schools.

Corporal punishment was an essential tool in dealing with unruly pupils, the party claimed.

NLP spokesman Mr. Austin Thomas, a former teacher, attacked any proposed removal of corporal punishment from the statute books.

It would be both "short sighted and philosophically unsound'', he claimed.

"There are times when an unruly child needs no more than a firm verbal chastising.

"There are times when anti-social behaviour can and should be simply ignored.

"There are times when such deviant behaviour should result in the offender losing a privilege.

"Equally, there are times when corporal punishment is the only form of punishment which could be justified.

"And to use any of the previously mentioned forms of punishment would be an affront to common sense.'' Mr. Thomas said teachers needed different remedies to cope with varying misdemeanours.

"More importantly, that teacher must be able to strike the necessary balance between these remedies in order to bring about the desired effect.

"Admittedly, corporal punishment is too dangerous a remedy in the hands of a teacher who does not use it judiciously and discreetly, but it should not be removed from the range of remedies available.'' Mr. Thomas added it would be "stretching the truth'' to say corporal punishment was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.