the lessons—the one thing the Minister has been specific about for which punishment should not be inflicted. It has been carried out not alone where lay teachers are concerned but where nuns are concerned. They are just as guilty of breach of the Rules as the ordinary lay teachers. In that regard, what strikes me as extraordinary is this. The Rules today are being flouted with the utmost contempt by people whose job it is to instil respect into the youth of the country—and their way of instilling respect for the laws of the country is by the use of the cane, which is forbidden to these very teachers. I know I shall not make many friends amongst certain elements because of some of the things I have yet to say here but I think they must be said. The Minister, speaking here, said:
My view on this matter of corporal punishment is that corporal punishment in schools should be administered only on rare occasions—
—it should be used only on rare occasions——
——when the teacher's authority is at stake.
The Minister spoke here as Minister for Education and I believe he was serious when he made those statements. But if, as I accept, he was serious, I must at the same time say he is away out of this world if he thinks that what he says here has any bearing on the actual situation.
The majority of national teachers in this country are dedicated people who are doing a first class job, and a difficult one at that. It has not been made any easier over the years by the failure of various Governments to provide suitable school accommodation and suitable class sizes.
