It is such a considerable time since we last discussed this motion that we would want to read it again. The motion states:
That the Seanad would welcome a reconsideration by the Minister for Education of recent changes made by him in the Rules for National Schools.
That motion is, of course, wide in scope but, in fact, most of the speeches so far, particularly the contribution by Senator Sheehy Skeffington, related to one subject only. I was unable to be present when the Senator made his speech but I read it with care. Anyone reading the speech would certainly get the impression, wittingly or un-wittingly—I do not know whether he meant it—that there were relatively few changes made in the Rules and that, in fact, the most important change— the only change—was that in relation to corporal punishment. One would also get the impression that the opportunity of issuing a new set of Rules had been used by the Minister for the purpose of making a retrograde change in relation to corporal punishment.
In fact, the situation is entirely different. There are 135 Rules in the new Rule book and there were 126 in the old one. There is a great number of paragraphs and there are about 1,000 new Rules. In fact, so many have been changed that we have an almost complete new book of Rules. Many of these paragraphs have been changed very considerably. There are completely new paragraphs and there are others which have been very considerably changed. On the other hand, in some cases, the changes are very small, a matter of a word here and there, although the paragraph may mean exactly what it meant before. There are cases when it would appear to anyone that the change of one word for another in a particular paragraph is due to no reason at all except that whoever drafted the new Rules happened to prefer one word to another. This is a complete bringing up to date of these old Rules. It is quite a different position from that which existed in 1946. The 1946 Rules were essentially the same as those in 1934, I think. There were a few changes here and there but, basically, they were the same Rules. But that is not the case here. It seems to me that the new Rules are, in every respect, a considerable advance on the old ones, not merely in the changes which they make but also in their general atmosphere—the style of writing is better and a great deal of the Victorian undergrowth dating from the earlier years of the 19th century seems to have disappeared.
These new Rules are technically not so satisfactory for one reason: there is no index. There is an index to both previous sets of Rules but no index to this set. It may be a small point but it does make it a great deal more difficult to find one's way around them. I hope the Minister—if he should be re-issuing these Rules at any time, even though he may not be changing them—would consider having an index inserted in this volume.
Before I get on to the question of corporal punishment which has been mainly under discussion in this debate, I should like to say a little about a series of Rules—there are about five or six of them, all of which have been changed in relatively minor respects— relating to the question of the closing and amalgamation of small schools. I think this is a suitable occasion to congratulate the Minister on the policy he has been carrying out with regard to these small schools.