I shall not delay the House long. On the last occasion I was dealing with the necessity of spelling out as clearly as possible what is allowed to teachers under the rules as far as corporal punishment is concerned. The more clearly we spell out the rules, the better it will be for the teachers and for the pupils and the more peace the Minister is going to have in his headquarters. The Minister in his contribution to the debate said, at column 593, Volume 60 of the Seanad Debates for 24th November:
It is only on these rare occasions when what is at stake is the teacher's authority that corporal punishment should be used.
That is a pretty clear statement and I cannot understand why a draft rule embodying the Minister's view on that should not be incorporated in the book of regulations. The Minister seems to have cleared his mind on it and I should like to accept that that is the Minister's sincere viewpoint. I should like him to tell the House why it is not possible to embody that rather than leave the rules so vague. He did mention here, and I think in the Dáil, that perhaps the very vagueness of the rules could in certain cases act as a deterrent as far as certain teachers are concerned when it came to the use of corporal punishment, that the fact that they did not know what was in the Minister's mind might act as a deterrent. Personally, I cannot follow that and I do not accept it. I would much prefer if all should know where they stand.
I mentioned on the last occasion some comments on the old Rule 96. I did that because some of the speakers who put the case on behalf of the teachers so ably, thanked the Minister for removing Rule 96 which stated that the boxing of pupils' ears, pulling hair and similar treatment were forbidden. The argument put forward by certain Senators was that the very fact that that rule was there to be seen cast a slur on our teachers and that visitors coming here and asking to see the rules were horrified at the idea that such a rule was necessary. The view was that this was not necessary at all: "Let us remove this rule"—sweep under the carpet, if you like, the idea that such could take place. At the same time that that rule was removed, an entirely new paragraph was added to Rule 130, to the effect that ridicule, sarcasm, or remarks likely to undermine a pupil's self-confidence should be avoided. That did not appear in the old Rules. It has been brought in deliberately by the Minister. It is accepted by many people who are entitled to speak on a matter of this nature that sarcasm or standing pupils in a corner and exposing them to ridicule could be even more hurtful than physical punishment and that a good teacher would not even dream of doing that; yet the Minister finds it necessary to incorporate that specifically in the Rules and his action is welcomed by the teachers' spokesmen.
I do not think they can have it both ways. In my opinion, it is just as great a slur, if you put it that way, to have that incorporated as the previous Rule dealing with the pulling of hair. I welcome that paragraph in Rule 130 because I do not think it casts any slur on the teacher and it clears the air for all concerned and likewise I accept the same applies to the old Rule 96 in that it makes it quite clear to all and sundry, and to that section of the teaching profession which might be tempted to use corporal punishment.
The present position, as far as I can ascertain, and I have made quite a number of inquiries, is that corporal punishment is inflicted for not knowing lessons in national schools. I am satisfied that that takes place. We are not discussing here the question of cruelty or the use of any weapon other than the cane. I am talking about the use of corporal punishment for not knowing lessons.
Does the Minister believe that this is so? If so, is he prepared to see that the rules, as they are laid down, are carried out? Even during the course of the discussion so far, a number of speakers, and on his own side of the House, made it quite clear that from their experience children were being slapped and beaten for not knowing their lessons. If there are rules laid down, let them be observed. Those whose function it is to teach respect to the youth should have respect for any regulations laid down for their own conduct.
To me, the test as far as children are concerned is their view about going to school. Do they like to go to school or are they afraid to go to school? If children go to school shivering in their boots, afraid of facing the teacher, there is something wrong. I think such fear is being eliminated as the years go by. I know from talking to my own nieces and nephews, of whom I have plenty, that the majority love the idea of school and the question of fear does not enter their minds at all. That is a welcome sign. It is a sign that the teacher is not there as a bogeyman or somebody to frighten them. However, there are still schools where the children go fearful of punishment. It is in these schools we will find an excessive use of corporal punishment.
I listened with great attention to the various speeches made and I read many of the comments outside in letters to the various papers. It is extraordinary that running through most of the contributions of those who still favour corporal punishment was this: we must drive out original sin. Drive out original sin—with the stick, I presume? We have others who say that we must be cruel to be kind. Then there are others whom I would describe as the Bible-searching, Scripture-quoting protagonists of corporal punishment. They are prepared, like Cromwell, to produce something out of the Bible in order to justify their belief. Cromwell was a great man to quote Scripture, but he is not thought very highly of in this country in spite of his great faith in the Bible and Scriptures.
Those, like the Senator who moved the motion, who have interested themselves in this issue have been described in this House and outside it as "cranks". That word has been used here several times. As far as outside is concerned, it is the most frequently used word to describe those who took it on themselves to initiate a discussion on this matter. The idea is to put this into the minds of the public—that these people are cranks—and thereby reduce the value of any contribution they may make to the debate.
Let us ask ourselves: what is a crank? It varies in different periods. In records kept in the town of Roscommon, for instance, about 140 years ago, a child between 11 and 12 years was hanged for stealing. A number of people were horrified by that barbarity, but quite a number felt also that this was a sin that had to be punished. Those who thought it was barbarous were looked on at that time as cranks. The people who condoned that hanging were otherwise decent, good-living people in every respect. But they condoned the action as being carried out under the law as a punishment for evil.
Sixty years ago, children from seven to ten years were harnessed to trolleys and carriages underground and forced to draw coal in many pits in Wales and other parts of the world. Young people from eight to 12 years were forced to work in factories in industrial Britain at that time for from 14 to 16 hours a week in dark rooms. A number of people said at the time that this was a terrible way to treat young people. The description I find of those people is that they were well-meaning but they were cranks. That was the description applied to them by those who did not want to change that society.
It is interesting to note that during that period, when this exploitation of the young was going on, the economists of the day, speaking on behalf of the benevolent employers, were able to produce statistics of the danger to the economy if child labour was done away with. One hundred years ago, slavery was in operation, and those who tried to stop it were regarded as cranks.
Therefore, in our Christian community today, when people like Senator Sheehy Skeffington have the courage to lay their head on the block in a matter of this nature, we should recall that it was cranks of the type I have described who down through the years brought about the change in our outlook so far as children and society are concerned.
The Minister has admitted there was a problem. He said:
I believe that there is a little more than comes to light officially for one reason or another but I do not believe that it is widespread or extensive.
He was referring to the excessive use of corporal punishment. He asks us to help him devise ways and means of bringing these cases to light. He suggested that parents could appeal to the Minister. Possibly, that is a solution; but for a progressive Minister who believes himself to be practical in his approach, I do not think that that approach could be described as a practical one. We know the Minister's predecessor was submerged with letters of complaint from parents and others. I do not think the Minister should have his valuable time taken up investigating complaints of this nature. His function is to plan education and not to act as a kind of referee or umpire on complaints about corporal punishment in schools. I do not think it should be necessary for him to come into this at all. Furthermore, the Minister should know that parents will not complain to him. After all, the parent who may feel very annoyed about a child's being ill-treated, as he thinks, says to himself: "Well, my child will be in this school for another number of years and I have to make sure there will be no further punishment or vendetta because of a complaint". It is only natural that a parent will be very slow in the circumstances to do anything about it.
I want to come to what I think could be done, and reference has been made to it by the mover of the motion and, indeed, by others. I want to refer to what I think is the proper way to deal with this question, instead of having the Minister cluttered up with it. The Minister should take his courage in his hands and initiate parent-teacher groups. In the Dáil he was asked a number of supplementary questions about corporal punishment and no less than five times in the course of his reply, he said: "A just and wise parent would do this", "a just and wise parent would do that" or "this is being done just as a just and wise parent would do it". As far as the education of the child is concerned, we accept that the parents' rights are inalienable, but will anybody tell me where the parents are consulted? The Minister has referred to the just and wise parent but I am blowed if I can see where that just and wise parent is consulted at any stage of the educational planning as far as the children are concerned. Whatever way the Minister flatters the parent here by describing him as just and wise, I am afraid the parent is not supposed to have a mind of his own at all.
The winds of change—that expression has been used fairly often—have been blowing recently in places other than Africa. I believe it is time for fresh thinking on this question. After all, the parents are there, unorganised and helpless to a great extent. I hope the able spokesmen for the teachers' organisations will not feel annoyed when I say I believe that the teachers' organisations and the representatives of these organisations must take part of the blame for keeping things as they are. When I find the teachers' leaders and spokesmen saying they did not want to be consulted on the rulings, I think they are taking the wrong view. When the teachers' representatives say they did not ask the Minister——
