The time remaining for debate on this motion is two hours and forty-five minutes. The time remaining to the member in possession, Deputy Dr. Browne, is 25 minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Language Revival: Replacement of Compulsory Methods—Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That in view of the failure of the use of compulsion in regard to the language revival to appreciably further the objective of making the Irish language the spoken language of the people, and of the apparent growing disquiet and dissatisfaction among responsible authorities and among parents and pupils alike about compulsory methods, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should seek by means of a public referendum to ascertain whether a majority of the people would favour the replacement of compulsory methods, where used in the attempted revival of the language, by voluntary schemes for its encouragement.—(Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan.)
In discussing this motion and placing some doubt on the question of compulsion, I hope I have made it clear that I do not think compulsion is the sole reason the language revival has failed. I do not want to put the entire blame on the compulsory methods being used and I have tried to show that there are historical reasons, economic reasons and reasons over which no Government have any control at all, which are also responsible. The experience in Wales has been similar to our own. There has been a progressive decline in the number of speakers of Welsh from 49.9 per cent.—nearly 50 per cent.— speaking Welsh in 1901 to 28.9 per cent. in 1951.
I say the main reason we are concerned with the compulsory methods used is that unlike the great historical, economic and financial developments of our society there is the factor that compulsion is reversible. It does not, like so many of these, appear to be irremediable in that regard. For that reason we appeal to the Minister to consider the particular points arising out of compulsion.
To me compulsion is repugnant in its very nature. It is particularly so in some matters, though it might be said that it is necessary to have compulsory education and various other forms of compulsion in a society such as ours is today. That is true but in things like politics, in religion, and in a matter like the language there are difficulties which do not seem to respond to attempts to compel people to believe in any particular ideology, creed or language. The history of the world over the last 2,000 years has shown that people resent any imposition of any of these particular things and that they tend to react very violently against them.
What the Government does not seem to be aware of is that for the last 40 years there has been one of the most intelligently carried out and comprehensive passive resistance movements on the part of the people. While the several Governments have passed legislation concerning the compulsory relearning of the language, the people have simply refused to learn it and the political leaders who, over the years, have tried to impose compulsion have ignored the fact that they cannot impose it without the consent of the governed. At any rate it appears to me that they did not have this consent in relation to the question of the imposition of compulsion. If one is to judge by results I think this certainly can be said.
While it might be said that we learn English compulsorily I think I gave the reasons last week why people do learn English. There are economic reasons for doing so—the reason that one starves if one does not, that it gives to some of our unfortunate people an opportunity to get out of the country and earn a living, and to get away from appalling home conditions. The former Taoiseach, now President de Valera, emphasised that point when he said that if one found oneself in an Irish-speaking area, and was hungry, one would soon pick up the words "im" and "bainne", or whatever they might be, his point being that only when the economic necessity is so rigidly imposed does one tend to respond and learn whatever language is in question, be it German in AlsaceLorraine, or Irish under British rule, or the various other languages that have been compulsorily imposed from time to time. Therefore, it can be established that compulsion by a Government was not sufficient because there were limits beyond which Governments could not go.
The degree of compulsion required to impose a language upon a people is so widely beyond the bounds of what is permitted in a modern democratic society that it simply is as impossible to impose a language on a people as it is, outside a totalitarian society, to impose a religion or a political ideology. So, while it may be of some comfort to the Minister, or whoever is in charge, to believe they did not apply enough compulsion, I would be completely against them applying any more and, from the purely physical point of trying to impose a language on a people, they would have to go very much further than they did. The fact that they left things like the radio, and particularly the newspapers and commercial life of the country, outside these compulsory measures meant that they left out one of the most potent factors in our society which militated against the language ever being revived.
I hope it will not be controverted that there is this compulsion. Sometimes one gets the fantastic argument advanced that there is no compulsion but I am sure it will be accepted that there is compulsion in relation to infants. In relation to primary schools the children have to learn the language. There is compulsion in the examinations that are taken and I think this is probably the most undesirable feature of the whole series of compulsory methods used because, if a child fails in Irish, it fails in all other subjects. If even that were removed a serious source of grievance would be put to rights by Irish taking its own place as an ordinary subject in examinations—that is, if it is decided to retain Irish as a subject in the schools, voluntarily or compulsorily.
There are various points of view which people have as regards the serious state of the language at the moment, one question being whether or not it would be wise to concentrate on educating a corps d'elite of the few who would be glad to learn the language voluntarily or, as has been tried over the past 40 years, to spread the thing so thinly that it is imperceptible. There is a case for teaching the language in places like Scoil Lorcán and Coláiste Mhuire where parents send their children to learn the language, the language which is spoken in their homes, which is the major factor in the whole problem of trying to learn a language. It seems to me that the compulsory methods used merely serve as irritants. They are too limited to be of any real value and they simply cannot be permitted to be of an extent to be really successful in restoring the language.
The whole decision seems to have stemmed from the National Programme Conference decision in 1926 and the evidence given by Professor Dr. Corcoran. On that, the policy for the schools was established. He believed it was possible to restore the language through the schools exclusively. Apparently, he was a very reputable authority on this subject, and upon his evidence was broadly based the policy of both Governments that the language could be restored through the schools. I have suggested that there is considerable disquiet—I do not think I need labour the point—in the primary schools. The language is effectively essential for the teacher and the pupil in the secondary schools. It is essential, too, in the vocational schools—certainly for the teachers. They have to have the Ceárd Teastas and effectively they have to know the language, be prepared to teach it, write it and, in certain circumstance, to teach different subjects through the language.
The dissatisfaction to which I referred can be readily demonstrated. The evidence is in various sources. I should like to deal with them very briefly. There is the Rev. Dr. O'Doherty, a psychiatrist and expert on child education, who has suggested in an article in Studies that eight out of every 50 children—and that is not counting the imbecile or backward children, of which there are always a certain number in most classes—or nearly 16 per cent. of the children are incapable, because of their low I.Q., of learning a second language. It is recognised that a very high percentage of our people are unable to learn a language at all. These are people who outwardly are perfectly normal. In no way have they the appearance of mental defectives or backward children, but because of their low I.Q. they are simply unable to assimilate a second language. These children, in addition to the other children, are subjected to this forceable education in regard to compulsory Irish. He deprecated this attempt to teach these children Irish.
Another authority is Senator Professor Hayes who, in the course of a remarkably frank speech—and, I thought, courageous speech in the light of the general circumstances— said in the Seanad, at column 1468 of Volume 48 of the Seanad Debates:
I am examining my own conscience on this matter because I was largely responsible for the beginning myself.... I think we have been almost a complete failure because certainly we have not succeeded in increasing the love for Irish among our adult population.... We expected too much from the schools and we have expected too much from the teachers, and we have left too much to do to the teachers. It was true in 1922, and it is still more true today that the schools are not as important as we thought they were.
Then there is the comment from Senator Kissane on the other side, whose general fear was expressed in the statement:
I am afraid that when we started out to teach the Irish language in the schools we expected too much in too little time—that we were in too much of a hurry.
Would the Deputy give the last reference?
Column 1462, Vol. 48, of the Seanad Debates. We had then the statement, as reported at Col. 1455, Vol. 48, of the late Senator Baxter, again a man who had a lot to do with the formation of our language policy at that time:
The decision commanding the great body of national teachers to show proficiency in the language within a limited period was, I think, an error of the first magnitude....
There is a statement in an article in Studies for Summer, 1956, by Professor Breathnach of University College, Cork, in which he described the apparatus built up for compulsory Irish. He says:
It can scarcely be denied that the machine designed to mass produce speakers of Irish has proved to be a lethal contrivance.
This is a professor of Irish language and literature at University College, Cork.
There is also the evidence in the Report of the Council of Education. In paragraph 207 of the Majority Report it is admitted:
To object that less Irish is heard now than was 30 years ago may possibly be correct...
They do concede that there is a genuine case for suggesting that the language revival movement has, to a considerable extent, failed. There is also in that document the evidence contained in the report of the I.N.T.O. who, I am sure, cannot be said to be prejudiced against the language. They state:
The great bulk of evidence supports the view that a smooth and easy educative process imposing comparatively little strain on the child, and making his life in school a happy one, is extremely difficult in a language other than his home language, even with the brighter pupils, and next to impossible with those of average or slow mentality.
That, of course, subscribes to the view put forward by Rev. Dr. O'Doherty.
The attitude of the parents is also reflected in this Report of the Council of Education. At page 302 of the Minority Report there is this statement:
There is, however, a constant theme running through all the replies which points to the fact that parents generally are opposed to a method for the Irish revival which would tend to lower the educational standard of the children, according to their values. Infant teachers have stated that it is a common practice for parents to ask that infant children be provided with English primers so that they may be given in the home, instruction in English reading denied to them in the school.
It seems to me that whether it is the educational authorities, the Deputies and the Senators of the various political Parties reflecting the viewpoints of the people throughout the country, there is serious unrest on this question. It has nothing to do with the old mentality—the West British attitude that anything Irish was objectionable. It has nothing to do with that. It is evinced by people, many of whom speak the language fluently, who went to the trouble themselves of learning the language and who are most anxious that it should not die because it is the beautiful thing that it is. But they do say that present policies are not being effective and, in fact, are seriously impeding any revival. That is all evidence advanced from various sources as to the failure of present policies. There is the evidence of figures showing that in the 1936/46 census, the Irish language in the FíorGhaeltacht declined by 14.8 per cent. and in Munster, it declined by 20 per cent. in the same period.
All that has been caused by the apparent discrimination by the Government, by the fact that it could not insist on the cinemas showing exclusively Irish films, by the fact that the newspapers are printed mainly in English. It is a fact that one of the most devoted adherents of the language had control over the operation of three Irish newspapers, but in none of them did he insist on putting his views through the medium of Irish. He was too good a businessman for that.
Surely the policies of the newspapers do not arise on this motion.
There appears to be an element of cynicism in regard to the implementation of this policy of compulsory Irish which has alienated the people from that policy. They see that children, civil servants and others, can be forced to do something, but that the Government cannot insist that the newspapers print their papers in Irish. The radio probably makes the greatest contribution to the language revival, but I do not think I would be wrong in saying that the Irish programmes are probably the least listened to. In the Seanad, Senator McGuire said that he had 60,000 letters and only one of them was written in Irish. Surely that is proof that the language is not used to any great extent. It was stated today that in the case of only two of the people in State-sponsored bodies was Irish insisted upon and I believe that there is no insistence on Irish with regard to our new development of television.
The best example is ourselves. If those of us who can speak Irish did speak Irish only in this House, I wonder how many Deputies or Senators would understand us. That is a fact which has influenced a number of people in their belief that we pass laws for others which we do not apply to ourselves. That has added to the factors which have militated against the language revival.
It seems to me that, in the face of the evidence of these figures, the evidence of public and political opinion, the evidence of expert educationists, the evidence of linguists of various kinds, those who continue with these methods must be treated as the people who mean to destroy the language. It is clear from these facts that they are getting rid of the language and ending any possibility of retaining that amount of the language we have at present.
I shall conclude with a quotation from Thomas Davis, as I know he will be quoted by speakers from the opposite side of the House. In one of the most remarkable prophecies, he foretold this: "If an attempt was made to introduce Irish through the national schools or the courts of law into the eastern side of the island, it would certainly fail and the reaction would be to extinguish it altogether." I have never heard anything proved to be so accurate as that statement. All we want, in introducing this motion, is that this matter be put to the public and let them decide it. We may be wrong in our evaluation of the situation and it is something that we ought to trust to the wisdom of the public.
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak on it.
I want to put before the House my own experience on this matter. Different people here speak for different classes of the community and I may say that the class I hobnob with is the working class. I know their views on Irish and I know to what extent they have suffered through compulsory Irish. I do not know the language. I was not fortunate enough to get an opportunity to learn it, although I was almost two months in Tintown. While I was there, I learned it but then I was shifted.
I am not prejudiced against it because I do not know it, but I see things from a different angle. I recognise that the language is one thing that we ought to preserve, although O'Connell said he could not care less if we lost the language. He said it would be much better if we all spoke the one language. I do agree, however, that we should preserve English. We should not be prejudiced against the English language because it is the language of our former oppressors and of those who still possess Northern Ireland. It is the language of the United States and it is the language of the people in England, the new abode of our emigrants. I am sure that the Irish population of England will continue to grow and it is important therefore that we should preserve the English language more than the Irish language.
As far as the working class people are concerned, their primary interest is in earning a livelihood. From the school leaving age of 14, it is impossible for those people to have any education, whether Irish or English. I know from personal experience that these children cannot write a single letter. They would not be certain of many of the words. I know from my own experience, because I do not know Irish myself, that they cannot even read a simple address, if asked to do so. Many of the corporation dwellings are named in Irish only, and if I get a letter with an Irish address, I ask some of my own children to read it and they cannot. I have tested them and whatever little they do know of Irish, a short time after they leave school, they have forgotten. They cannot write a simple letter in English because they are unable to spell English words, and they are faced then with having to earn their livelihoods and if they have no trade, they are handicapped. If they go to England to get a job they are handicapped.
Therefore, I think that while it might suit some people to know the Irish language as well as English, and while it might help some people because a knowledge of Irish is a condition of certain forms of employment, it certainly does not suit the working class people who will continue to leave school at the age of 14 years. For that reason, I do not think there should be compulsion. People should learn the language for the love of it. I do not believe it helps the language to compel people to learn it, because as soon as people are no longer under compulsion, they cease to bother about it.
A knowledge of the language should be encouraged, but it should be voluntary, and there should be some kind of honours or some kind of inducements. I do not agree that there should be compulsion, and I certainly do not agree that it should be a means of jobbery. While I have no objection to a minimum of Irish for the purpose of getting certain forms of employment, I do not agree with it as a condition of promotion to positions of responsibility, because that could easily mean that control could pass into the hands of mediocrities.
The fact that you have a knowledge of Irish does not give you any superior intelligence or ability. Lots of people could learn the language if they had nothing to do but learn it, and if they had some one to maintain them and keep them grinding away at it, but that is not evidence of intelligence. One of the serious objections I had was with regard to the Vote for the Department of Defence last year, when the question arose that promotion would go to the soldiers on the basis of their knowledge of the language. That kind of thing could endanger the country. It is not a matter of the language you know, or if you do not know any language. You could have superior ability, even if you were an illiterate, and you do not need a knowledge of Irish in a soldier's profession.
One can read in history from time to time that the most superior person might be a Yank in one war, a Frenchman in the next war, and there was an African who was very tough, but a very capable soldier, and once there was an actual savage. I am pointing out the danger of going too far in this business of making a knowledge of the Irish language a condition of promotion.
To get back to the motion, it may be argued that it denotes an Irishman if he knows the language, but that argument does not appeal to me, and I am very well acquainted with the history of the country. The funny thing is that I read nothing else. If I read a history of Ireland this week, I read another one next week, and another one the following week. I devour them.
The Deputy must be mixed up.
One gets mixed up if one reads only one history but if one reads more, one gets all sides of the case. We all spoke the language when a handful of foreigners landed at Wexford and we all fell flat on our faces. It did not induce unity or strength. The extraordinary thing is that in part of our history the majority of those who helped the British were actually Irish speakers in the Pale, so the language certainly does not induce patriotism. When we read of Hugh O'Neill's victories, we find that on the other side with General Bagnall were Shane O'Neill's nephews. That goes to show that the language is no evidence of patriotism.
In '98, there were very few people who knew the language and those who knew it kept out of the fighting. People who spoke only English were the actual patriots of the period, so it is not evidence of patriotism and a knowledge of Irish certainly gives no monopoly of patriotism. If we had to fight tomorrow, there would be many people in the front row who had only a knowledge of English. That was the case in the Tan war as well as in 1916, and in every other war.
I object to compulsion for the poorer classes and I object to them coming out of school illiterate, with a knowledge of neither language. Irish should be a subject for secondary schools or for higher education. There should be a minimum of Irish spoken but there certainly should not be compulsion.
Over and above all, in this debate, we should make up our minds to be tolerant of all the views that have been expressed and that will be expressed by the time the debate closes. Intolerance on the part of several people in this country has done more harm to the cause of the revival of the Irish language than those who are 100 per cent. opposed to it. If a Deputy expresses a view on the question of the Irish language, it should be accepted that he is sincere.
It will be noticed that Deputy Dr. Browne does not advocate that a referendum be held to decide whether or not we want the Irish language. He wants a referendum to decide merely by what method we should go about the revival. Unfortunately, in recent times especially, critics of the methods employed in teaching the Irish language in recent years have been accused of being anti-Irish, not in the patriotic or national sense, but in regard to the language. I do not think that such is the case. If a consensus of opinion in this House were to be taken on the question of whether or not the Irish language should be revived the vast majority of the members of the House would vote in favour of the revival. Some Deputies might have different motives from others. By and large, the vast majority of the House would agree that the Irish language should be revived, while differing as to the methods that should be employed.
I do not think the motion is unreasonable in what it asks. As a matter of fact, the motion is conservative in that it brings to the notice of the Government and the country the fact that the methods employed for the last 40 years have not been signally successful. Ministers usually rely on statistics but I do not believe that the Minister can produce statistics to show that any appreciable improvement has been effected in the position in regard to the Irish language for the last 40 years.
Of course, many people—in my opinion, intolerant people—will argue that there is no compulsion as far as the Irish language is concerned. Some of us may not have used the best phraseology in talking on this subject and if I were to talk about the language being shoved down the throats of the children, grave exception might be taken to such criticism. That is understandable but, despite that, it must be admitted that there is compulsion. There is compulsion in the fact that, as Deputy Dr. Browne has said, a student does not pass an examination in the national or secondary schools unless he gets at least a pass mark in the Irish language. Some people may consider that that is desirable. I do not, although I am in favour of the revival of the Irish language. One cannot obtain a post— a minor post, note well—in the Civil Service without qualifying in Irish but it is significant that even though the revival in this intensified form started about 38 years ago, even now posts are given to people of 40 to 55 years of age in respect of which it is not required that they should have two words of Irish. However, that is not my criticism to-night.
It may be argued that if there is compulsion in relation to the Irish language, equally there is compulsion in regard to English, mathematics, history, geography, commerce, science and other subjects. Presumably there is compulsion inasmuch as students must choose a certain number of subjects but the Irish language should not be regarded in the same way as we would regard algebra, science, commerce or any of the other subjects, with the possible exception of English. We want to have the Irish language revived, not for commercial purposes, but because it is our own language, because it was the language of our people for thousands of years, because we believe, and rightly believe, that by having the Irish language our traditional culture can be preserved. The Irish language should not be classified with other subjects when the question of compulsion is under discussion.
We are told that we should love the language. I agree. I do not believe that a love of the language can be fostered by telling children that they must pass in Irish in order to pass an examination. It is pathetic and tragic that children who are brilliant in other subjects should fail the Intermediate Certificate Examination or the Leaving Certificate Examination because of their failure, by two marks, to secure a pass in Irish. I heard of such a case yesterday morning. The girl in question had intended to make her career in Ireland but could not afford to remain at school for another 12 months in order to take the examination a second time. She now has a good job in England and is useful to the British. But for the fact that she failed by two marks in Irish, she could be useful to Ireland in the city of Dublin. That is one of the things that make people resentful of the methods employed to revive the Irish language and that is why I support the idea advocated by Deputy Dr. Browne tonight that other methods should be adopted.
Even if the Minister can produce statistics as to the number who pass examinations in Irish and so on, I shall not be impressed in the slightest. A child's school period covers about eight or nine years. About five successive groups have passed out of school in the last 40 years, having been subjected to what we like to describe as the compulsory method of teaching Irish. Where has it got us? I am 40 years of age and I do not see any appreciable improvement in Wexford town. With the exception of a few national teachers and some very enthusiastic persons, not many people in Wexford say, "Dia is Muire dhuit" to me. Does anybody see any improvement in the city of Dublin in regard to the speaking of Irish? Does anybody hear many bus drivers of 35 years of age asking a school boy or girl for the fare in the Irish language? Such a man would have been at school when the revivalist movement was at its height but it has done nothing for him.
One does not hear many men speaking Irish at football matches. I am speaking of the part of the country that I know—the East and the midlands. I am sure Irish is heard in the West but in very restricted areas there. Suppose Roscommon and Mayo were playing a football match in Castlebar, would one hear much Irish being spoken? I do not think so. One does not hear Irish being spoken in the publichouses, at dances or, indeed, one does not hear a lot of it at some céilidhthe. I say these things not by way of criticism of the Irish language or of those who support the methods now used but merely to demonstrate that there has been no obvious improvement——
Or in Limerick.
——in the population of Irish speakers. I am told but I cannot verify that there is more Irish spoken in Belfast, in proportion to the population——
And in Birmingham.
——than there is in many towns and cities in the Twenty-Six Counties. There is no compulsion —I hate to use the word—in Belfast, or in the Six Counties. I do not say that the methods they employ are correct, either. I do not say that they encourage the language as they should. The fact remains that, despite all that has been said about the language, despite all the money that has been spent on the language, despite the preference given to the Irish language, there has been no great improvement.
As one who comes from the East, again I say that we are very critical of and annoyed about the preference given to those who were fortunate enough to be born in the Gaeltacht, where the Irish language is the vernacular. If there is a prejudice against the Irish language part of it is due to the preference given to students from the Gaeltacht who have the Irish language from birth. By an accident of birth, they have the language which entitles them, as a result of Government policy, to preference over those born in the Galltacht, particularly preference as I have pointed out on previous occasions, in the matter of entry to the teaching profession. That is one of the reasons I believe there is a prejudice—I do not say I entertain that prejudice 100 per cent.—amongst the ordinary people who do not have the advantage of those born in the Gaeltacht.
Could the Minister go back over the years and tell us what has been the population of the Gaeltacht every five years since 1922? Has there been any increase in the population of Irish speakers in the area known as the Fíor-Ghaeltacht or has the population of Irish speakers declined or increased in the Breac-Ghaeltacht? Of course the situation has changed and it is not easy for a Minister, a Government or anybody connected with the language to ensure the people in the Gaeltacht would speak Irish exclusively in view of the fact that the cinemas produce English-speaking films, that the greater portion of radio programmes is in Irish and that modern books are mostly in the English language as well. I know it is a tremendous task. I am not trying to make arguments; I am trying to point out the facts and, as far as my information goes, the facts are that the Gaeltacht is not improving nor is the population of Irish speakers increasing.
Deputy Sherwin made a significant point. He said he did not have the advantage of some of the younger people who had the Irish language taught to them in school, but he learned Irish at Tintown. There was no compulsion in Tintown. The camp commandant did not make Deputy Sherwin learn the language. Apropos of that there were many people interned in the Curragh for various reasons during the war years, men whom we all knew. Some of them were between 20 and 30 years of age and some were older; when they went into the Curragh they did not know a word of Irish but some of them I know are now fluent speakers, because it was a voluntary effort. Some of them in this House knew very little Irish but when they went into the Curragh during the war they became fluent speakers.
It is regrettable but true that if one asks young children, say, from seven to 12 years of age if they like the Irish language the vast majority will say: "No, I do not." It is not that they are violently against it but they have no real love of the language. Those children are of far too tender years to turn them against the language and if we are to revive it it should be confined to the secondary schools. Children do not begin to learn French, Latin or any other of the foreign languages until they have entered secondary school. Then they have an appreciation of what the language can do for them.
It is difficult to talk to Irish children between seven and 14 years about our Irish heritage and culture, to tell them we can only save the soul of the nation if we preserve the Irish language. You could talk till doomsday and they would not understand. They would begin to realise that at 14 but the damage is then done. They are asked to use their vocal chords in making sounds that to them do not mean much. Take, for instance, the sentence: "I want a piece of bread." If the teacher asks them to say: "Tá arán ag teastáil uaim" it means nothing to them. Therefore, I suggest that if the method that is now employed is to be retained it should be confined to children entering secondary school from 12 to 14 years onwards. That may not include everybody but that is where the motion comes in.
This proposed referendum will show an overwhelming decision by the people in favour of what Deputy Dr. Browne advocates here. If you told young children they must play hurling, Gaelic football or rugby they would not take to it as they do. If they were told they must play it in a certain way they certainly would not. There is intolerance among certain people about the language and it is a very dangerous thing. You dare not speak ungrammatical Irish in the presence of these people. You will have overzealous Irish speakers who, if you put one word astray, will correct you. If the Minister wants to have Irish spoken in the schools let the children use any sort of grammar they choose. Let them speak the worst Irish as long as they are speaking the language. The voluntary effort, in conjunction with what I have just said, is preferable in any attempt to revive the language.
It has often been stated that when we were forbidden to use the Irish language there was more enthusiasm for it. The Gaelic League, to which great credit is due, was a great revival movement and was responsible for the fact that there are Deputies here of 50, 60 and 70 years of age who are fluent speakers of Irish. The Government should give more encouragement to associations like Gael Linn who seem to have the right idea as regards the promotion of the language. They are doing great work through films, books and entertainment, which is the ideal method of reviving the language.
The Minister may oppose this motion but it is not necessary to have a referendum to do what Deputy Dr. Browne suggests. When he suggests that, he merely wants to convey to the Minister—at least that is my impression—what the mind of the ordinary people is in relation to the language revival. The Minister can do this with a stroke of the pen: leave Irish as a subject, by all means, but do not let the method be as rigid as it had been for the last 30 or 40 years.
I do not agree with the terms of the motion. I think a referendum would not be helpful. The motion in general is running away from what I regard as the fundamental point of view, that is, whether or not the people of Ireland honestly desire to revive the Irish language.
The expressions of opinion voiced here so far to-night seem to have endeavoured to reconcile what I would regard as the irreconcilables. As Deputy Corish said, and I think quite rightly, there is a feeling generally amongst the majority in this House that the Deputies would want a revival of Irish. On the other hand, the view was expressed that if a referendum were held the results would show a majority against compulsory measures in the schools. If you genuinely want to revive Irish as the spoken language you must accept a degree of compulsion just as if you want to educate your children in Mathematics, Physics or English or anything else you must accept some degree of compulsion. You must ensure that if you hold examinations certain standards will be set and that the students who sit for the examinations will either pass or fail on certain standards.
I feel that the question this House will have to decide for itself some day is whether or not we honestly believe that Irish can be revived as the spoken language. I am not an Irish speaker. Any Irish I know was learned long after I left school. I learned it by voluntary means, as is suggested in the latter part of this motion. Honestly, however, I do not believe that any voluntary means, of themselves, will now revive Irish as the spoken language, as I understand that term. We must accept some degree of compulsion. If you do not accept that Irish must be taught compulsorily, even if it is only after the primary school stage, there is not hope whatever that Irish will ever become the spoken language.
I quite agree with the motion where it says that the methods adopted up to now have failed to achieve the ideal of the leaders of the various national movements up to 1922. We should not forget that the Irish spoken in those days, the Irish learned in prison camps and elsewhere and the Irish learned in voluntary societies such as the Gaelic League, was largely because of a period of tremendous national emotionalism and upswing that could not possibly hope to survive. Any efforts that hoped to continue on that tremendous upswing of nationalism were bound to fail.
The spirit of such a time does not last for ever. It rises and flourishes and the people who are part of it achieve a remarkable objective because they are impelled by that spirit of emotionalism and nationalism. The next generation inevitably suffers a reaction. Other methods must be adopted besides relying on that enthusiastic patriotism and emotionalism because the cause of such emotionalism is bound to die or languish. Therefore, those who desire Irish to be spoken to any extent must accept some degree of compulsion and some degree of jurisdiction and direction from the State. To consider that it can be done by voluntary means or by patriotic desire is to turn away from the problem.
The fundamental language is the language of the home. The language of the home is the language through which the young child, at least, should be taught at school. I do not agree with those who say that the child cannot learn a second language. My experience as a parent is that even the youngest child has a remarkable capacity for absorbing two and possibly three languages. It is amazing what the young mind can absorb. It is thereafter that the confusion starts. It is essential, for that reason, that the child's younger years are confined to learning the school subjects through the medium of the home language. Possibly, from ten years of age onwards, a child could or should learn Irish as a subject and then when it comes to secondary or higher education it should be possible to teach the pupil through Irish. Therefore, I am not constrained to support the terms of the motion.
The Minister has given an indication that he feels that the time has come (1) when a general stocktaking is more than due on what we have not achieved, with the best wish in the world, and (2) perhaps to re-think some of the ideas and ideals on which the Irish language movement was founded. One very encouraging development in recent years has been the establishment of schools such as Scoil na Leanbh in Ring and Scoil Ide in Foynes, County Limerick. More such schools could be established. Every year, these schools receive more applications from potential pupils than they can take. That is an indication that amongst the secondary standards and upwards there is a desire to learn the language by voluntary means.
If we concentrate on building more such schools and making it possible not so much for the fairly well-to-do or the well-to-do to attend them, or those who aspire to be or actually are teachers, but the ordinary man's son or daughter, it would be a very worthwhile objective indeed. In the early years, in the infant and early primary school years, I am bound to advocate, from my experience not as a psychologist or a psychiatrist but just as a parent, that the language of the home be the language in which the child should be taught.
Deputy Dr. Browne concluded his contribution with a quotation from Thomas Davis with a rather depressing outlook on the possibility of introducing the teaching of Irish into the schools in the Eastern part of the country. What he did not say was that that quotation was written one hundred years ago and he did not complete the quotation. I cannot complete it but
I think in the Essay it went on to this effect: "But, in one hundred years' time, I could envisage Irish being taught everywhere in the country," which makes quite a different proposition of the statement in the Essay.
Here is where I stand as regards the Irish language. I believe that every Irish child should be taught to speak Irish. I would ask those who have argued along that line but against compulsion how can a child learn to love a language unless it knows some of the language and how can it know some of the language unless to some extent the teaching of it is essential?
The motion is so worded as to indicate an anxiety on the part of the sponsors in regard to what they consider to be the failure of past and present methods to achieve the objective of making Irish the spoken language of the people. This implicit acceptance by the sponsors of the motion distinguishes them from those others who habitually use the word "compulsion" and the word "comsory" in relation to Irish as catch cries, catch cries from that section of our people who never accepted the idea of restoring the Irish language— indeed, who possibly never accepted the idea of an independent nation— that section who are opposed to Irish and call for the abolition of compulsory Irish. I believe that if they were shown in their true colours it would be seen that what they are calling for is the abandonment of the Irish language.
Part of their campaign against the Irish language is to befog the issue, confusing compulsory teaching of Irish with compulsory teaching of other subjects through Irish. I think I should state the position about compulsion and the teaching through Irish of other subjects. Outside of the Gaeltacht, in the national schools, for many years it has been the policy of the Department of Education to have the children in the infant classes and the first classes brought as rapidly as possible to a knowledge of Irish so that the work in those classes could be done through Irish.
I think it is necessary to say, for those who do not know the working of a school, that the work done in the infant class and in the first class does not involve the teaching of specific subjects except a little informal arithmetic and if the manager of the school wishes, the teaching of English, but the type of work done is not the teaching of subjects. The work done in those infant classes is merely to familiarise the children with school. In the higher classes of the national schools, the medium of instruction in the various subjects is left to the teacher, that is, of course, except the teaching of Irish, which is done through Irish and the teaching of English which must be done through English.
That is the extent of compulsory teaching through Irish. There is no teaching of other subjects in a formal way through Irish, except where the teacher selects Irish as a medium of instruction. There is, I know, a widespread idea that Irish is a compulsory medium in the primary schools but that idea is absurd. To a great extent, I think it might be due to the imaginings of people who have not been able to ascertain the facts. In regard to secondary schools, they are independent institutions and I suppose the best evidence that they are not compelled to teach through Irish is the fact that the majority of them do not teach other subjects through Irish. In vocational schools, the medium of instruction in any particular subject is a matter for the local vocational education committee.
While the teaching of subjects through Irish is not compulsory, such teaching is available and I believe this should be so. Moreover, it is the policy of the Department, where the circumstances are propitious, to encourage more teaching through the medium of Irish. In fact, there is an established system of encouraging teaching through the medium of Irish under suitable conditions. The idea of teaching through the medium of Irish in suitable conditions is that when the teacher is capable of doing so, and the pupils can benefit by being so taught, teaching through Irish is regarded as a good method of improving their fluency. It is calculated also to give a respect for the language as an instrument of intellectual communication.
While, therefore, there is no compulsion to teach through Irish—and I should like to repeat that—I would say that it may have happened on occasion, through an excess of zeal, combined with a lack of due prudence, that an attempt was made to teach children through Irish when, because the teacher was not fully capable of doing so, and because the children could not benefit from doing so, the children did not adequately benefit from the instruction. If there were such cases, they were instances of enthusiasm which more or less defeated their own purpose and the purpose, I should like to say again, was the attainment of extra fluency by those who already have enough Irish to benefit from instruction through Irish.
My own view, which I have stated publicly on several occasions recently, is that no effort should be spared to achieve a situation in which the children have a good degree of fluency in Irish. The best judge of our method to achieve this fluency is, in my opinion, the good teacher. Among the steps I have taken recently has been the issuing this week of a revised circular on inspection. Heretofore, a teacher's Irish work was examined in compartments—written Irish and oral Irish. In future, the inspector will judge the teacher's Irish teaching as a whole and in making his assessment, will be asked to pay special regard to the teacher's efforts to achieve fluency in the children. That is the position of teaching through Irish.
As far as my Department is concerned, it is to be done as an assistance to promoting oral fluency, to be carried out where the teacher is capable of doing so and where the children can benefit. The teaching of Irish itself as a subject should be essential—it has to be essential—and if this is what people mean when they label it "compulsory", that is fair enough. It is compulsory in that sense. But if they attach the implication that other subjects are not compulsory, then that is not fair.
Irish is not the only subject on which the Department of Education insists in the schools. Arithmetic, English, history, geography and singing are compulsory in the primary schools. Mathematics, history and at least three other subjects are compulsory in the secondary school curriculum up to Intermediate stage. Attendance at school is compulsory up to 14 years of age. There seems to be no objection to compulsion in these matters. In fact, the last proposal put before the House by the sponsors of this motion was to compel parents to keep their children at school up to 15 years of age, so it would almost seem that compulsion is still all right, except when it is associated with Irish.
That seems to bring me to a crossroads with other people who are interested in Irish. I think they must regard Irish as not important enough to be compulsory. They must regard Irish as not being useful enough to be made essential in the schools. In my view Irish children have a right to a knowledge of Irish even if it had no utility value whatever. According to this utility test, one could say that history has no utility value but I doubt if there is any nation in the world which would have their history as an optional subject in the schools. I should like to say on this that I am not prepared to stand over reducing Irish to a hobby subject.
I think children must have Irish and if they have to have any education it has to be essential. The main argument used by the sponsors of the motion is based on the assumption that the movement to revive the language has failed. Admittedly, it has not attained what was thought possible in the golden days of 40 years ago but I think that anyone who has eyes to see will acknowledge that great progress has been made since then.
Deputy Corish asked for statistics. This type of achievement is not measureable by statistics I think. I should like to give an instance of advance. I know that the I.N.T.O. will not feel it a breach of confidence if I tell the House that a recent conference in my Department between the Executive of the I.N.T.O. and officers of my Department was carried out, I understand, completely through the medium of Irish. Conferences between the I.N.T.O. and my officials are not a matter of murmuring sweet nothings to one another. They are hard-hitting, wide ranging debates. They have to be sharp, alert and the reaction has to be quick. If these people did not find Irish a natural medium, they would have broken away from it in the heat of the moment or during the stress of argument.
The point I am making is that that position is a far cry from the position in 1922. It is an advance. At that time the teachers had no Irish and neither had the officials of my Department. When you consider that the average teaching life is 45 years we could not expect the teaching body to be 100 per cent. fully qualified in Irish, yet. We should not be impatient to see results because if you work it out according to the life span of teachers and new ones coming in to service, we should not, to use an aeronautical term, expect the movement to have the momentum to lift it off the ground until 1965.
Jet propelled?
If we do not have people shooting us down.
Togha fir!
While I am on this idea of the prolonged policy going back more than 40 years in the Irish language, I think I suspect the same idea is in Dr. Browne's last speech. Speaking as reported at Column 547, Volume 179 of the Official Report he said:
I do not believe that it is possible to revive the language in our present circumstances as the vernacular of the people. I think the only thing that can be done is, possibly, to preserve it and perhaps extend it gradually in the future.
He subconsciously feels that this movement will expand. The only difference is that I am prepared to do it now but he is leaving it to the next generation—the future.
Since Deputy McQuillan did interrupt, we must remember that there have been a lot of difficulties since 1922, not the least of those difficulties being the continuous barrage of criticism levelled against the work done in the schools and also the banshee wails of defeatism which arise so often. To those guilty of this kind of obstruction I appeal to desist from this particular form of discouragement and give the teachers a chance to do the work.
Might I interrupt the Minister? Is it not a fact——
Ní gá caint a dhéanamh anois.
The Deputy should not be acting the dictator. Is it not a fact that in regard to the numbers speaking the language after the teachers have done their job in the schools no effort is made by them to use the language due to the methods used to drive it into their heads during their school days?
Let me put it this way. You say you teach Irish in the schools and that is the reason why they do not talk Irish and that if Irish is not taught in the schools they will speak it. I cannot follow that argument at all. They cannot speak the language without being taught it. It is time for Irishmen to be a bit more vigorous about their national aims. We cannot continue for ever saying that somebody must do it. It is the duty of each individual to do it.
Prepare your list of priorities. A hungry belly——
Ba cheart ligint don Aire caint a dhéanamh.
There is a very big number of people—not hungry ones— who do not speak the language. That is no argument.
Let the Minister conclude his speech without interruption.
Economics come first.
They came first in the days of the soupers. That is only an excuse.
There are 50,000 people leaving this country every year at the moment. These are figures which cannot be ignored.
They are not leaving the country because it is trying to be a nation. It is the banshees who are driving them out.
Behind you.
Ní féidir leo é thógaint.
We should discard the role of banshee and try to help a little bit. Though certain great advances have been made, there is, I know, no room for complacency about the question of the Irish language. The problem of the moment, as Deputy Russell said, is the appraisal of what has been done so far and how we can improve on that and on the methods.
There is a Commission sitting at present studying these methods and we hope to have a report in a couple of months. In the meantime, I have a special advisory committee in my Department and we have initiated between the Department and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation consultations with a view to improving the present methods and finding new ways towards accelerating progress.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. Thursday, 25th February, 1960.