Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1964

Vol. 211 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1964— Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
Chun mír (e) a bhaint amach.
—Deputy Ryan.

Mr. Ryan

Sílim ga bhfuil drochmheas ag an Aire agus ag gach ball de Fhianna Fáil ar na daoine atá ar an mBord fé láthair, fiú amháin ar an Dr. Mac Aindriú, siúd is nach bhfuil muinín aige as an mBord go ndéanfadh siad a gcion féin i leith na teangan. Dubhradh le linn na díospóireachta go raibh an fhoráil seo againn ón mbliain 1924. Má tá an fhoráil seo againn maidir le Gaeilge éigeantach ón mbliain 1924, nach cruthu é sin gur theip uirthi agus gur ceart deireadh do chur anois leis an nGaeilge éigeantach?

Aontaím go h-iomlán leis an leasú. Níl i mír (e) ach magadh agus cur i gcéill. Tá an magadh ar siúl anois ó cuireadh an Stát seo ar bun agus tá staid na teangan níos measa anois ná riamh. Tá Rialtas dár gcuid féin againn le breis is 40 bliain agus is náireach an scéal é nach féidir linn obair an Tí seo a dhéanamh tré Ghaeilge. Cad tá ar siúl ag an Aire i mír (e)? Teastaíonn uaidh go mbeidh caighdeán Gaeilge ag na daoine a bheidh ag lorg postanna mar chléirigh agus gan fiú focal amháin Gaeilge ar eolas ag an Aire féin. Sé seo an sórt cur i gcéill atá ag déanamh magadh ceart den Ghaeilge. Má theastaíonn uaidh go mbeidh caighdéan Gaeilge ag na daoine seo ba cheart dó féin an dea-shompla a thúirt agus an teanga a fhoghlaim. An bhfuil an tAire sásta an dea-shompla seo a thúirt? Má tá, aontóidh mé le mír (e). Ní thuigeann an tAire an cheist agus, dá bhrí sin, aontaím leis an leasú.

I want to say a word about this amendment in English, for the benefit of the Minister and, I suppose, the majority of the people in the House.

Is mór an náire é.

I was at a disadvantage, as I am sure the Minister was, too, when this amendment was being dealt with last week. There were six or seven professionals brought into the Fianna Fáil benches to decry any word of Irish that might be spoken from these benches. This is the snobbery of the Gael that no word of Irish must be spoken by anybody who is not a native speaker, the man who would not have the language but for the accident of geography. The man born in Dublin who thought it worth his while to learn Irish is being decried and this is going to happen when Irish is established as a compulsory subject in every competition under this paragraph.

The Minister should take a further look at this because if that applied from the clerical staff right up to the top, the Minister could not be there. Maybe it would be just as well. This is the sort of thing that has served the country badly over the past 40 years. Any boy who is born in an English-speaking home in Ireland is at a disadvantage. We want to set up a special class constituting Irish speakers as the only people who can get work and the only people qualified to work in many of the positions available in State or semi-State bodies. I will go so far as to say that many of those people would have nothing but the Irish language. They would get the job although they might know nothing about the job.

It is about time we did away with this nonsense. If CIE is to live at all, it should get the most efficient people. Whatever way it has been recruiting for the past ten or 12 years, however it has recruited its top staff, it has not been to the advantage of CIE or the country or the taxpayer, and we must judge by results.

I wonder could we possibly shorten this debate. There has already been considerable discussion on the last occasion, and towards the end of a very long discussion on the question of the Irish language in State companies, I said that under an arrangement made with the trade unions, the test for Irish for clerical officers would be the fact that applicants would have to qualify in either the Intermediate examination or the Leaving Certificate examination which included Irish, and that it seemed, therefore, that to have an excessive discussion on this was hardly relevant to the section.

The Minister should look at paragraph (h). The Board can amend any rules made by them.

That is the position at present.

It is not the position at present but whatever the position is, it can be amended at once.

Everything that can be said has already been said.

I have not spoken on this yet.

I have not spoken on this, either. I could not get in the last night. I did not know what Deputies were talking about.

This is an amendment to delete paragraph (e).

I find myself in the same boat as the Minister. I am giving the Minister a chance to discuss this. He had to sit there last week and he did not know what was happening in the House. Neither did I. The only thing I did know was that Deputies over there were decrying everybody who spoke Irish here.

That is not right.

Labhair Gaeilge anois.

Níl sin ceart.

Mr. Ryan

Tá siad ag magadh anois.

Interruptions in Irish are no more orderly than in English.

Some Irish speakers are a privileged class.

The Minister should give us a shock and it would be a shock to us if he said he would accept this amendment. This amendment does no harm to CIE. It would be to the advantage of CIE so that when CIE recruit staff, it could pick them from the whole country. I have a newspaper cutting about a young fellow in my constituency who would not get a job in CIE.

Because he has not the Irish language.

What is wrong with him?

He was not born in the Gaeltacht and he has no aptitude for learning Irish, and there are many like him. I am speaking for those people and there are more of them in the country than the Deputy thinks. If they have not an aptitude for learning Irish, they should not be treated as outcasts or as low cast natives.

He could have it without being born in the Gaeltacht, if he learned it at school.

Anybody I heard speaking Irish here who was not born in the Gaeltacht was being laughed at by Deputies of Fianna Fáil because he had not the blas.

The man behind the Deputy is the man who talks about the blas.

Let us confine ourselves to the amendment.

I am trying to confine myself to the amendment but the interruptions by Fianna Fáil Deputies are putting me off. I was giving the instance of this young fellow who when he discovered that if he joined the Irish Army, the most he could be was perhaps a private and the Army would probably have him peeling potatoes, crossed the water and now he is one of the most brilliant mathematicians there, although he is not yet 22 years of age. We are talking about schools of technology. By putting this paragraph in, the Minister is confining himself to a certain kind of people and is shutting out the majority. Boys going to school have to spend an hour every day in many cases learning a language for which they have no aptitude. One language is enough for them and they are good or perhaps brilliant at other subjects. We are going to legislate them out of the country. When the Minister for Defence spoke here in Irish I asked that the matter be translated for the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. I am not saying that in deprecation of the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste.

That is not relevant to the amendment.

I am pointing out how strange it is that we are passing legislation, and if it happened that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste were young enough to apply for a position in CIE, they would not get it.

There is a proposal here to delete a paragraph. That is all that is before the House.

I am asking that the paragraph be deleted.

I will hear the Deputy on that.

Paragraph (e) reads: "Irish shall be a compulsory subject at every competition under this subsection."

We cannot travel the whole realm of resuscitating Irish on this matter.

By eliminating things like that you let Irish live because anyone who would fail in this would turn his back on the language, and the majority of those who would get it would never use it again. I would ask the Minister at this late hour, if he wants to get on with his Bill, to tell us that he will allow this amendment to the subsection to stand.

Is eagal liom go bhfuil mí-thuiscint ar an Teachta Ó Loinsigh maidir leis an gceist seo. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil éinne anso ag magadh faoi na daoine atá ag labhairt Gaeilge ach má tá, ní aontaíom leis ar chor ar bith. Admhaíom nach bhfuil an chuid is mó againn anso inár nGaeilgeoirí ach ní maith linn cur i gcoinne gluaiseacht na Gaeilge. Sé an chéad argóint a chluinim i bhfábhar an leasaithe seo nach dtugann mír (e) cothram na Féinne do chác.

Deputy Lynch complained, and with some justification——

I am grateful to the Deputy.

——that when people speak in Irish, he is unable to understand what is going on. He is entitled to understand what goes on. Similarly, Deputies are entitled to speak in Irish in the Parliament of Ireland. There is a simple solution for this problem but this is not a matter before us at the moment. The principal argument being made here, as I understand it, is that the retention of this particular provision will operate unfairly against some of our people. What are the facts? As I understand them, Intermediate and Leaving Certificate examinations are used by CIE to assess candidates' academic qualifications. We know that the number who fail the Leaving Certificate through failing in Irish is approximately one per cent of those who sit for the examination.

What about those who are not permitted to sit for it by the school authorities in order to keep their numbers up?

I have no figures for the incidence of that but perhaps the Deputy has?

It is common practice.

In most ordinary schools, shall we say, it does not happen. Deputy Lynch and Deputy Dillon who spoke on this on the last occasion, are, I think, suffering under a delusion based on an idea that was current a generation or two ago, the idea being that the human race is divided into those who can learn languages and those who cannot, those who cannot usually being those who can learn mathematics. But this theory has been disproved time after time and it is not good enough to have this old chestnut trotted out now in justification.

There may be a small minority who cannot learn languages but certainly the vast majority—I would put it as high as 99 per cent of our people— who are capable of passing an examination of the standard required in the other subjects are quite capable of passing that examination in Irish. I challenge Deputy Lynch or anybody else to show the House that somebody academically qualified by reason of, say, obtaining honours in mathematics or history or geography is unable to learn Irish to the standard required to pass the examination, which is all that is required. They are not required to get honours in Irish.

I have personal experience of one young man who was very brilliant at school and got scholarships in the Intermediate and Leaving Certificate examinations. He did engineering in the university and got first place and first-class honours in each examination he did. I discovered that although he got something like six or seven honours in his Leaving Certificate, he barely passed in Irish. I was intrigued by this because I knew that it has been disproved that a man of this mental capability was incapable of learning languages. I felt there was another explanation and, on inquiry, I found his parents were bitterly opposed to Irish. As you can imagine, if the parents of a child are bitterly opposed to Irish, it is difficult for that child to be good at Irish but it is not because the child is incapable of learning the language. We are not trying to make provision here for the very small percentage, possibly less than one per cent, who may be incapable of learning languages, but are we to cut down any possibility of people seeing some advantage in, or desirability about learning Irish in order to serve this very small percentage.

It seems that what the Minister is trying to do is to continue the practice which has existed all along and what Fine Gael are trying to do is to change this practice, and the reasons they have advanced are not very convincing, being based on outdated notions about aptitude for languages. For these reasons, I suggest that the House should retain the status quo as no convincing reason has been given for departing from it.

Deputy Colley has justified what I am seeking. He says that 99 per cent of the people who will offer themselves to CIE are qualified——

What did the Deputy say?

That 99 per cent of those capable of attaining the other academic requirements are capable of qualifying in Irish.

Ninety-nine per cent of those who would have the academic requirements necessary for the job. Therefore, of those who apply for the jobs, 99 per cent have nothing to fear; they are qualified. According to Deputy Colley, we have no right to speak for the one per cent; they are to be driven out into outer space. The Deputy says that provision here is an encouragement or inducement: perhaps it is a dog-collar to make them learn Irish. I submit if the people who are really at the back of all this realise that volunteers are much better than conscripts for their purpose, they would be making real progress. If 99 per cent of those with the academic qualifications necessary are qualified to pass the Irish language test, what difference will it make to the others? Why should the Parliament of Ireland make lepers out of the one per cent and cast them out? Deputy Colley has given the Minister a real reason for striking out this provision.

The only time I hear Irish spoken at railway stations is when the Gaeilgeoirí are on their way to Camden Town. I hear it day in, day out and I challenge my colleague opposite, who is an employee of CIE, to deny that. Their God-speeds are said in Irish. These people will be sent to Camden Town and elsewhere. They will not qualify due to the setup we have. I wonder would the Minister qualify or the Taoiseach?

Ní hí sin an cheist. Níl aon bhaint aige leis an leasú.

I should like to say a few words on the point of compulsion. Deputy Tully made what we have now come to expect from him, a very reasonable contribution to the debate. The pity is that over the years there has not been that level of detachment and objective assessment of this very complex problem by people who believe, as he obviously does, in the restoration of the language. I think a tremendous amount of damage has been done by the intolerance of the people who have met opposition to their policy. They have met abuse at one time or another. We come up against shoneenism, anti-nationalism or west-Britonism and they are against the Irish language for one reason or another. The other day I saw Máirtín Ó Cadhain being singled out by some sort of lieutenant-colonel who wanted to know if he had given up his nationalism. There is a lunatic fringe on both sides. Máirtín Ó Cadhain has not.

In regard to the group who were attempting to restore the language, there appears to be another bigger lunatic fringe who helped the language revival. They have been sincerely working for the restoration of the language for a very long time and it can be fairly claimed that they have had a very considerable measure of support from successive Governments since the foundation of the State. The net result has been, as Deputy Colley said, the other night, if you write a business letter, you will not get a reply in Irish. There is that exclusivism as far as this hostility to the Irish language in business circles is concerned.

My point is that it is there, that it is a reality, and that these business firms will not use the Irish language. They want to continue the use of English and Deputy Colley resents that. I can understand his resentment but he must understand there are people who would resent the suggestion that they should be forced to write all their letters in Irish instead of in English. He resents the fact that he is forced to write in English. It is the suggestion that anybody is compelled to do any of these things like believe in politics, believe in religion, believe in speaking the language, which human beings resent. They prefer to have their own freedom of choice. This is an extremely delicate question. A tremendous resentment is built up if you try to force conservative, liberal, social, Catholic, Protestant. Moslem, Irish or English speaking views on people. That resentment is very much present and I think has been built up by the intensity of the drive for the restoration of the language over the past 20 years. That is particularly borne out in the Minister's present proposal.

There appears to be an element of hypocrisy in certain sections of the society in its use of the Irish language. There are broad areas of this society in which there is no such insistence. If it did nothing else, this inconsistency would give the movement the stick with which to beat the revival. I have seen this in the commercial world which Deputy Colley has referred to. I could mention the names of very distinguished Irish people in the language movement who have business firms of different kinds. I have seen their advertisements in newspapers and on television and listened to them on the radio and I rarely see a word of Irish in these advertisements. These people, for commercial reasons have no emotion or no sentiment in that regard. They come down to the hard and fast decision when money is involved and say they will speak English. I do not want to mention any of these people but we all know them.

I was very struck when I was down in Lettermullen many times and I saw a most significant thing in their advertisements. They said "Caith tuitín Gold Flake" and "Is maith leat Guinness". There is another advertisement which says: "Buy the Irish Press.” That is very significant because Gold Flake and Guinness are what one would call the West British type of firm. The Irish Press is presumed to have taken a very direct interest in the promotion of the language over the years. That particular newspaper is read largely by the people down there because they support the Government Party.

The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.

The Deputy is saying the Minister should put his name down in Irish.

I understand what the Deputy is saying without any assistance from Deputy Coogan. Deputy Dr. Browne must confine his remarks to the amendment.

It seems to me that compulsion in regard to the restoration of the Irish language has not worked. I think Deputy Colley supports that view. It simply has not worked. We are all representatives of the various schools and establishments and we very rarely speak Irish. I am all for the Deputies who wish to speak Irish but I have only heard two or three Deputies consistently speaking Irish. I have heard Deputy Ó Briain and the late Deputy Mongan speaking it. In fact this compulsion has not led to increased speaking of the Irish language. So it is reasonable at this stage to question the validity of the suggestion that this is a correct approach.

I suggest the Deputy, perhaps unintentionally, is going outside the scope of the amendment. It is a very restricted amendment. It suggests that a certain paragraph should be deleted.

The Deputy is basing his arguments on that.

I wonder whether we could try to depart from the idea of compulsion.

We have travelled far from this amendment. The question of compulsory Irish does not enter into it.

Is it not possible for the Minister to amend his Bill in order to allow the position which obtains in regard to other sections of our society to apply here? If they want to apply for a position, whether medical, engineering or whatever position it may be, they are judged on their merits or qualifications and because they happen to have the Irish language, they should get absolute preference. That would seem to be a reasonable solution to the present difficulty. It is a principle accepted on the medical side. I am completely in favour of having the people in the Gaeltacht areas able to speak the language.

Clearly the Deputy is travelling beyond this. Sé an leasú:

Chun mír (e) a bhaint amach. E1

Surely one is entitled to argue that Irish should not be compulsory?

In this particular instance only.

He is going far beyond that.

What we have to decide is whether it is to be an exclusive advantage to people from the Gaeltacht areas to be able to speak the language. I do not see why we should not allow that the language be optional and, except in certain exceptional circumstances, that the exclusive use of English or Irish be accepted.

I have not intervened in this debate as between the Irish speakers in the House because I wanted to let the debate proceed on the basis that this provision is honestly intended, that it is workable and, according to Deputy Colley, is not restrictive to any great extent. I was not in the House at the end of the debate the last day but I read in the newspapers a certain interchange between Deputy Colley and Deputy Dr. Browne. I followed it up since in the text of the Official Report. I think Deputy Dr. Browne was correct when he said Deputy Colley gave the game away with regard to compulsory Irish in his interjection. If I may reset that again, Deputy Dr. Browne was arguing there was no compulsion with regard to the use of the English language. Deputy Colley's very brief but, as Deputy Dr. Browne called it, pregnant interjection was: "You should be in the business world to know where compulsion is". I took that to mean that Deputy Colley, leaving aside his professional qualifications, was asserting that to do business in Ireland you must have English and that Irish is no good. If I am misinterpreting the Deputy, he can reply to me.

Let us get down to the lower level of the clerical grades of CTE. Deputy Dr. Browne was making the argument that you must have English. English is compulsory for the transaction of business at the level of the clerical officer of CIE and Irish is not required. Let us take this as being sincerely put down and honestly backed. I want to get this into its setting. Section 12 deals with entry to the clerical grades of CIE. Paragraph (d) is a provision about competitions. It states:

A competition shall consist of such one or more of the following types of test as the Board may specify in the rules relating to the competition, namely:

(i) a written examination;

(ii) an oral examination;

(iii) an interview;

(iv) any other test or tests that the Board considers to be appropriate.

Personally, I do not understand what tests there could be other than a written test, an oral test or an interview. But apparently some other type of test is being considered. I suppose a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse when it comes to any subject, particularly Irish. Later we find "Irish shall be a compulsory subject ..." It is quite clear from the next paragraph that the Irish test need not be competitive because, if a competition consists of more than one test, written, oral or something else, then only one of those need be competitive. Again, we have the situation that you may have the written test, the oral test or the interview. In the interview something called Irish shall be, according to this, a compulsory subject.

What does that mean? Does it mean somebody must enter for Irish as a subject at an examination or interview? Does it mean he must pass in Irish? I do not see any necessity for that. It is to be a compulsory subject in the test, but the test may be written, oral or an interview. I wonder how serious is this going to be? I know that for many years in the profession to which both Deputy Colley and myself belong we have been governed by an Act of 1929, the Legal Practitioners (Qualification) Act. Since 1929 it has been the law that one may not enter practice either as a barrister or solicitor without having a competent knowledge of Irish. A competent knowledge of Irish is described in the Act as:

... such a degree of oral or written proficiency in the use of the language as is sufficient to enable a legal practitioner efficiently to receive instructions, to advise clients, to examine witnesses and to follow proceedings in the Irish language.

That is the test. As far as barristers are concerned, the Chief Justice has to satisfy himself that those admitted to the Bar have that proficiency described in that way. As far as the part of the profession to which Deputy Colley belongs is concerned, the Incorporated Law Society have two examinations conducted by examiners approved by the Department of Education. Both of us are tied to the conditions put down in the Act of 1929, never changed, repealed or amended since.

In the past 15 years in UCD, I suppose I have never had fewer than half a dozen non-natives in the class. I probably had an average in the past eight years of ten non-native students. These were West Africans or East Africans, or students from India or Pakistan. It may be a surprise to Deputies to learn that no foreign student has ever yet failed to pass the test in Irish. Is that not nonsense? It is complete nonsense that a Pakistani who attends lectures in UCD and passes the ordinary subjects is able to receive instructions, advise clients, examine witnesses and follow proceedings in the Irish language. I assert without any fear of contradiction that no foreign student in the past 12 years has ever failed the Irish test. Is that what we want here?

Have the Benchers ever asked to have this provision changed?

Never. I have been a Bencher and from time to time I have called attention to the fact that we are allowing foreigners to be called to the degree of Barrister of Law on that provision. There is no question of changing it. The thing is regarded as a joke. Deputy Colley nodded when I was speaking earlier. The Incorporated Law Society take this more seriously than the Benchers do. They have two examinations. Would Deputy Colley seriously consider standing up and saying that all the solicitors who qualified during the past 30 years are able to receive instructions, to advise clients, to examine witnesses and to follow proceedings in the Irish language?

The Deputy must agree that that does not apply to a majority of the solicitors who qualified in the past 30 years. Is Irish as a compulsory subject to be regarded in that way? People will say that if a person goes into a room and knows the difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, can say "níl" and "tá", can say "céad míle fáilte" that is all he needs to qualify in the compulsory Irish test. I do not agree with Deputy Colley's recital of the percentage. Deputy Byrne is right when he deals with this statistical information about the percentage failing because they do not know Irish. Actually, a number have been withdrawn from the examination because they are not regarded as competent to take the Irish test, so all you get is the figure in respect of those who are regarded as sufficiently proficient to sit for the examination.

Long ago there was a situation, as the law developed, where the ecclesiastical courts had control of certain offences, more particularly on the criminal side. Then the lay courts began to controvert that situation and there was a bit of a struggle between the two. The main difference was that the ecclesiastical courts were more lenient in the dishing out of punishment than were the lay courts and in the end the ecclesiastical courts claimed that anybody described as a cleric—the word being defined as a clerical officer type hoping to be in orders—should be tried in their courts. The matter got so farcical that it had to be changed, but the farce had developed to the point where the test of whether the person to be called was a cleric or not was whether he could recite a phrase of Latin. People were prepared to learn two or three phrases of Latin in order that they could be removed from the lay courts and so get off with lighter sentences.

Are we to have a similar farce here? Are we to have people learning a certain test piece of Irish like "céad míle fáilte" or something like that? If Deputies are sincere, they will go back to the Act of 1929 and agree with the conditions provided in that measure. If they do that, there may be some appearance of sincerity about this. That Act was passed in an atmosphere of enthusiasm, when the facts of life did not appear to have been operating sincerely or strongly, but no student ever failed the Irish test under that Act. No matter what the Minister has told us that the Board have told him that they accept the Leaving Certificate Irish, paragraph (h) of the subsection gives power to the Board to revoke what the rule was as regards Irish.

De réir an Bhunreachta, sí an Ghaeilge teanga oifigiúil na tíre seo. Má ghéilleann na Teachtaí ar an taobh eile don Bhunreacht, caithfidh siad an méid sin a admháil. Má tá siad dáiríre anseo anocht, tá sé soiléir nach ngéilleann siad don Bhunreacht. Níl de chuspóir ag an alt seo sa Bhille ach a h-áit féin a thabhairt don Ghaeilge ins na scrúdaithe. Tá staid an oideachais i gceist anseo. Deir siad go raibh éigeantacht i gceist. Níl aon éigeantacht ann d'éinne atá sásta glacadh le rialacha na scrúdaithe. Séard tá ag cur as domsa daoine atá ar nós cuma liom i dtaobh na teangan ag cur isteach ar an muintir a ghéilleann don Bhunreacht.

Léann an Ceann Comhairle, nó an Leas-Cheann Comhairle, gach lá dá dtagann an Dáil le chéile, an phaidir bheag úd amach as Gaeilge i dtosach gnó, agus do chuirfhinn geall leis an dTeachta McGilligan, nó le haon Teachta eile thall, nach féidir leis an phaidir bheag sin do rá de ghlan mheabhair. Dá mbeadh spéis acu sa Ghaeilge do bheadh an phaidir sin de ghlan-mheabhair acu. Cloiseann siad í gach lá dá suíonn an Dáil. Teaspáineann sin an meas atá acu ar an nGaeilge. Ní meas go dtí é! Do chuirfidís an Ghaeilge ar ceal, ní amháin sa Bhille seo——

Mr. Ryan

Ní ceart é sin. Ní fíor é sin.

Munar cheart, cad chuige an chaint seo go léir?

Abair sin i gContae Roscomáin.

Muna bhfuil sibh i gcoinne na Gaeilge cén fá nach bhfuil sibh in ann an phaidir bheag úd do rá?

Mr. Ryan

Labhair leis an gCeann Comhairle?

Sé an sean-scéal é—lig mé chun an bodach ach ná lig an bodach chugam.

Mr. Ryan

Níl an Teachta ag caint ar an leasú.

Táim ag tabhairt freagra ar na rudaí adubhairt na Teachtaí thall.

Mr. Ryan

Tá an Teachta ag cur síos ar Fhine Gael. Sí an Ghaeilge éigeantach atá i gceist anseo.

Tá an Teachta Ó Ceallaigh ag caint ar an leasú, ar na rudaí atá ráite cheana air, ar cheist na Gaeilge.

Nuair a bhí an Teachta McGilligan ag caint, thagair sé do na nithe atá sa Bhille, in alt seo an Bhille, agus dubhairt sé nach raibh ann ach leithscéal ag Fianna Fáil. Cén fá nach mbeadh cead agamsa freagra a thabhairt air? Thagair sé d'Acht a ritheadh i 1929 agus dá chuid macléinn féin san ollscoil. Deirim leis: Más mar an máistir na macléinn, ní h-íonadh liom ná faghann an Ghaeilge an áit is dual dí san ollscoil.

The Minister says this clause on the Irish language was there during the years and he asks why it should be deleted now. The test is this: would the Minister go to Westland Row or to O'Connell Street and ask for a ticket, in Irish, to Aran or to Leitirmochu.

Níl aon stásiún sna h-áiteanna sin.

Bí id thost. I know the answer he would get. All the Irish they have in CIE is "tá" and "níl" and "céad míle fáilte". Bíodh ciall agaibh.

Are we to hear from the Minister?

I have already replied. I made the position clear on the last occasion we debated this. There is nothing more to be said.

Has the Minister nothing new to say?

Nothing new has been said.

Nothing new. How does he know? An bhfuil an oiread sin Gaeilge ag an Aire?

It was debated in Irish—the whole lot.

Ba mhaith liom a rá ar an gcéad dul síos nach n-aontaím le mo chomh-Theachta, an Teachta Ó Ceallaigh, i dtaobh pointe amháin. Ní deirimse go bhfuil Fine Gael i gcoinne na Gaeilge. Glacaim leis go bhfuilid, nó cuid acu, i bhfábhar na teangan. Aontaím leis sa mhéid seo, go bhfuil dul amú ortha agus gidh go bhfuil siad i bhfábhar na Gaeilge, tá siad ag obair in a coinne. Ní deirimse go bhfuil sé á dhéanamh acu d'aonghnó ach tá sé á dhéanamh acu.

Reference was made by Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McGilligan to an intervention which I made on the last occasion about trying to do business in Irish. The context was that Deputy Dr. Browne was speaking about compulsion and about the objection there is to compulsion. He was talking about economic compulsion. I was pointing out that there is, in fact, a much greater economic compulsion on people to use English than there is to use Irish. In fact, there is a very definite barrier against trying to do business in Irish.

There is no one deprived of a job because he does not know English.

I did not say what Deputy Dr. Browne interpreted me as saying.

You told Deputy Dr. Browne that it was impossible.

I said: "Try to do business in Irish."

And that would show how impossible it was.

How difficult it was. It is not impossible. There is a difference. The point I am trying to make is that it is possible to do business in Irish. People do business in Irish. People do business in Irish with CIE. I have on occasions made representations to CIE in Irish and got replies in Irish. I am trying to relate this to the amendment. The point I am trying to make is that it is difficult to do business in Irish. This is something we should recognise. It does not mean, as Deputy Dr. Browne says, we have failed, we should drop the whole thing. My reaction is that so many people know Irish and for various reasons are prevented from using it. My reaction is not to scrap the whole thing but to see how many people could use Irish.

If we take subsection (e) out, the result will be that CIE will start to employ people who have no knowledge of Irish and when I or anybody else tries to do business with them in Irish, it will be impossible for these employees to deal with it. The logic of this amendment is that we are saying in future, not today or tomorrow, but at some time in the future, nobody will be able to do business in Irish with CIE because the people employed in CIE will not be qualified to deal with it. I do not suggest that this is the immediate effect of it or the intended effect of it, but logically this is the ultimate result.

This is where we differ from Fine Gael on this subject because we believe the prospects for the revival of Irish are good. I agree with Deputy Dr. Browne that we have to change our methods but I do not say that we have had a complete failure in 40 years. The proof is that we are able in this House on occasion in debate to have speeches in Irish and interjections in Irish from both sides. This could not have happened in 1919 in the First Dáil.

There is more Irish in Birmingham tonight than there is here.

We are told how the spirit of love of Irish was cultivated before compulsion was introduced. That is true. There was a great spirit of pride in Irish but no real knowledge of Irish.

Of course there was.

I wonder why it is that Deputy McGilligan, Deputy T. Lynch and Deputy Browne were so concerned about this admittedly very small minority of persons who might be ruled out by this because they could not qualify in Irish. I can understand their being concerned with minorities and I do not say we are not to be concerned with minorities because they are small, but why is it that they are concerned with this very small minority and their rights but do not seem to be concerned with the people who know Irish and are unable to use Irish? I suggest there is an example in this House. There are a number of Deputies who would be only too willing to make any contribution they have to make in Irish but they cannot do it because Deputy T. Lynch and others rightly object that they do not know what is going on.

The Taoiseach does not know Irish; neither does the Tánaiste.

Who told you that?

I am saying it now and I stand by it.

You are wrong.

I will stand on it.

Did Deputy Ó Briain put his name on the ballot paper in Irish? That is the acid test?

Táid go léir mar an gcéanna.

The point I want to make is that all the restrictions that apply to people who try to use Irish are enormous compared with what is involved here but we never hear Deputy T. Lynch, Deputy Byrne or Deputy Dr. Browne worrying about this. I am concerned about this because I want to see the years of effort that we have put in bearing fruit. I want to see our national policy as enshrined in the Constitution, as has been stated by Deputy Ó Ceallaigh, being attended to in order to try to achieve it, but if we adopt what is being suggested in this amendment, we are setting the clock back; we are saying that there is no hope for the Irish revival; that we are satisfied that in future anybody can do business with CIE in English only and if a person wants to do it in Irish, that is too bad for him. I, for one, am not prepared to support any such amendment and I doubt if any Deputy who thinks about this seriously and who is a believer in and in favour of the Irish language, who thinks about the implications of this, can support the amendment.

Mr. Ryan

Inseoidh mé scéal fíor chun a theaspáint cad a thárlaíonn. I applied for a post to the Local Appointments Commission for the purpose of ascertaining the method of examination where it was compulsory to have Irish for the board. I was interviewed in connection with my professional qualifications by four eminent public servants who had been many years in the service and who were therefore presumed to know Irish. None of these four sought to interview me regarding my professional qualifications in Irish, although they were presumed to know the language and I was presumed to know it. On completing a searching examination on my qualifications for this post, which was a legal post and therefore one in which by law I must have statutory Irish, I was asked to leave the room and wait downstairs for 20 minutes. At the end of that time, a uniformed gentleman came in wearing on his coat the medal ribbons of 1916, the Black and Tan War and of service in the 26th Battalion. He spoke to me kindly and said: "The natives are ready to see you now, Sir." If that did not indicate the scorn in the mind of that man for all this business, I do not know what it indicated.

The mere fact that the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission must have two separate boards in this day and age, one to test a candidate in his professional qualifications and the other to test him in Irish, shows that compulsory Irish has failed and in that regard I disagree with Deputy Colley. I agree that if we remove compulsory Irish, we may reach the position where Irish will never be revived until the majority of the people want to use it. It is with all sincerity and with the love of the Irish language and because we are in favour of having it spoken freely that we wish to have this amendment accepted.

I do not want to be regarded by Deputy Colley as believing that we should drop the attempt to revive the Irish language. I have kept out of the language controversy but what I have done is to learn it and to speak it. I did so because I felt it to be the responsibility of a Minister in Government to be able to speak to people who spoke nothing but Irish, in their own language. That was one of the reasons I learned it during my period in office. There were other reasons but it was a strictly personal matter and I made no attempt to put forward a wise or unwise policy for the revival of the language.

I would dearly like to see the language spoken in this House and spoken widely throughout the country. But I wish to draw to the attention of Deputy Colley, who appears to have a reasonably objective assessment of the position, that it is widely assumed that up to the present we have not achieved our objective, which is the right to speak the language across the floor of the House and expect it to be understood by everybody, whether in Opposition or in Government. If the methods used to revive the language over the past 40 years have failed, the experience of Israel in particular shows that there are methods that could be effective and it does appear as if we could have been put in the position to speak as often as we wanted in Irish if the methods used had been the correct ones.

It is not a subject on which I feel very strongly politically but as an individual Deputy, I would like to make my contribution to the matter as I see it. There is a much more reasonable element, as represented by Deputy Colley's point of view, now coming into the language movement. I would examine that type of mentality and examine things as they are. We should ask ourselves did we make the wrong approach; do the proposals we are now making represent the wrong approach; should we consider some other attitude, will our approach end up in the result which everybody fears that nobody can speak the language at all? If that were so, I would be opposed to our present approach.

I believe that as far as the people in the Gaeltacht are concerned, they must have complete freedom to speak the Irish language and use it in all their services. I lived for quite a time in the Gaeltacht and I have on occasions been shocked at the fact, and I have complained to Government Departments about it, that people who were absolute Irish speakers had written to Government Departments in Irish and got back the reply in English. I would deeply resent that any such attempt would be made to force people who speak Irish to speak English.

I am trying to draw Deputy Colley's attention to the fact that the compulsory aspect of the revival movement has been the cause of the main objection. It is this word "compulsion" which possibly causes opposition in people's minds and it was imposed on a particular attitude, dishonestly or wrongly. I would hope that those who are close to the language revival movement, if they are really sincere about reviving the language will realise that this is one particularly strong reason for opposition resentment and it is being used as an excuse by those who are too lazy to learn the language or who can produce 100 reasons for not trying to learn it.

I would not feel that the attempt to revive the language should be dropped but people like Deputy Colley who appear to be taking on the leadership of that revival movement should remember they are fighting in a completely different context in this particular movement at this point in history, that the old slogans and the old battlecries do not have the same appeal at all. However it is to be done, it will have to be a much more sophisticated approach than it has been in the past. The language is no longer a symbol of nationhood in the old sense, in the sense of 1916. I do not want to trespass on the debate in this regard. I suppose we shall have a discussion on it at another time. My only reason for intervening in this debate is to ask people like Deputy Colley to take another look at the desirability of having sections like this in legislation.

One might think from some of the contributions that have been made here that this clause was written into the Bill deliberately to debar a host of people from qualifying for recruitment to the CIE service. Of course, there is no such thing. This section deals with the recruitment by CIE to their ordinary clerical grades; in other words, it deals with the recruitment of secondary schoolboys and girls of leaving certificate standard. It has been suggested that perhaps the best people might not be got because they have not a knowledge of Irish and the impression has been given that this also deals with professional and technical staffs in that recruitment. This section deals simply with the ordinary booking clerk or goods office clerk who is to be recruited and I cannot see in the year 1964 why there should be any objection by any member of the Irish Parliament. You must have Irish. It is eminently suitable for this grade and for the job.

As regards the boy or girl of 17 or 18 years who has gone through the national school and the secondary school and who has had to have Irish for the intermediate and leaving certificate examination, I see nothing wrong at all in saying: "If you want to be recruited to CIE, you must have Irish." Without going into whether one is pro or contra the revival movement. I think any citizen of the State is entitled to walk up to any CIE booking office in Ireland and transact his business in Irish. The only way to ensure that is in a Bill of this kind. I am all for it and some of the vapourings that have been going on here just puzzle me.

I should like to know—and it has never been defined— what is a competent knowledge of Irish. The Minister said about 15 minutes ago that he did not intend to reply or give any explanation, that he had already done that during the previous debate. I have the Dáil Debates here and the Minister was evidently swamped with the debate because he intervened only once and said very little.

Quite enough.

What he said is at column 497 of the previous day's debate and it was not enough. I want to ask the Minister what will be a competent knowledge of Irish. What will be the standard necessary?

CIE decide that.

A friend of a friend could go to the examination and be told to "suí síos" when he came in; all he would have to do would be to sit down and then he would be told to go, and that would be a competent knowledge of Irish. I do not want the Irish language to be made into a joke, to be made a laughing stock.

CIE decide that.

We are the Parliament of this country and we have a right to say something. CIE are not all powerful; they are not a government within a government. The main discussion on this was in English tonight and therefore the Minister was able to understand it. We are entitled to ask the Minister to give us a reply. Of course, it is the Minister's form not to reply to Parliamentary Questions or to questions asked in a debate on a Bill like this. During the two or three days of this debate, the Minister constantly says: "I dealt with that before".

We are dealing with amendment No. 22.

On amendment No. 22, I should like to hear a reply from the Minister.

I have already made the position clear.

The Minister made nothing clear.

Deputy Casey also made the position very clear. What Deputy Casey said was very reasonable in the circumstances.

I am very sorry the Minister will not intervene in this debate. One of the purposes of putting down this amendment is to bring home to people like the Minister for Transport and Power, who is personally responsible for provisions such as this, his personal responsibility for the injustice created by such provisions. I suspect that for many years the tail has been wagging the dog, with all of us, both sides of the House. This provision has been in Transport Bills since 1924 and, in fact, was originally brought in by Deputy McGilligan. We have had 40 years of failure in regard to such provisions and now Deputy Childers who claims to be such a reasonable person, above all else, to be a rational person, is refusing to justify the continuance of this grave injustice, for that is what it is. Deputy Colley a while ago inquired why we in Fine Gael are so concerned with the rights of the small minority of non-Irish speakers——

And not concerned with the others.

Not concerned with the Irish speakers who are said by Deputy Colley to be victims of injustice because we cannot do business with them in Irish. Do I interpret the Deputy rightly?

People who want to exercise their constitutional rights even in a very minor way.

What are their constitutional rights?

I suggest to Deputy Colley the degree of injustice concerned as between one and the other is tremendous. I am sorry that those who wish to do business with State companies or with private concerns in Irish cannot do so. In many cases, they cannot, but the simple fact is that many of the Gaelic fanatics have a chip on their shoulders and wish to embarrass people and make things awkward for people who are unable to treat with them in the Irish language. There is not a small minority in my constituency and Deputy Colley's constituency of North-East Dublin who are victimised by provisions such as this. There is a substantial majority. I am firmly convinced of the truth of that.

One has only to speak to the people of Donnycarney, Raheny and Larkhill and so on to realise it. Deputy Colley should realise how true that is. They are not victimised because they failed to qualify for leaving or intermediate certificates in the Irish language, although, as has been said, there are many who are victimised on that score because long before the time of sitting for the leaving certificate, they have fallen by the wayside, and some are prevented from sitting for these examinations by school authorities anxious to keep up their averages. I shall not digress unduly on that particular line. I mention it merely because Deputy Colley did so.

I want to put to the Minister that what was said last week—I think, by Deputy Faulkner—that we were making a mockery of, and ridiculing the Minister because of his ignorance of Irish and because of the paradox in that he is imposing on junior clerks a standard he himself cannot live up to any more than the Taoiseach, is not the point. Mockery and ridicule can serve a very useful purpose at times. I believe it is an absurd situation and one which seems to disclose hypocrisy and insincerity because if the Minister and the Taoiseach did not learn Irish in their schooldays, people of their outstanding talent and brainpower could well learn Irish if they were sincere.

I do not want to approach this matter in any Party spirit, seeking to score a point. I am certainly disappointed that the Minister is refusing to accept the degree of personal responsibility that I believe attaches to him for this particular injustice. He is complacent. He is kowtowing to Gaelic enthusiasts and fanatics, of whom Deputy Colley is not one. The Minister is kowtowing to them but not following their example. That is a hypocritical thing to do. I am sorry to have to say that but it is right and proper to say what we believe to be true. It shows a sickening degree of hypocrisy which has disillusioned so many young people who feel that they are the victims of this state of affairs because, no matter what is said by Deputy Colley, who is such a reasonable enthusiast for the language, it cannot be gainsaid that Irish is most difficult to learn and is very badly taught.

I believe this particular provision goes much further than has been touched on here. I believe it is based on a certain philosophy, the philosophy that you are a better Irishman if you speak the Irish language and its corollary that you are an inferior Irishman not fit to be employed by CIE or appointed to the Civil Service, if you fail to conform. I, and most of us in Fine Gael, completely repudiate that philosophy. We do not accept that one is an inferior Irishman, a third-rate citizen if one has an incompetent knowledge of Irish and is not an enthusiast for the language. We believe the Irish language has its place in our society but that it is not all important to the extent advocated by others.

Deputy Colley is a most reasonable spokesman for the Irish enthusiasts, far more reasonable than persons like the Minister for Social Welfare who has spoken of the Quislings and enemies of the nation and nationalism and has antagonised so many of us and has done such a disservice to the cause which he espouses. I would echo the sentiments of Deputy Dr. Browne in his appeal to Deputy Colley to cease being the Minister's spokesman, to stand up to the bigots and fanatics in his own ranks.

This provision in this Bill and the philosophy on which it is based is creative of grave injustice. It has the effect of creating a privileged class, as Deputy Lynch said, a Brahmin class. We are not all endowed with the gift of learning languages, particularly a language that is in so many respects archaic and is also badly taught. Apart from anything else, as others have said, the policy has failed in its object. We have 40 years of failure of this policy.

The original Railways Act in which this provision was incorporated goes back to 1924 and it was then probably foisted on Dáil Éireann at a time of great emotional feeling. I had a look to-night at the Official Report for the period in 1924 when this provision was first brought in. There was not a word of debate on it but what struck one about that report was that 80 per cent of the members who voted in the various divisions on the Railways Act of that year—and none of them was Fianna Fáil—had their names in Irish.

The Deputy is getting away from his amendment which deals with the subject of Irish in competitive examinations of CIE.

If I am wandering from the point, I am not the first to do so in this debate. The Minister—and I mention this matter with diffidence— like me, is one of those who would be completely ostracised by the Gaelic fanatics. He is a bastard Irishman in their eyes because he comes of Protestant, non-Gaelic stock and I am a Dublin jackeen, none of whose forebears ever spoke Irish.

I cannot see the relevance of this.

It is really relevant because we are considering a provision imposing compulsory Irish on applicants for clerical grades in CIE and we have an amendment down to delete that provision. I am surely entitled to consider the basic principles on which this provision has been inserted.

The Deputy's amendment does not open a discussion on the revival of the Irish language.

That is what we have been discussing all night. A man like myself is a bastard Irishman in their eyes, and that is why I am so anxious to pin on the Minister his responsibility for provisions such as this and for the results which spring from them. Despite what Deputy Casey said here to-night, there is far more in this provision than merely seeing that the booking clerk from whom you buy a railway ticket will be able to do business with you in Irish. The Minister claims to be a rational person and not in any way an emotional person and for that reason I would urge him to intervene even at this late stage.

In his few brief remarks, the Minister said that CIE had made it clear to the trade unions that the qualifying test for appointment to clerical grades will be intermediate certificate or leaving certificate and in each of these examinations Irish is compulsory so that acceptance of this provision we seek to delete is not imposing any great additional hardship. In that event why is the provision there at all? If the Minister wants logically to pursue that line of thought, he should accept our amendment. It is significant that it is provided that Irish should be compulsory. It does not say English should be compulsory or even good character should be compulsory. The Minister, on principle, could quite well accept the amendment.

I have said all I wish to say, except to make one final disclaimer. Speaking here last week on this provision, Deputy Faulkner said: "Tá a fhios agam ón méid adeireann an Teachta Ó Broin fá dtaobh de ó am go chéile anso sa Teach go bhfuil fuath aige dí." He said I hated the Irish language. I do not hate it. God forbid that I should hate it. I hate injustice and I have seen this compulsory Irish associated with so much humbug and injustice that I avail of every opportunity that presents itself to me to denounce that injustice.

I should like to know from the Minister why they advertised in one of the catering and hotel publications of London looking for senior staff in charge of the hotels for CIE? There was no advertisement at all in the Irish papers.

That has nothing to do with the section which deals with clerical officers.

I am hitting near the bone now. In other words, no Irish need apply except for posts as junior clerks.

Deputy Colley challenged my remarks on the interchange between himself and Deputy Dr. Browne. I have a copy of that very brief interchange here. I am quoting from the Official Debate of 18th June, 1964, Volume 211, Column 502. Deputy Dr. Browne who was making the case about compulsion said:

I personally dislike the idea of being compelled to do anything. Any free individual living in a free society has exactly the same instincts.

Deputy Colley said:

Is the Deputy concerned about the compulsion on people to speak English?

"Compulsion" is the word used.

Deputy Dr. Browne replied:

Had I been there at the time, I certainly would have resented it very much.

Deputy Colley's remark on that was: "I mean today". We are speaking today about compulsion to speak English. Deputy Dr. Browne then continued:

I would have done my best to resist speaking English. But the reality is now that we speak English automatically and, because of one reason or another, there are some people who do not speak Irish. I am not aware of any compulsion on anybody to speak English at present.

Again, the word is "compulsion". Deputy Colley's remark on this was: "Try to do business in Irish". Deputy Dr. Browne finished by saying:

That is the most pregnant remark the Deputy has made in his implicit criticism of the failure of the revival movement over the past 40 years.

I do not think Deputy Colley can complain if I interpret that as meaning that there was compulsion nowadays on people in business to work through English.

That is not what the Deputy said.

What did I say? I said you said it was impossible to do business in Irish.

There is a difference.

Deputy Dr. Browne was speaking about compulsion to speak the language. He spoke about the revival of the Irish language.

Surely resentment towards the revival of Irish is not relevant? The amendment deals with a competitive examination in which Irish is a compulsory subject.

That was debated at length and at the end of this long debate Deputies Colley and Dr. Browne had these interchanges.

That is not relevant.

It was relevant last week.

It is not relevant now.

When there was a discussion relating to compulsion in regard to Irish, Deputy Colley said there was compulsion in respect to English. I am very much interested in bringing that point home for the reason that the amendment is entirely to do with compulsion in respect of Irish. As I said already, I am not sure what the phrase means but I think I know what it is intended to mean. It is that Irish shall be a compulsory subject in every competition under this subsection. That means that in an oral examination, a written examination or an interview, there will be a test in Irish and it will be compulsory. I assume the person must pass or get through the test in Irish. I am not so sure about that point of view because if the Board decide to have more than one of these type of tests, then not more than one of the tests might be competitive. It could be that a group of people would be invited to an interview which would take place mainly in English but there would be a qualifying phrase or two in Irish which people would have to agree to. The examination results would not depend upon who would have the best standard even of spoken Irish in an interview. I think this could be made a complete cod of, the way it is done in the Legal Practitioners Act. I do not think they can look back on this as the best piece of legislation in which it says nobody can be admitted to the Bar if he has not a competent knowledge of Irish. No foreigner, whether he is an Asian or an African, has been refused to be admitted to the Bar because he is not competent in Irish. That of course is nonsense. If I thought this was going to be brought to that level, I would not mind but I should imagine in 1964 we are a bit more serious, particularly when we see the way the 1929 Act was developed.

The Deputy is opening up a rather dangerous subject for his profession.

What about?

The Deputy knows more than I know about the history of that examination as far as the Bar is concerned.

I know the way it was developed. It is absolute nonsense at the moment to say that Africans or Asians are able to examine witnesses in the Irish language. Let me get away from foreign students. Does Deputy Colley think either side of the legal profession, the Bar or solicitors are better qualified because they have a knowledge of Irish?

No, but the solicitors are much better qualified.

Mr. Ryan

They have forgotten it all in the interval.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share