Appropriation Bill, 1942—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

As Senators are aware, the Appropriation Act is an essential, though routine, feature of our financial system. It serves the twofold purpose of (1) authorising the issue from the Central Fund of the balance of the amount granted to meet the cost of the supply services for the current financial year and (2) appropriating to the proper supply services and purposes the sums granted by Dáil Eireann. In the first respect, this Bill is complementary to the Central Fund Act, 1942, which authorised the issue from the Central Fund of the proportion—£13,445,000—of the total of the estimate for the current financial year which had been granted on account by the Dáil; the further release from the Central Fund provided for in Section 2 of the Bill will make available for the service of the current financial year the total amount asked for in the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for the public services and granted for these purposes by the Dáil.

In the second respect—appropriation —the Bill is designed to give final and statutory effect to the Vote on Account and to the supply resolutions agreed to on report by Dáil Eireann, following the detailed consideration of the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates in Committee on Finance. To that end, it provides that the grants voted for the current financial year shall be expended upon the services to which they are severally appropriated, as set forth in the schedules attached to the Bill, and in accordance with the resolutions of Dáil Eireann. The Bill also provides for the formal appropriation of such of the supplementary and additional grants for 1941-42 as were voted after the Appropriation Act of that year had been passed. The present Bill covers, in addition, the issue out of the Central Fund of the sum of £10, being the amount voted by Dáil Eireann to make good an excess on the grant for agriculture for the year 1940-41. The Appropriation Act, like the Central Fund Act, makes provision for borrowing by the Minister for Finance. The combined total up to the limit of which he is authorised to borrow is the total of the sums authorised to be issued from the Central Fund by both Acts.

Section 1 of the Bill authorises the issue out of the Central Fund of the sum of £10 for the service of the year ended 31st March, 1941. This is the amount of the excess Vote for agriculture recently passed by Dáil Eireann. Section 2 provides for the issue from the Central Fund of the sum of £25,691,220, which, together with the sum of £13,445,000, authorised to be issued from the Central Fund under the Central Fund Act, 1941, represents the total amount estimated to be required from the Central Fund to meet the cost of the supply services for the current financial year. The disparity between the total of the sums mentioned—£39,136,220—and the amount appearing on the face of the Estimates Volume for the current year— £39,112,301—is accounted for by the fact that the amount of the Supplementary Estimates recently agreed to by Dáil Eireann has been included. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 empowers the Minister for Finance to borrow up to £25,691,230—the total of the amounts mentioned in Sections 1 and 2—and to issue any such securities as he thinks fit for the purpose of such borrowing. It also provides that the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Minister any sum or sums not exceeding, in the whole, £25,691,230. The provision in relation to the Bank of Ireland is purely an enabling one, and confers no special privilege upon that bank in the matter of lending to the Government; rather is it required to remove a disability from which the Bank of Ireland suffers in this respect. Under Section XI of the Statute of the Irish Parliament—21 and 22 Geo. III, cap. 16, A.D. 1781-2—under which the Bank of Ireland was established, the bank is liable to forfeit any moneys advanced or loaned by it to the Government unless the advance or loan is specifically authorised by Parliament. The purpose of Section 4 is specifically to appropriate to the various services set out in Schedule B, annexed to the Bill, the total amounts granted for the supply services since the passage of the Appropriation Act, 1941.

Cathaoirleach

As the Minister for Education is present, the House will perhaps, agree to deal now with questions affecting the Department of Education of which notice has been given.

Agreed.

Mr. O'Connell

It is estimated that the education services for this year, provided in the Bill before the House, will cost the country the sum of £5,000,000. This is a very substantial portion of our national revenue and, while education in all its branches is, possibly, the most important of all the public services, it is our duty to ensure, so far as we can, that the best possible value is secured for the money we are expending and that there is no waste of energy or effort on the part of those engaged in that essential service. I have read with interest the statements made by the Minister for Education when presenting his Estimate to the Dáil. He had many interesting things to tell us and, on some of them, he deserved to be congratulated. I should like to take this opportunity, as one who is in very close touch with his Department, to congratulate his officials on their courtesy and on their willingness at all times to assist in straightening out the many tangled problems that arise from time to time in connection with the schools and teachers. I think I would be justified in including in that tribute the Minister himself, who has always shown his readiness to receive representations made to him by the teachers or their representatives.

I must say, however, that the attitude he has taken up with regard to the investigation which was carried out by the national teachers into the question of the use of Irish as a teaching medium in English-speaking districts came to me and to those responsible for the inquiry as a very great surprise. It is, also, a cause of very great disappointment. I think that I am justified in saying that it came with equal surprise and disappointment to a great many outside the teaching profession. The Minister seemed to resent that report and to regard it as a vote of censure on himself and his Department. I am at a complete loss to understand why he should have taken that view. The portion of that report which both the Minister and the teachers considered to be of the greatest importance was that which dealt with the teaching of infants, and that portion was in the hands of the Minister as long ago as May, 1939. The final report, as published, was submitted to him some 12 months ago. So little importance, however, did the Minister attach to it that, even after it had been published and had received a certain amount of attention in the Press and elsewhere, he did not think it worth while to make even a passing reference to it when presenting his Estimate to the Dáil. It was only when he was challenged as to his attitude to this report, that he referred to the matter at all. When he did refer to it, I regret to say that he appeared to go out of his way to discredit and disparage it and even question the motives of those responsible for it and to misrepresent some portions of it— as I hope to show in the course of my remarks. One would imagine that he should at least have welcomed the valuable collection of evidence set out so clearly in the report, even if he did not agree with the report itself.

The people of this country, through their representatives, have acquiesced in, adopted and approved of the policy of the revival of the Irish language. No Party in the country questions that, and least of all the national teachers; but the means adopted to accomplish that policy is not a matter of national policy. There is no royal road by which the goal can be reached; we have no precedents to guide us in this matter. Therefore, the best and proper method to attain our object can be secured only by a process of trial and error. When challenged in the Dáil to say wherein this report interfered in any way with his policy, the Minister said that it seemed to be a challenge to the policy of teaching infants through Irish and teaching other subjects through the medium of Irish. I take it that he was referring to English-speaking districts, as it is only to the English-speaking districts that the report refers.

It is well to examine how this so-called policy of teaching through the medium of Irish came into being and what sanctity attaches to it that one dares not challenge it. If the House will bear with me for a few minutes, I will give the history of this regulation. Away back in 1920, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation convened a representative conference to investigate the question of the programme of instruction in national schools. Several bodies were invited to take part. Among those who did so were the representatives from the General Council of County Councils, the Trade Union Congress, the Gaelic League, the Association of Secondary Teachers, the Education Department of Dáil Eireann, as it was then, and, of course, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation itself. One or two educational experts also acted on the committee and gave it the benefit of their advice and assistance.

In the programme drawn up by that conference, the Irish language was made an ordinary subject and, for the first time, the conference recommended that work in infant standards should be entirely through Irish. It must be remembered that this recommendation was made entirely by way of experiment. Those concerned had no experience of such a method for acquiring a new language nor had anyone in this country. I was secretary of that conference, and it was pointed out at the time that this method had obtained a certain measure of success in the case of immigrants from central and southern Europe who had gone to the United States. They knew no English and this method of teaching entirely through English and ignoring the home language was stated to have been successful. Although the circumstances here were radically different, the conference determined to give this method a trial. The programme was published early in 1922 and was adopted by the Provisional Government. After three years, however, it was found necessary to summon a Second Programme Conference, to examine and revise the programme in the light of the experience gained in the meantime.

This Second Programme Conference was not representative in the sense that the first one was. With the exception of representatives of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, all the members of the conference were direct nominees of the Minister for Education at the time. I should say here that the present Minister, when speaking in the Dáil, was not correct in saying that there was no representative of the Department on that Second Programme Conference. Apart from the fact that all the members other than the Irish National Teachers' Organisation representatives were direct nominees of the Minister at the time, the records show that three of the higher inspectors of the Department were members of that conference; two of them are still in the service. When this conference was convened, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation presented a very comprehensive memorandum of evidence. Before doing this, they consulted all their members, through the branches, as is their usual custom. The one question on which there was unanimity amongst teachers at the time was that this provision for teaching infants entirely through the medium of Irish should be dropped. They were not alone in this. The Catholic Managers' Association, a number of religious teaching communities in Dublin, Cork, Waterford and elsewhere and a number of educationists were of the same opinion— namely, that it was neither proper nor possible to use the Irish language exclusively in teaching infants coming from English-speaking homes who knew no Irish until they came to the school. The conference went some distance to meet these representations; it expressed the view that a policy of festina lente was more appropriate in connection with this matter, and provided in the programme that English might be taught in infant standards during certain hours of the day.

We come now to 1933 and 1934 when some minor conferences were held between representatives of the Department and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation. At every opportunity that offered, the teachers made it clear that the policy of teaching subjects through the medium of Irish to English-speaking children was a mistaken one, and that it was not helpful to the revival movement itself. These views, based on their experience, were put repeatedly before the Department, but very little attention was paid to them. The Department were obdurate in holding that the policy was correct, and they continued it. In the 1934 Programme they again inserted the provision that all work in the infant standards should be through the medium of Irish, and that is the position as it is to-day. Children coming from English-speaking homes, who have not heard a word of Irish until they come to school at the age of five or six, hear nothing inside the schoolroom for the next two or three years but Irish; and they are expected to make progress by that method. I have pointed out here that the first body that was responsible for having this provision inserted in our schools' programme was the teachers themselves, but they were also the first to point out and to recommend, after experience, that it should be abandoned; but if anybody resents or feels sore that this policy is recommended to be abandoned now, it should be the teachers, because they were the originators of it.

Now, I want to say a word or two about the genesis of this report which is the cause of so much controversy. The Minister, in his remarks in the Dáil, hinted, or at least implied, that there was a certain element of propaganda behind this report, and other people made that allegation without any equivocation whatsoever: that it was purely propaganda on the part of the teachers and that they were assured of a favourable Press if they issued a report of that kind. That suggestion or allegation can be disposed of, I think, if I read a short extract from a confidential bulletin that is issued by the teachers' organisation, every quarter, to their members. The particular extract that I propose to read now was contained in the private and confidential bulletin that was issued to the teachers in January, 1936, and is as follows:—

"The Executive"—that is, the I.N.T.O. Executive—"hold the view that there is a growing body of opinion even among staunch supporters of the ‘Revival' movement that the teaching of ordinary school subjects through the medium of Irish in the English-speaking areas, and the ‘All Irish' programme for infants in such areas is not alone detrimental to the general educational development of the children, but is a hindrance to the progress of the language itself. That opinion seems to be fairly prevalent among teachers who have given the present policy a fair and impartial trial, and have done their utmost to carry out that policy. Despite official reports and statements, very few teachers are prepared conscientiously to say that their experience of teaching subjects through Irish during the past eight or ten years has helped materially to spread the use of Irish as a living speech. Many would go so far as to say that there is a very considerable amount of pretence and make-believe about the whole thing and most teachers agree that where a subject is taught through the medium of Irish the teaching of that particular subject suffers. The Executive are not prepared to adopt a definite line of policy on this matter until the subject has been very fully discussed and considered. They recognise that if they were to offer any public criticism of the present official policy their motives would likely be questioned, and that those among the general public who support that policy (usually without much knowledge of all that it involves) would be more vocal than the much larger numbers of those who are not in sympathy with it. They do not propose to take any step in this direction, therefore, until the branches and county committees have had an opportunity of discussing the matter, and formulating their views. No formal decisions are invited at this stage, but the Executive hope to have a very full discussion on the matter at next Congress, and to formulate a definite policy on the question, and branches and county committees are asked in the meantime to have the question fully considered, so that their delegates would be in a position to express their views with full authority at Congress."

Now that, to my mind, shows the care with which the Teachers' Organisation approached the investigation of this matter. At the following congress— that was the congress that was held in Killarney in 1936—even though the branches and the county committees had, in response to this suggestion that was sent out to them, fully discussed the matter, it was felt that it would be premature to come to any definite decision until direct evidence, from the people who were actually engaged in this work, was obtained, and so this particular committee, that was responsible for the report, was set up. That is how the report came to be issued. There was no question of ulterior motives or of propaganda; it was merely an honest, sincere effort to find out what were the views of the teachers who were actually doing this work in accordance with the programme.

As I have already pointed out, an interim report was produced in 1939, and was then sent to the Minister. That dealt with the question of the teaching of the infants' standards, and the final report was sent to the Minister about 12 months ago. Now, some criticism has been made about the delay in issuing this report, but one of the reasons—I might say, the main reason—especially since the report was finally concluded, was so that the Minister would get an opportunity of making such observations on it as he thought fit, and it was only when it was learned—and I should like to stress this particularly—that the Minister did not propose to make any observations on the matter that the report was released finally for publication. In this connection, the Minister made a statement in the Dáil on which I should like to comment. It is in Volume 87, No. 2, column 735 of the Official Debates. He said:—

"The inspectors have met the teachers and have explained to them the Department's point of view."

Now, five members of the inspectorial staff did meet the teachers early in January of this year and discussed the report with them. I do not know the basis on which these five members of the inspectorial staff were selected, but I do know that at least three of them have never served as national teachers in a national school, and the other two were appointed, I believe, under the old régime and, certainly, as far as I know, had never had any experience of teaching English-speaking infants, or any children, through the medium of Irish, nor was there any woman inspector among them. Not one of them had any personal experience of the teaching of infants. I say that because that was a criticism which the Minister advanced with regard to the committee that was responsible for the report. Now, I can assure the Minister, as one who was present on that occasion, that the inspectors did not explain to us the Minister's point of view or the Departmental point of view. They asked questions and expressed personal views, but when they were asked, as I myself asked them, what was the purpose of the conference, I was told that it was for the purpose of clarifying certain matters in connection with the report or of clearing up matters that were in doubt, and that they would report, in due course, to the Minister, the result of the discussions. It was because of that that the teachers' executive communicated with the Minister in February and asked had he any observations to make on the matter, and when they learned that he had no observations to make— he wrote to them to that effect—they then decided that the report would be published.

Coming to the Minister's statements with regard to the report, he said that the first grievance—and "grievance" appears to be a strange word to use in that connection—against the report was to be found in the fact that some 500 teachers had stated that as a result of official suggestion, and against their own better judgment, they had used Irish as a teaching medium when the conditions set out by the Department were not present, namely, that the teacher should be fully qualified and that the pupils should have a sufficient grasp of Irish to enable them to follow the instruction with benefit to themselves. If that is news to the Minister, it is a matter of surprise to me. Surely, he must be aware of the repeated admonitions, in the form of Departmental circulars, issued over a number of years by the former Government and the present Government suggesting and urging that Irish should be used as a medium of instruction, and that the teacher's rating and efficiency depended on the success with which that policy was carried out, and on the successful efforts made in that direction. He also knows, I am sure that the inspectors naturally take their cue from the office. It is well known that the inspectors are often more enthusiastic in pushing what they believe to be the official policy than the office itself, so that a teacher whose professional life and prospects depend on an inspector would, in my opinion, be less than human if he did not subordinate his own judgment to that of the inspector, especially so when, if it comes to a question as to whose judgment should prevail, as to who should decide wheher or not the children in a particular class were capable of benefiting by the instruction, the decision always rests with the inspector and not with the teacher.

Whenever this question of Irish as a teaching medium has come up, the Minister has always pointed out that this was to be done only when the two conditions set out in the circular are fulfilled, namely, that the teacher is fully qualified to give the instruction, and that the children already have such a knowledge of Irish that they are able to follow the instruction given. The Minister, of course, must know that the second condition is violated in every infants' school and infants' department in the country: that infants have not, and could not have, any grasp of Irish at all to enable them to follow any instruction that is given to them. But that is not the whole story. A case came to my personal knowledge within the past six months where a highly successful teacher who had for a number of years taught subjects, and taught them successfully, to her classes through the medium of Irish, had got another class in which, for some reason or another, the pupils' knowledge was such that she felt she could not continue using Irish as a teaching medium for them. She consulted her principal. The principal agreed with her that this class was not able to benefit by instruction through the medium of Irish, and so they decided to inform the inspector that they would revert to the use of English as a teaching medium for that particular class. The inspector visited the school shortly afterwards, put a few questions in Irish to the pupils, decided that the class had a sufficient knowledge of Irish to benefit by instruction in Irish, and over-ruled the decision of this very highly successful teacher and her principal. Now, that is not an isolated case.

I do say, however, that these cases occur much less frequently now than they did seven or eight years ago. If that kind of thing goes on, the Minister must not be surprised if he finds that a number of teachers have, contrary to their own judgment, as I say, taken up this method of teaching through the medium of Irish. I am afraid that the number would not be limited to 500 even at the present time. I venture to say, too, that the practice is not confined entirely to the national schools. It may not be creditable to the schools or to the teachers to engage in that form of make-believe or pretence, but let us be honest about it. I certainly think it does not lie either with the Minister or with the Department to blame them for doing that.

As I said a few moments ago, the Minister criticised the constitution of the committee because there happened to be no woman teacher on it. It was made clear, I think, in the report that the duty of the committee was not to express their personal views or opinions, but to collate, co-ordinate and summarise the evidence that was presented to them, and to draw such conclusions as they thought fit from it. The evidence on which they based their report, in the case of the teaching of infants, came exclusively from women teachers, teachers who are highly rated by the Department itself. More than a quarter of them had the highest rating that it is possible for them to obtain under the Department. The Minister also said that there seemed to be no evidence in the report that certain types of schools were visited by the committee. But, surely, it was made clear in the report that no schools were visited by the committee, and that all the evidence in the report was based entirely on signed statements submitted by teachers in schools throughout the country. No schools were visited by the committee for the purpose of obtaining evidence. It is suggested that the report shows a lack of acquaintance with actual conditions in infant schools. The Minister himself, of course, has little opportunity of having any first-hand acquaintance with the conditions in infants' schools, and so he must rely, in the main, on his inspectors for his knowledge of those conditions. Let it be remembered that an inspector visiting a school for a few hours on two or three occasions in the year gathers possibly certain impressions from his visits. He sees the school working, not always under normal conditions. I think I would be justified in saying that no school operates normally in the presence of an inspector. For my part, I think it is only reasonable to say this, that the 422 infant school teachers who submitted evidence to this committee of inquiry had a much better acquaintance with the actual conditions which operate in the schools than the inspectors could possibly have from their short incidental visits.

There was a suggestion or an implication in the Minister's statement, that where the report quoted a number of reports from medical officers showing the poor state of health of many of the children going to those schools in the poorer districts and which were put forward to show the material on which the teachers have to work—there was the suggestion, I say, in the Minister's statement that this poor state of health of the children had some connection or other with the fact that they were being taught through the medium of Irish. I want to make it perfectly clear that there was no such suggestion made in the report. The medical officers' reports were quoted to show that many of the children attending these schools are poor and ill-nourished, that they suffer from malnutrition, that they often come to school without having had a proper meal, and that all that has to be taken into account when teaching them any subject—Irish or any other. There was certainly no suggestion in the report that that state of affairs was caused in any way by the fact that they were being taught through the medium of Irish.

There was another statement made by the Minister which I wish to challenge. He suggested, in the matter of teaching infants, that the subject of play was overlooked in the report. The contrary is the fact. Let me quote one passage—it occurs on page 16 of the report:—

"The text books tell us that spontaneous activity is the predominant characteristic of infanthood. That activity generally expresses itself in the form of play. Play is the child's chief interest, implanted in him by nature. Education comes nearest to perfection when it takes the guise of play and education through play is the ideal to be aimed at in the infant school."

How anyone who had read that passage—and that is not the only one —could say that the play aspect was overlooked in the report, I cannot imagine.

The Minister also, in speaking of the recommendations in the report, gave the impression that the only alternative to the use of Irish as a teaching medium was that Irish should be taught for only one hour a day in the school and that there was some suggestion to that effect in the report. Of course there is no such suggestion. As a matter of fact, one of the recommendations is that the time devoted to oral Irish and conversational Irish should be considerably extended, because the committee believed, on the evidence submitted, that that was one of the best ways by which a conversational knowledge of Irish would be obtained.

There is just one other matter in the report which I should like to mention. Criticism has been advanced against the report on account of the number who replied to the questionnaire. It is pointed out that while it was distributed to some 9,000 teachers the report is based on replies received from about 1,400. It is true that it was distributed to all the members of the organisation. But the questionnaire, on the face of it, made it absolutely clear that only those teachers who themselves had given instruction through the medium of Irish were to reply to the questionnaire; and it is made clear in the report that the 1,400 replies which form the basis of the report came from teachers in English-speaking districts who had used Irish as a medium of instruction. Official records tell us that at the time this investigation was being made Irish was used as a medium of instruction in 2,032 schools; so that 1,400 replies out of 2,032 was a fair proportion. If the other 600 who got an opportunity of submitting evidence did not submit evidence, if they refused or were indifferent, that does not weaken the position in any way. We do not say that the Dáil does not represent the people of this country if it is returned by only a 60 per cent. vote of the electorate.

A certain body which published a statement criticising the report, made a very great deal of capital out of this. They referred especially to one matter and said that 95 replies were received and that these formed an insignificant fraction of the whole teaching profession. Of course, they did not make it known that this particular reply had reference to the teaching of geometry which is confined to a very small number of the schools: the large boys' schools which are very few. It is only in these schools that geometry is taught and only in a small number is it taught through the medium of Irish. The statement in this leaflet, which got widespread circulation, would be correct if the principals, the assistants and junior assistant mistresses in every school in the country not only taught geometry but taught it through the medium of Irish to English-speaking children. That is the kind of criticism that we are to regard as serious from a body that expects to be taken seriously.

I want to make it quite clear that the teachers are not opposed to the teaching of Irish. They are not opposed to the revival movement. The teachers took their part in the revival movement when many who are vocal now were silent. There are no people in this country who have made more sacrifices and gone to greater rounds to fit themselves for the new conditions than the teachers have, and there is not in this report from end to end one phrase or sentence to show that the teachers have any opposition whatever to the general national policy for the revival of Irish. They would be going outside their lawful sphere if they did because that is a matter for the whole community and not for the teachers alone. It would not be proper for them as an organised body to question that policy in any way. But they do claim that they have a right to speak with authority on teaching methods, and that is the only issue that is involved in this particular matter: the methods to be adopted towards attaining the goal on which we are all agreed. I hold that, in collecting and presenting to the Minister and the public this mass of evidence as to the result of the experiment we are now engaged in, in the detailed form in which it is presented, they have rendered a signal service to education.

As I say, we are engaged here in a unique experiment, and surely the opinions of those who are entrusted with carrying out that experiment are worthy of some regard. Yet I searched in vain through the statement made by the Minister for Education in the Dáil when speaking on this matter for one word of commendation or approval of anything that was contained in the report, anything that was done by the committee, or the trouble and energy expended in collecting this evidence. Apparently it is the intention of the Minister to ignore the report and to continue in a course that is contrary to every educational principle, something that was condemned by a great educational administrator some 60 years ago and, years later, by the late Padraig Pearse.

If the evidence that is made available in this report is not sufficient to convince the Minister that he is on the wrong track, surely it should be sufficient to induce him to conduct an inquiry of his own. He has on many occasions been urged to do that, and the former Minister was likewise urged to do it, not alone by the teachers, but by many outside the teaching profession who felt that there was something wrong in the present methods. But, apparently, as I say, the Minister is prepared to ignore all these representations and to continue in the present course lest, I suppose, the Department should be thought to have lost face by retracing their steps when they are found to be on the wrong road. I do strongly urge that there is sufficient evidence in that report to justify the Minister, in fact, to coerce the Minister, in the interests of education and in the interests of the children of this country and their future prospects and progress to set up an inquiry himself, and I can assure him, if he does that, that he will have the full support and co-operation of the teaching body in getting whatever evidence is available and in arriving at a proper conclusion. I should like that to be done. It is not the first time that I have urged it, and it is not the first time that it has been urged on the Minister by others. If he does it, I think he will be meeting not alone the wishes of the teachers, but of the great body of the public as well.

Liam O Buachalla

Is truagh nach bhfuaireamar scéala sul ar tháinigeamar isteach sa tseomra seo go raibh sé socruighthe go mbeadh ceisteanna faoi leith dá bpléidhe. Más rud é go bhfuiltear ar aigne leanamhaint don nós atá molta dhúinn le haghaidh an Bille seo, tá súil agam go socróchthar go bhfuigheamaid fuagra roimh ré i dtaobh na gceisteanna a bheas dhá bpléidhe i riocht is go mbeadh an deis againn na ceisteanna udain a bhfuil speis faoi leith againn ionta a sgrúdú roimh theacht isteach dúinn.

Dá mbeadh fhios agam go mbeadh an cheist seo faoi thuarasgabháil na múinteóirí dhá pléidhe, ba mhaith liom mo chóip féin dí mar aon le mo chuid nótaí a thabhairt isteach liom. B'fhéidir go bhféadfainn roinnt ceisteanna a chur ar an Seanadóir Ó Conaill agus ar an Aire dá bharr a chuideochadh linn ar fad ár n-aigne a dhéanamh suas i dtaobh an scéil. Ar chaoi ar bith, tá suil agam, má támuid ag leanamhaint den nós imeachta seo feasta go mbeidh deis againn fógra fhagháil roimh ré ar chaoi go dtig linn iad do phlé ar an mbealach is cóir.

Luaidh an Seanadóir Ó Conaill ar an gcéad dul síos an méid airgid atámuid a chaitheamh sa tír seo ar oideachais agus a riachtanaí agus a bheas sé go bhféachfamuid chuige go gcaithfear an t-airgead sin ar an mbealach is fóghanta. I mbliadhna támuid le suas agus anuas le £5,000,000 a chaitheamh. Rinne sé tagairt don chuspóir a gcaithfear an t-airgead sin uirthi. Tá sé dhá chaitheamh ar oideachas. Isé an príomh-chuspóir atá againn agus is ceart é, aigne mhuintir na hÉireann athrú agus a mhúnlú go dtí an scríb nádurtha. Briseadh i bhfad ó shoin an dearcadh aicionta a bhí ag muintir na hÉireann ar an saoghal. Bhí an briseadh sin ar bun ar feadh na gcéadhta bliain. Chuir teagasc na sgoltacha náisiúnta go mór leis an mí-ádh sin agus isé an rud is ceart dúinn a choinneáil ar intinn i gcomhnuidhe, cibé airgead a caithfear ar oideachas go gcaithfear é le muintir na hÉireann a thabhairt ar ais aríst ar an scríb is dual, is nadúrtha dóibh. Céard é sin? An aigne Ghaedhealach a thabhairt ar ais aríst. Is féidir ceist a chur orm agus is dócha go gcuirfear orm í, céard a chialluigheas aigne Ghaedhealach. Is féidir an cheist sin a fhreagairt le ceist eile a chur: Céard a chialluigheas an aigne Shasanach? Céard a chialluigheas an aigne Fhranncach no céard a chialluigheas an aigne Ghearmánach? Tá níos mó ná cainnt ann—tá a leithéidí d'aigní ann. Agus má tá aigne Shasanach ann, má tá aigne Ghearmánach ann agus aigne Fhrannach ann, tá aigne Ghaedhealach ann agus ba ceart dúinn, san Oireachtas seo, ár n-aigne fhéin a dhéanamh suas go mba cheart dúinn an aigne Ghaedhealach a thabhairt ar ais aríst in Éirinn an fhad is bheas in ar gcumas é sin a dhéanamh. Mara dhéanfaimid é sin beidh sé cho maith againn eirghe as cainnt ar náisiúntacht na hÉireann agus dul isteach le náisiún eicínt eile agus bheith páirteach leo ina saoghal, seadh san.

Luaidh an Seanadóir Ó Conaill an tuarascbháil a cuireadh amach. Is dóigh liomsa gur theasbáin sé fhéin annso indiu a laighead tábhachta agus atá ag baint leis an tuarascbháil sin. Foillsigheadh an tuarascbháil sin agus bhí na daoine a d'fhoillsigh é ag súil go n-eireócadh leo diospóireacht a chur ar bun agus muintear na hÉireann a chorruighe agus a chur amudha i dtaobh teagasc na Gaedhilge. Mar bhí "flop" ar an saoghal seo, foillsiú na tuarascbhála sin atá i gceist an flop sin. Níor chuir morán daoine spéise ann ach an scéal a chur dhá phléidhe annseo le daoine nach fiú bheith ag caint ortha. Is iarracht é beagán eile poiblidheachta a bhaint amach di. Is iarracht é an tuarascbháil a chur os comhair an phobail ath-uair le súil go dtarrain-geochadh sí beagáinín beag ómóis no áirde ar na daoine a chuir a gcuid ama isteach dhá scríobhadh agus dhá ceapadh.

Deir an Seanadóir Ó Conaill nach bhfuil aon bhóthar no an treoir ann go dtí Éire Ghaedhealach. Deir sé nach bhfuil aon tsompla ann le sinn a threorú maidir leis an obair atá ar bun againn. Níl fhios agam an ndearna sé machtnamh ar an scéal seo ar chor ar bith. Níl aon tsompla ann le muid a threorú? Is féidir dul go dtí tíortha éagsamhla agus somplaí fhagháil ach ní gách duinn dul cho fada sin. Tá sompla againn sa mbaile. Nár theasbáin Sasana dúinn go bhfuil bealach ann le cuspóir den tsórt so a thabhairt ar aghaidh? Theastuigh ó Shasana an aigne Ghaedhealach a bhriseadh agus aigne Ghallda a thabhairt ar aghaidh ins an tír. Mara raibh ag Dia, d'eirigh léi. Tá súil agam go bhfuilimid in am leis an aigne Ghaedhealach a shábháil. Sompla é sin den bhealach sin. Creideann an Seanadóir Ó Conaill nach bhfuil bóthar ann le gur féidir linn an chuspóir seo a chur i gcrích agus an Gheadhilg agus gach a gcialluigheann sí a chur ar ais aríst.

Micheál O hAodha

Deireann an Seanadóir gur mar a chéile an dá shaoghal agus an dá bhóthar. Ní mar a chéile ar aon chor iad.

Liam O Buachalla

Deir an Seanadóir Ó Conaill nach bhfuil aon bhóthar ann, nach bhfuil aon deis ann, nach bhfuil aon bhealach ann a chuirfeadh ar chumas na hÉireann teacht ar an gcuspóir. Céard a chialluigheann ceard na múinteoireachta? Ón gcéad lá a theigheas an páiste isteach sa scoil go dtí go bhfágann sé an scoil nach bhfuilimid ag iarraidh athrú a chur ar aigne? Nach bhfuilimid ag iarraidh a chur ina luighe air é fhéin a smachtú; rudaí nach bhfuil ar eolas aige a chur ar eolas aige. Má chialluigheann múinteoireacht tada, cialluigheann sé gur féidir linn treoir a thabhairt don scoláire agus gur féidir linn a aigne athrú.

Micheál O hAodha

Nach minic a bhuadhann an teinteán ar an scoil?

Liam O Buachalla

Is minic. Chaith an Seanadóir Ó Conaill cuid mhaith ama ag cur síos ar theagasc na naoidheanán i nGaedhilg agus isé is mó a bhí le tuigsint as an gcaint a rinne sé, nach féidir leis na naoidheanáin an Ghaedhilg fhoghluim, nach féidir le lucht an Bhearla an Ghaedhilg fhoghluim nó rudaí fhoghluim i mBéarla. Ba mhaith liom an méid seo a rádh: nach bhfuil mise dall agus nach bhfuilim bodhar. Tá scoil i bhfoigseacht cupla céad slat uaim thíos i mbaile mór na Gaillimhe. Tá a lán páistí ag dul ar an scoil sin, amach as tighthe nach bhfuil focal Ghaedhilge dhá labhairt ionnta— Béarla teanga an athar agus an máthar. Cluinimse na páistí sin ag dul ar scoil ar maidin agus ag dul abhaile trathnóna agus ag sugrú dóibh amuigh ar an tsráid, agus ní cloistear focal Bhéarla uatha ó cheann ceann na seachtaine. Tá aithne agam ar mhúinteoirí i gCo. Muigheo agus i gCo. na Gaillimhe agus i gcondaethe eile agus an toradh atá ar a gcuid oibre. Níl sé cho maith b'féidir, ach is féidir liom a rádh go bhfuil sé go rí-mhaith.

Bhí mé amuigh i gCo. Bhaile Átha Cliath, in aice le Brittas, in áit iargcúlta ar fad agus triúr carad in éindighe liom. Casadh ceathrar páistí linn. Chuir mé caint ar na páistí sin faoi chúrsaí aimsire, scoile, feilméarachta agus eile, agus rud ar bith ar féidir le duine labhairt faoi le leanbh i nGaedhilg; agus bhí na páistí sin i ndon mé fhreagairt i nGaedhilg cho maith agus b'fhéidir leo é dhéanamh i mBéarla. Bhí mé cho sásta sin gur scríobh mé chuig an múinteoir agus mhol mé a chuid oibre agus fuair mé feitir ar ais agus dubhairt sé nach "exceptions" a bhí ins na páistí sin. Mar sin de, má tá an dúil againn, más mian linn rud a dhéanamh, is féidir linn é dhéanamh. Tá na scoltachta i mBaile Átha Cliath agus i nGaillimh agus ar fud na tíre mar chruthú ar sin. Tá múinteóirí ag scríobh agus dhá theasbáint nach bhfuil an ceart ins an tuarascbháil seo atá i gceist, agus a fhiarfruigheas nach féidir leis na páistí scoile an teanga fhoghluim agus í fhoghluim go maith.

Deir an Seanadóir Ó Conaill go bhfuil daoine ann—cuirim i gcás mná riaghalta agus a leithéid—agus go bhfuil siad in aghaidh an pholasaí seo ach nach bhfuil a lán ban riaghalta agus bráthar ann adeir gur polasaí foghainteach é agus gur féidir a chur i bhfeidhm. 'Sé an locht atá agamsa ar na daoine a bhíos ag pléidhe le múinteoireacht i nGaedhilge nach labhrann siad sáthach minic ar an gceist agus nach dtugann siad cuntas ar an slighe ar eirigh leo; ní chuireann siad in iúl don phobal sáthach minic an méid atá dhá dhéanamh aca. Dá ndéanadh daoine udarásacha, daoine eolasach ar an scéal, é sin bheadh aigne an phobail go hiomlán go láidir ar shon an pholasaí atámuid ag iarraidh chur i bhfeidhm.

Tá fhios agam fhéin—bhí an oiread seans agam agus bhí ag daoine eile— eolas fhagháil air mar theagasg mise páistí—bhí deis agamsa páistí annso i mBaile Atha Cliath nach raibh focal Ghaedhilge sa teach aca a mhúneadh i nGaedhilg agus Gaedhilgeoirí iad an lá atá indiu ann. Tá scoláirí ag teacht chugam bliadhain i ndiaidh bliadhna san Ollscoil, daoine óga a chuaidh ar na scoltacha náisiúnta sa nGalltacht ach a fuair a chuid teagaisc i nGaedhilge. Is féidir toradh a gcuid oibre do chur i gcomparáid le toradh oibre scolairí a fuair a gcuid teagasc i mBéarla; má déantar sin, admhóchthar go mbeidh siad ar a laighead cho mhaith le lucht an Bhéarla agus déarfainn go mbeidis níos fearr de ghnáth. Is féidir an Ghaedhilg a theagasc do pháistí na Galltachta. Creidim gur fearr de scoláirí iad, gur fearr an fhoirbhtheacht agus an feabhas a thig ortha, iad san a ghníos a gcuid staideir i nGaedhilg ná iad súid a chlaoidheas leis an mBéarla an t-am ar fad.

An méid a léigh an Seanadóir Ó Conaill as an tuarascbháil phríobháideach, nó díscréideach, sin a chuir an Cumann amach go dtí na múinteoirí, do chuir mé spéis faoi leith ann. Sílim, maran miste leis mé dhá rádh—go bhfuil sé ag meascadh dhá rud. Do réir mar a thuigim, síleann an Seanadóir Ó Chonaill go bhfuil cliste ar mhúinteoireacht na Gaedhilge ins na bun-scoltacha de bhrí nach bhfuil níos mó Gaedhilge le clos ar an tsráid. Ach ní mar a chéile an dá rud. Tá an Ghaedhilg dá múnadh go hanmhaith ina lán scoltacha ach níl an oiread Gaedhilge le cloisteáil taobh amuigh de na scoltacha agus ba chóir. Ach sin ceist eile ar fad. Cén fáth go bhfuil sé mar sin? Níl mise ag dul le é sin a phléidhe go mion anois ach tá mé a rádh go bhfuil sé ag dul amugha ar an dá rud. Má tá scoltacha ann nach bhfuil an Ghaedhilg ag dul ar aghaidh ionnta cho maith agus ba mhaith linn, sé an fáth atá leis go bhfuil múinteoirí ann nach bhfuil sáthach oilte ar an teangan nó bh'féidir i gcásanna eile nach bhfuil dóithin múinteoirí ins na scoltacha. Dá bhféadfaí níos mó múinteoirí a chur isteach ins na scoltacha agus 20 páistí in áit 60 nó níos mó a bheith ins gach rang silím gur mó go mór an toradh a bheadh ar an obair.

Ní mhaith liom sibh a choinneail mórán níos fuide ar an gceist seo. Ach os rud é go bhfuil an tAire i láthair ba mhaith liom a rádh gur dóigh liom gurb é an rud is cóir dúinn a dhéanamh a ceart iomlán a thabhairt don Ghaedhilg feasta. Tá roinnt den cheart tugtha dhe chéana ach ní mheasaim go bhfuil a ceart iomlán dhá fháil fós aici. Cuirim i gcás le haghaidh scrúdú. Níl innti anois ach cineál adhbhar léighinn. An lá a chuireas muid in iúl do mhuintir na hÉireann gur ag an nGaedhilgeoir sa deireadh a bheas an posta, go mbeidh rud eicint le fagháil aca as an nGaedhilg, agus go bhfuilimid dáirírirbh fúithe, an lá san beidh níos mó dá dhéanamh ar son na teangan. Ba mhaith liom an méid seo a rádh, go bhfuil cuid mhaith measa agam ar an moladh a rinne an Seanadóir Ó Conaill nuair a d'iarr sé ar an Aire coimisiún a chur ar bun i dtaobh na ceiste seo. Cuirtear ar an gCoimisiún daoine a thuigeann an Ghaedhilg, ná cuirtear air daoine nach bhfuil i n-ann í labhairt, daoine nach fonn leo í labhairt, daoine ar cuma leo a dtéigheann sí ar aghaidh nó nach dtéigheann. Cuir ar an gcoimisiún daoine a thuigeas an mhúinteoireacht, daoine a mhúin an Gaedhilge go maith, daoine a bhfuil muinghin acu as an teangaidh. Cuir Coimisiún den tsórt seo ar bun a thiubhras deis do na múinteóirí maithe a theasbáint agus a mhíniú go gach duine, múinteóirí agus eile, cén tslighe a d'eirigh leo fhéin an obair mhaith a dhéanamh agus cén tslighe is féidir le múinteóirí eile atá dairíribh faoi'n obair í a dhéanamh cho mhaith leo.

There are scarcely 5,000 people in the whole of Ireland who, I believe, really dislike, or would wish to injure the language or prevent its revival, so far as its revival is possible, but what is causing terrible concern to the vast majority of the people up and down the country is the method at present operated for the revival of the language, as Senator O'Connell has pointed out. There is a small handful of people who consider that they have some sort of divine mission to be the spokesmen of the Irish language, and every time anyone opens his mouth, or dares to have any opinion on this question, which is the most fundamental and most important question in the whole of our educational system, he is told he is anti-Irish or pro-British. I have been told by people whose ancestors were not in this country 150 years ago that I am pro-British because I disagree with some of their fantastic notions about how the Irish language ought to be taught. I will not allow anyone to tell me that I am an enemy of the Irish language because I think the system of teaching it in operation in the schools at present is not doing the work it was intended to do and will not do the work it was intended to do.

One reason why I feel such regret that Senator O'Connell should have to bring forward a matter like this is that I am becoming more and more convinced that, if the present methods are continued, if the Minister continues the sort of stone-wall policy which he is adopting towards the teachers, instead of improving the situation with regard to the language, it is going to create a position in which the people will suddenly turn round and say that they will throw away the Irish language and everything belonging to it. I can see that coming in a very short space of time, if we do not mend our ways. I do not believe there are five Senators here who do not know that well from what they see children going through and from what they hear from the children in the schools and from the children who have come out of the schools within the last eight or nine years. Ask any child in almost any school—in 90 per cent. of the schools in Dublin or anywhere else, outside the Irish-speaking areas—what is the most unpopular subject in the school. Let Senators ask their own children when they go home and, in nine out of ten cases, I guarantee they will be told that it is the Irish language.

That is what I am concerned with, and what a great many people who are not anti-Irish, who do not want to see the Irish language injured or lose any more than it has lost, who are quite as enthusiastic and as anxious to have the Gaelic spirit kept alive and revived in the country as Senator Buckley, are troubled about. It is because they see the chance of doing something for the revival of the Gaelic spirit thrown away through sheer stupidity and pigheadedness on the part of both Governments since the Treaty, through persistence in maintaining a method which any grown-up person can tell for himself, without any questionnaire or inquiry at all, is an irrational method. It is irrational to try to teach anyone—I do not care who he is—any subject through the medium of a language which he does not understand, and which his teacher does not understand, in any real sense of the word.

The Minister has told us over and over again—and I should like Senators to ponder this in their own minds, because it seems as if it were the calculated policy of his Department—that in order to revive the Irish language we must damage education.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

I think the Senator ought to quote what I said. That is an extremely serious statement. I do not think I ever said that.

Professor Tierney

The Minister made statements which certainly implied that to me. He said something very like it here in the Seanad.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think the Minister will agree that he has said that the educational policy of his Department is to see that a generation in this country will have a spoken knowledge of the Irish language, which I do not think has anything to do with education.

Mr. Derrig

I do not think I said that, either.

Professor Tierney

He has said in so many words that it is the official view of his Department that, in order to revive the Irish language, other subjects must suffer, and I challenge the Minister to deny that. It may be a serious statement, but the situation in the schools and the situation of the unfortunate children who have to grow up under that system is serious also.

Mr. Derrig

I do not think I have ever said that the policy of restoring Irish is likely to damage education. I may have said—I should like my exact words to be quoted—that in the transitional stage, while we are trying through the schools to bring Irish back as a spoken language, there may be some loss so far as other things are concerned. I have not admitted that there is any educational damage.

Professor Tierney

People can parse these words and try to find out what meaning they have, if they like, but, to me at any rate, their meaning is that for a certain period there must be educational losses because of the attempt to revive the Irish language. I hold that that is a hopeless statement and that the attitude of mind which it betrays is hopeless. I do not for one minute agree that there should be any necessity whatever for any subject or any other part of education to suffer because of the revival of the Irish language, and I hold that anyone who maintains that view and puts into force a policy based on that notion ought to forget about the Irish language, because he is going to do more harm than good not merely to general education but to the Irish language as well.

I am very sorry to find myself in the strange position of disedifying Senator Kelly. If the Minister could only be persuaded to set up some sort of advisory council of people who had some educational standard and some experience of education in other countries, some experience of methods of teaching languages in other countries, to inquire not only into this matter but into many other matters connected with the work of his Department, it would be an admirable thing. One of the great disadvantages we suffer from is that we rushed headlong into bureaucracy as far as education is concerned, in 1922, and abolished all the commissions and boards we had in the country. Whatever might have been said about the personnel of these bodies I, for one, am convinced that the idea of having advisory boards, of the kind we had here before 1922, is very sound, and the sooner we get back to them the better. One way to cure this unfortunate situation to which Senator O'Connell has drawn attention would be for the Minister to re-establish some kind of advisory council of education which could go into this whole matter of the teaching of Irish and the teaching of other subjects through the medium of Irish and its relation to the general educational progress of the country, without any anti-Irish bias or any suggestion of it.

The case made by Senator O'Connell for the primary schools could be made equally for the secondary schools. It is only a couple of years since a very strong case of the kind was made by educationists of high standing in Maynooth College when there was some discussion on this matter. The general consensus of opinion amongst the speakers, who were teachers in high positions and men of long experience, was that the whole system of teaching other subjects through the medium of Irish was a bad system. We have all had experience of this question as well as Senator Buckley. It has been my experience, talking to teachers from all over the country, teachers engaged not merely in teaching Irish but other subjects through the medium of Irish, that their general opinion is that the whole thing is a farce and that it is doing more harm than good. I could mention half a dozen teachers who have confessed that to me in private in the past six months. It is only two or three evenings since I was talking to a secondary school teacher from Kerry who said that very thing and he came from a district which is almost an Irish speaking district. I am not saying that because I like to say it or because I am hostile to the Irish language. I am saying it because it is a patent, well-known fact, that teachers themselves and the children find the whole thing obnoxious and irritating.

Instead of turning out Irish speakers or friends of the Irish language, it is turning the children of our generation, I might say two generations, into enemies of the Irish language. There is probably no use in asking the Minister to do anything about this matter but I want to make this prophecy, that he will not be always in office. There will be changes in this country before very long at all, and we are always running up against the danger that sooner or later a Government will come into power with the backing of the big majority of the people, which will turn its back completely on the Irish language. That was a remote danger 20 years ago. I remember having heard it said after the Treaty, but with every day that passes I am convinced that that situation is coming nearer to us if we do not mend our ways; if we do not make up our minds that there is only one way to get Irish restored and that is to get the people, as Senator Buckley said, to want to restore it. If we could only induce our people to understand what the Gaelic spirit is, and what is its relation to nationality, if we could get our children, even through the medium of English, to sympathise with and understand that spirit and to wish to have it restored, we would get far closer to the day when all our aspirations in regard to the language would be realised than ever we are likely to get by teaching logarithms through the medium of Irish.

The question of teaching through the medium of Irish is linked up in a certain sense with the subject which I wanted particularly to raise on this Bill. I wish to ask the Minister whether he has any statement to make about the proposal to appoint assistant examiners for the secondary school examinations. There has been a great deal of agitation, apparently, behind closed doors, in recent months on that subject and apparently very real uneasiness has been caused in the schools and in the minds of teachers. I noticed, only to-day, that that highly representative body, the Gaelic League, had passed a resolution expressing its objection to any proposal to hand over educational matters to the "unrepresentative" university. The two questions are really linked together, because the proposal to re-establish the system of having advisory examiners in the secondary schools arose out of the fact that for the last ten or 12 years the examinations have been falling to pieces, as I previously pointed out in this House. To anyone who is in contact with examinations it is fairly clear, whatever the cause may be, that the standards have altered out of all recognition and the results which they achieve do not seem to be at all in line with the results that are achieved by students, for instance, afterwards when they come up to the university or with the results that are achieved in other places under another system of secondary school examinations. That went so far, some time ago, as I have already pointed out here, that the National University decided not to accept the Pass Leaving Certificate any longer as the equivalent to its matriculation. The National University did that because the National University is the only body that is responsible for its matriculation, for the standard of entrance to its own lectures and its own examinations.

Most of the examiners in the National University felt that the standard in the Leaving Certificate had sunk so low or had grown so peculiar that there was no relation any longer between that standard and the standard observed at matriculation. As a result of their decision not to recognise the Leaving Certificate any longer, an inquiry was set on foot, and out of that inquiry there came an agreed proposal to co-ordinate the programmes of the Pass Leaving Certificate and of matriculation. That proposal again gave rise to a number of other suggestions, and amongst them was the suggestion that the university examiners at the matriculation should play some part in the examinations for the Pass Leaving Certificate. That was a proposal with which I was never myself in very strong agreement, because I believe strongly that the university should look after its own business and that the secondary department should look after its business, and that the two are quite separate and independent, except in so far as they come together at matriculation. I felt that the matriculation matter might easily be settled without any interference by the university in the secondary school examinations.

However, the proposal that examiners from the university should exercise some sort of vigilance over the marking in the Leaving Certificate was agreed to, and has been acted upon, not in such a way that the university examiners have any power whatever to coerce the Leaving Certificate examiners, but simply that they join in an advisory capacity to co-ordinate the standard of marking, and they have helped also to co-ordinate the programme.

Out of that situation again there grew a proposal, which I think I was at least one of the first to make, a proposal that the Department of Education should go back to the old system under which an advisory examiner was appointed for each subject in the secondary school examinations, that the advisory examiner's name should appear on the papers of the intermediate and leaving certificate; and that he should be such a person as would be known to be an authority on his special subject, so that the country might have complete confidence in the standard of those examinations, and in the competence of the people engaged in carrying them out. At the present time the system does suffer very gravely from a quality which is, of course, inseparably associated with bureaucracy, the fact that the examiners are anonymous, that their names are not known to anybody, and that the whole system of examination is carried on almost furtively, without anybody apparently being responsible to anyone else at any particular stage. It was felt—I think the feeling was shared, not merely by university people but by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Education himself—that it would be an improvement if expert people were appointed for each special subject. There is no necessity that those expert people should necessarily be drawn from any one university, or from the university at all. It was intended, and it was explicitly said, that it should be entirely a matter for the Department of Education itself to appoint those examiners; that they need not be appointed in consultation with any university or be responsible in any way whatever to any university.

Unfortunately, arising out of that, an idea seems to have got abroad amongst teachers and others that there is a nefarious scheme on foot whereby the university hopes to capture the Intermediate and Leaving Certificate examinations, and to control them in some mysterious way, for what purpose I am afraid I am not able to grasp, except that one authority suggested that it was the innate and indelible Whiggery of the university that was trying to destroy the Irish movement in the schools by seeking to control these examinations. I want an assurance from the Minister, and I want to assure the House myself so far as my knowledge goes, that no such purpose is at all in contemplation. There is no question whatever of the university wishing to get control over the secondary schools, except in so far as university examiners are consulted on the question of the Leaving Certificate Pass examination, which is co-ordinated with matriculation. Even that is an entirely voluntary arrangement, and neither side, neither the Department nor the university, exercises any particular control over the other in regard to that arrangement. It is an entirely voluntary and equal arrangement on both sides. Any suspicion that there is any plot on foot to get control of the school examinations or to get control of the schools by the university should be dismissed immediately. The university neither wishes as a corporate body, I am quite certain, nor, if it did so wish, is it in a position, to undertake such control as is alleged in the rumours that are going around. There is no wish whatever to interfere with the work of the Department of Education, except in so far as it may be found profitable by the Department of Education to call in, entirely on its own responsibility and on its own authority, university experts for a certain limited purpose in which they would be entirely at the disposal of the Department. I just want to make that as clear as I can, and to express the hope that the Minister might make a statement on the matter in order to ensure that those rumours and suspicions will cease to circulate.

Sir John Keane

I feel that, by a sort of general genealogical test, I am qualified to speak on this subject, because, while Senator Tierney referred to 150 years' Irish ancestry, I can claim 300 years, and if we enter into the mythological period I can claim to be descended from King Conn, whoever he was, who was said to have fought 100 battles and lost none. Of course, I admit that since then, possibly, our family have fallen sadly from grace. When this compulsory teaching through Irish was first advocated, I had very grave doubts about it, and I expressed those doubts in the Seanad. Then I began to feel that I was only doing harm in taking a line of opposition to the proposal; that my national record was so bad that it would only harm the Government in the policy which they had inaugurated and are still pursuing. It is most gratifying now, after some 20 years, to see that a metamorphosis has come about, and that amongst the ranks of the Gaels themselves there is the very strongest and deepest alarm at this policy. Personally, I do not mind admitting that I am somewhat indifferent on this question of the Irish language and the teaching of Irish. I certainly have no objection to it; so far as ordinary intercourse with the language is concerned, I find it rather restful, when Senator Buckley is speaking, that I need not make any attempt to listen, because I do not understand. I found it really most pleasant to listen to the mellifluous tones and mark the eloquence of conviction with which Senator Buckley spoke in what was to me an unknown tongue.

I should like to ask again what objection the Government have to an impartial inquiry, by people who are versed in the science of teaching, into the question of teaching other subjects through the medium of Irish. It was said originally that it was too soon to judge. Now there have been about 15 years of this experiment, and there is alarm among teachers and among those who certainly cannot be accused of being hostile to the Irish revival or in any way hostile to the Gaelic spirit. There is also the question of psychology involved, child psychology. You take a child and you put him in a certain atmosphere, and as I understand it, you do definite damage to his formative mind. He goes to school— never a pleasant process—and he is put to a task which he does not understand and with which he is out of sympathy. Naturally, he is likely to come across an impatient or cross teacher. Then he goes home to an English-speaking home which is thoroughly unsympathetic with his endeavours. That is a fundamental factor in the Gaelic revival: are you doing or are you not doing damage to that young mind? Are you not laying the seeds of some psychological complex which, through the unconscious mind, may damage that child's whole career? It is well known amongst psychologists that very grave risks are run by doing violence to the mind at early ages, and that the seeds of later trouble can be traced back to wrong influences in those early days. That is a matter which is a subject for scientific inquiry.

I am told that the standard of education or knowledge or anything you like to call it, has been definitely deteriorating under this system. That is a matter which surely should be tested. It is capable of being tested by people who are experts in education, and I cannot understand why the Government have consistently refused to have an independent inquiry by people who are totally unconcerned with whether Irish should be the national language or not; people who are concerned merely with the education of the child and his training to face the battle of life. It is really rather lamentable that it should be left to the teachers on their own initiative to suggest that there should be an inquiry. Of course it will be said that theirs is a partial outlook, that theirs is only one point of view, and that it does not cover the whole ground. I implore the Government to alter their attitude towards this whole question, to approach it objectively and not to take up the attitude that they were going to steamroll the Irish language into the people, irrespective of results. It can only be said then that they would only do the Irish language irreparable harm. I think we have reached the stage when there is very grave unrest in the country about this question. Not knowing any Irish, I feel that if the Government recognise that they are a democratically elected Government, and that they are the servants of the people and not their masters, it is their duty to approach this question objectively.

Micheál O hAodha

A Chathaoirlig, táimíd ag tosnú um thráthnóna ar scéim nua díospóireachta ar an mBille seo agus ba cheart dúinn fáilte do chur roimh Aire an Oideachais a tháinig a chuidiú linn. Bhaineas anthaithneamh as óráid Ghaedhilge an tSeanadóra O Buachalla agus ba bhreá liom leanúint den Ghaedhilg ach sílim ná fuil aon adhbhar cainte gur chirte Béarla do labhairt air ná an t-oideachas. Furmhór na n-aithreacha agus na máithreacha níl aon Ghaedhilg ar foghnamh aca agus tá teideal aca an cur síos ar an gceist seo do thuigsint.

This is a subject which I would like to discuss entirely in Irish after Senator O Buchalla's speech in Irish. It always struck me that our discussions on the Irish language are on a false analogy and full of confusions about the meaning of the words we use. We have conventions about education and discussions about Irish which seem to me to retard the real progress of the language. Education is often discussed in Irish because teachers and Ministers who know Irish are very often involved. I do not think there is any subject that ought to be discussed in English more than education, seeing that the parents of the children at school are people who in the main understand no other language but English. As far as I am concerned, I do not find myself in agreement with any of the speakers so far, and I should like to treat the matter in rather a different way. I am not concerned, as Senator O'Connell is, to defend the national teachers' views on this particular inquiry, or the views expressed as a result of the inquiry, nor am I concerned to attack the Minister for any of his actions or omissions. This is not a political subject at all and I think it ought not to be treated in a political way. I hope I may raise the National University in the opinion of Senator Kelly by being calmer than those from the National University who have already discussed it.

May I say a word first on the question of collaboration between the university and the education authorities with regard to the leaving certificate? Senator Tierney gave the history of what happened about that and, of course, there may be merits or demerits in that particular matter. There are people who think that great good will be done by bringing university examiners to bear on the secondary schools. Certain objections have been stated and, as very often happens in this country, objections have been stated which are quite irrelevant and do not arise at all. I heard two points raised apparently very sincerely, by certain people. One was that the change the Government contemplated making in secondary school examinations has been fostered by enemies of Irish in the National University. Nothing could be further from the truth. I happen to know that some, at least, of those who favour the new scheme are consistent and stalwart supporters of Irish in University College, Dublin. Secondary teachers have told me that they were afraid the new system of revising examiners from the university might lead to secondary teachers losing their posts as assistant examiners. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that nothing could be further from the truth. I was responsible for making a change when I was Minister for Education, which enabled secondary teachers to become assistant examiners.

Mr. Derrig

There is no question of that at all, as long as the assistant examiner is efficient.

Mr. M. Hayes

I have endeavoured to explain that to teachers, but I think there are teachers who are afraid of it. I remember that I was the person who took over the Intermediate Education Board and found them a much more intelligent and calmer body of people than I ever thought before. I looked at the list of assistant examiners on the Intermediate Education Board, 1922, and the comment I made to the assistant commissioner was that it would be nearly worth shedding blood to change that list. It was an extraordinary list of people who had nothing whatever to do at all with teaching in this country. We at once took steps to enable teachers in secondary schools to become assistant examiners, and that method of appointment has been preserved by both Governments pretty fairly up to the present moment. The teachers have the idea I have mentioned— though there is no justification for it— but the appointments will remain in the hands of the Minister, as they were in the hands of his predecessors, and the same system of assistants will operate as heretofore.

On the matter of the national teachers' report on the teaching of Irish, I fail to understand why such a report should not receive attention from the Minister. I do not understand why he should regard it as something upon which he must avoid discussion or as something which he adverts to only—as they said in the Treaty debates—"under duress". Apparently, the Minister did not speak of this particular matter until he was forced to do so in the other House. It is a very difficult subject, but it is not a political one. One of the great confusions is that the moment one opens one's lips, one's good faith is questioned immediately. In a very interesting speech, Senator O Buachalla took the view that those who want to change the present methods, or even inquire into the present methods, are in some way or another enemies of what we call the national aim with regard to Irish. However, at the very end of his speech, Senator O Buachalla did say that he thought a commission should be set up. He said then something very near to what I have said myself on more than one occasion. I am in favour of an inquiry into what we are doing in regard to the Irish language.

Sir John Keane

Hear, hear.

Mr. M. Hayes

When Senator Sir John Keane has heard me to a finish, he may not be so enthusiastic. I have said before that we are endeavouring to do something for which there is no analogy and no parallel. I say that again, in spite of Senator O Buachalla's talk about the Continent. I have some acquaintance with bilingual countries on the Continent and have a knowledge of their systems and difficulties. I think we cannot get anywhere any assistance towards a solution of the peculiar problem which it has fallen to our lot to solve. I am speaking as a person who has always worked wholeheartedly for a solution. There is no analogy with the Continent or with Wales. In Wales, for example, the language is spoken in towns and industrial areas, and it is the official language of the Church of a great number of the people. There are important differences between Wales and this country. Similarly, it is quite wrong to talk about analogies from history. I might answer Senator Keane—there are certain people who would—by saying he is probably quite right when he speaks about psychological objections to teaching children in a language they do not know, but that people around Cappoquin were taught in a language they did not know. They were people from Irish-speaking homes who were taught in English, and nobody rose to explain the immense harm that was being done to their mental development.

It is all very well to say, as has been said, that the British Government destroyed the Irish language and that an Irish Government can restore it. That is only a half truth, and a very dangerous half truth. Similarly, it is said that the national schools destroyed the Irish language and that, therefore, the national schools can restore it. It is only a half truth, if it is true at all, to say that the national schools destroyed the Irish language; and it is not true at all to say the national schools can restore it. They cannot. It is true that the help of the teachers is an indispensable feature, and that their active co-operation is necessary. The forced labour of teachers— primary, secondary or university—is of no use. Even when we have their active co-operation and have it wholeheartedly, it is not sufficient in itself. Therefore, we have a problem peculiar to our own circumstances, and the only way we can get assistance towards a solution is by examining our own experiences during the last 20 years.

There are several confusions. Firstly, there is confusion with regard to the difference between aims and methods. I have my aim, which is the same as that of Senator O Buachalla, and I think Senator Tierney's aim is the same as ours; but we may differ as to the methods to be employed. I have repeatedly asked for an inquiry as to the methods, and in that I differ entirely from Senator Sir John Keane. I do not want an impartial inquiry; I want a competent inquiry by people who sympathise with the national aim of restoring the language. That is what I mean when I say I do not want an impartial inquiry into this matter. I do not want people who are wholly scientific and cold and learned to look at this problem and say: "You cannot solve it." I want people, fully as anxious as I am and as the Minister is, to examine the position and see whether we may be going too slow in some directions and too fast in others. I disagree entirely with what I understood Senator O Buachalla to say—that he wants such a commission to consist exclusively of teachers whose hearts are in the Irish language revival. One of the things I would prescribe is that they should know Irish—a great many of them—and that, besides knowing Irish, they should know a continental language. We will be as Anglicised more than ever we were, on the day when our secondary schools give up teaching continental languages —French, German, Italian and Spanish —and when the people have only a knowledge of English, with a certain amount of Irish. On that day, we will be further from the spirit of the historic Irish nation than ever before. I would like people with that kind of learning to conduct the inquiry.

Regarding the national teachers' report, I am not concerned to defend what is in it. I am prepared to say that, in holding that inquiry, the action of the national teachers was praiseworthy. It was something for which the Minister should have been grateful, whatever the results were. The inquiry should have been welcome and its report should have been weighed and discussed by the Minister, even if it were badly done. It should merit the attention of the Minister for Education, no matter who he may be, or to what Party he may belong. The report is not a bad one. I have read it. One has some difficulty in speaking on this matter, as people have strong views—emotional views—not based on experience of their own or of anybody else. This report appears to be clear and well presented, reasoned and reasonable. It comes from people who prima facie are entitled to be heard. In regard to what is taught in primary schools, to whom else should we go? If the national teachers are anti-Irish, we cannot revive the language at all. We are completely destroyed if the teaching body is what some of the very strenuous and hot-headed advocates of the Irish language regard it as being. I do not think it is any such thing.

It is not true to say that, for 30 years before the establishment of the Irish Free State, no question arose of teaching through the medium of Irish. The question did arise. Pearse tried to do something about it. If I may be permitted to speak about myself, I may say that 25 years ago some of us combined with Miss Gavan Duffy to set up a school which had for its object a gradual introduction of teaching through the medium of Irish. That was when the British were here, and when there did not appear to be much prospect of getting them out. One of the committee was a national teacher, one is now head of a Government Department, several of them were members of the staff of University College, Dublin, including Senator Tierney. To show our bona fides in that matter, we put our own money down and lost every penny of it. At any rate, it shows that, at that particular moment, when the British were still here, and before an Irish Department of Education had been set up, we were thinking of something in this particular direction. We got a native speaker trained specially for kindergarten work.

It seems to me that there are a few people who oppose our aim and who will derive great consolation from any ill-temper we may display, and from any abuse the Minister may pour on this report, on its promoters and methods. I am not concerned with the merits of the report, but I would like to hear the Minister give a clear and friendly statement of the Ministerial view and of the Departmental view, for or against various matters put forward in it. We should take this whole question out of the realm of politics and catch cries, and even out of the realm of ancestry. We must face the difficulties, which are very great. I cannot understand why the Minister did not want to discuss this matter. Instead of being friendly and setting out his views in a calm way, he threw some doubts upon the nature of the report itself, as a fair report, and upon the outlook of the people who drew it up.

Why should it be necessary for every one of us to be wholeheartedly in favour of present methods? On what are our present methods based? In 1922, we thought—I believed it myself, but I have learned a great deal since then—that the schools were most important and could do a great deal. Now, I think that the schools can do less than I thought then they could do. We have really never had a scientific investigation into the whole matter. We are doing our best—I admit that the last Government, the present Government and the officials concerned have had excellent motives—but there is nothing binding on our national conscience in acceptance of the methods adopted in the national schools. One may think that these methods are quite wrong so far as the Irish language is concerned, and that they are wrong educationally, without being either a renegade or a West Briton. That should be admitted on all sides. The attitude which is represented by the statement that "the Minister is interested and is doing his best and do not say a word to him"— that attitude is simply a lazy attitude and an indication of mental indolence. It is just an indolent refusal to get our minds working on the subject.

There are, it appears to me, three confusions in respect of this matter. In the first place, there is a confusion between aims and methods. Senator O Buachalla talked about "an ceart do thabhairt do'n Ghaedhilig"—"giving Irish its rightful place." That is only a phrase. What is the rightful place of Irish? My idea of giving Irish its rightful place is to give it the place which will best tend to its increasing use. Senator O Buachalla spoke about a polasí láidir—a strong policy. It is quite possible that, in certain respects, a weak policy would be better than a strong policy. What does a "strong policy" mean? If it means going on doing what you are now doing without considering it, I disagree. Senator O Buachalla also gave us a theory which I, myself, at one time, believed but which I have completely abandoned. He said that if we made it clear that there was "rud le fáil as an nGaedilig"—if there was some personal benefit to be got through Irish, if a knowledge of Irish carried certain economic benefits— everybody would turn to it. I think that that is as wrong as the theory of Karl Marx. The Marxian theory is that all our actions are motivated by personal gain and materialism. They are not. Something more than that will have to be done before this problem is solved.

There is another confusion in what Senator O Buachalla said—and said very often—which is not contained in this report. There is very great difference between what the average teacher, teaching average pupils, can accomplish and what a particularly well-equipped and enthusiastic teacher can accomplish with specially selected pupils. From his experience as a teacher, Senator O'Connell knows that. I know it, too, from experience. I am the only one who has, so far, spoken who has endeavoured to teach two modern languages, including Irish, to children and adults. There is a difference between what the average teacher can accomplish and what a specially equipped and enthusiastic teacher can accomplish in a particular place. One of the best teachers of Irish in this country was a member of this House for some time. He is not a trained teacher and is not a native speaker. I do not suppose he ever read a book on pedagogics or linguistics. But he is a wizard at teaching children Irish. Ask him how he does it, and he cannot tell you. Neither can I, and I have watched him at work. I refer to "An Fear Mór".

There is no use in comparing a genius like that with Pat Murphy, N.T., of Ballylooby. You cannot compare what a genius can do with what an ordinary national teacher can do with ordinary children in an ordinary national school. Even all the national teachers who are marked "highly efficient" are not inspired. Even university professors are not on the same level. Some are more inspiring than others and some are duller than others. What we have to consider is what can be done by the average teacher, teaching the average pupil. Senators who are not in close touch with educational matters may bear with me if I give them an illustration. When you go to a school dinner you hear of the student of the school who became head of a Department, Ceann Comhairle, Minister for Education, Minister for Industry and Commerce, chairman of the Shannon scheme, or head of something or other. That is not an entirely sound way to judge a school. It should be judged by how the average pupil did in after life and not by how specially selected people got on.

The next confusion is that of an oral knowledge of Irish and an "Irish mind". I never know what people mean when they refer to the "aigne Gaedhalach". If I had time, I could give a lecture for one and a half hours on that matter, because there is immense confusion regarding it. Because a person has learned a certain amount of Irish and can talk on a certain limited number of topics in Irish, it is argued that he has acquired a better patriotism, or a wider knowledge of Irish, or a greater enthusiasm than would otherwise be the case. In fact, we have discovered that that is not so. Any person who has taken an interest in the matter must have been struck with the fact that fluency in Irish does not necessarily mean a better understanding of Irish culture or more enthusiasm for the spread of the Irish language. I have seen most interesting examples in this connection from amongst people who attended all-Irish schools.

I do not stand at all with the people who say that teaching through Irish is humbug. I think that it is desirable and should, with certain safeguards, be continued and developed. I am convinced of that and was convinced of it in 1917, which is a long time ago. But I have the example frequently, in my own house, of a boy, a visitor, who went to one of the very best primary schools in Dublin which was teaching through the medium of Irish; he then went to a first-class secondary school, where he was taught Latin, Irish, Greek and mathematics through the medium of Irish. He passed all his examinations. He never went to an Irish-speaking district. He knows Irish grammar very well, indeed. He understands Irish and he answered all the questions in his examinations in Irish. But he has no desire to speak Irish. If he is addressed in Irish, he will answer in Irish. But if he is listening to a conversation in Irish, he will butt into it in English. Great labour has been expended on him and he has been given a very good grasp of Irish. I am not blaming anybody. I am merely stating the fact. He has not been taught anything at all about what the Irish language stands for or what it means historically or in its literary content or to the people who speak it. He knows nothing of the life behind it. I do not blame any teacher for that.

Nobody realises more than I do the immense effort that has been made. My experience is not the same as that of Senator O Buachalla. He referred to people he met in Brittas, who were good at Irish. Long ago, there was a teacher of Irish at Blackpitts, near Lower Clanbrassil Street, in the heart of Dublin. His name was O'Hare, and he was a Clareman. Long before the British left this part of the country, he did immense work for Irish. I remember pulling down a blind in my own house, and a youngster from his school answered questions relating to the use of "suas" and "anuas" and "síos" and "aníos" most accurately. That teacher got no assistance from the Department of the day. The parish priest, who was not very enthusiastic for Irish, appointed another teacher in his place—a teacher who was very good at Irish and who is now head of our principal school in Dublin. Great things can be accomplished by particular people. But go to a golf course and try to get the caddie to speak in Irish, as I always do. Ask him what age he is, and he does not know the answer.

I am not blaming anybody, but there you are. If you say to one of these lads: "Cad is ainm duit?"—well, they all know that, but if you say: "Cad é an aois thú?" a great many of them are unable to answer you or to tell you whether they are 14 or not.

Mr. Derrig

B'fheidir gur feidir sin a mhiniú.

Mr. M. Hayes

B'fheidir. I know there are any amount of explanations of it. I am as well aware of that as the Minister is, and I am not blaming anybody, but I am saying that we are not going to get where we want to go by saying that we are halfway there already, when we are not. That is the trouble. There is no use in humbugging ourselves. We have to face the disagreeable facts. The Irish language is not a collection of words merely—grammar, irregular verbs, and so on. We must get into the minds of the children something of the spirit, of the life, and of the history of that language, even if we have to do that through the medium of English. If we do not get it done by some medium, by some hook or some crook, our whole work is a failure, to my mind, and I think that we should let no shibboleth, no catch-cry, or no preconceived notion stand between us and getting our job done. For example, it may be necessary—and it was suggested in this report—that some English should be spoken, and that some English should be taught, and perhaps it is a good idea.

Recently I saw Gaelic enthusiasts holding meetings in Abbey Street and speaking English although they know Irish well, and I told one lady, who was selling pamphlets, that if the young man went on abusing his throat like that he would only last a week and then would not be able to speak either in English or Irish on any platform. I was taught Irish, for instance, in school by a Christian Brother and, in the words of a friend of mine, who was in that school with me and who visited me the other evening, that Christian Brother drove us all mad about Irish. He was a Cork man—he wrote the Christian Brothers' grammar—and he never spoke a word of Irish to us, but he gave us what every person who was in that school with him has maintained to this present day: an abiding interest in, and an abiding love for, the Irish language, which very often is not given in a school where everything is done through the medium of Irish.

The same applies to translation. You are not allowed to translate from English into Irish in the primary schools or in the secondary schools, and the Minister himself knows that nearly every speech he listens to is a bad translation from English. I think the pupils should be taught how to translate properly. That is my experience. I do not want to discuss a detail like that, but, in any event, I do think that we need an intellectual shaking up, and, without being harsh, I think that the Ministerial attitude towards this report, speaking from the point of view of mentality, is an indolent and lazy attitude. The Minister says, "We are doing grand", and he will not discuss it. I think that that is a wrong attitude. I think we should face our difficulties and get the matter discussed. I do not think it would be easy to get the proper type of inquiry, but that an inquiry is necessary seems to me to be absolutely beyond all doubt.

This question of Irish has been discussed on an emotional plane. There is no harm in doing that, if you are simply discussing the aim, but if you are discussing the method of reviving the Irish language, in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, then you must do that with people who know teaching and who know languages. People set themselves up as authorities. I meet people who tell me that they have no difficulty in teaching through the medium of Irish or in expressing themselves through Irish. One does not like to be harsh, but the answer to these people, in many cases, is that they have not anything to say. It sounds harsh, but that is the melancholy truth. Take the French Revolution as an example. You can teach the history of the French Revolution through Irish, if you take it as a series of events. In that case you can teach the history of the French Revolution through Irish quite easily, but the French Revolution was a great deal more than that, and when you go beyond that, it certainly offers difficulties to me when it comes to the matter of the Irish language. In other words, the more I study about the French Revolution, the more difficult I find it to put it in Irish, and the more you read about the Revolution in the French language, the more difficult it becomes to put it in Irish. I am far from saying, however, that Irish is not a language which is flexible and which can be made suitable for all these things, but a great many of the things that are said are simply wishful thinking and an avoidance of the difficulties. I suggest, as I suggested before, that the report of this committee of inquiry should be treated seriously and that, casting no aspersions on the motives of the people who prepared it, the Minister should recognise that it is a body of evidence, rebut the conclusions if some of them can be rebutted, and set up, himself, an inquiry composed of people who have at heart, as he has and as I have, the revival of Irish, who know Irish, who know another Continental language, if you can get some of them, and who have some knowledge of teaching and of education generally. After 20 years of endeavour, there can be no doubt that there must be a possibility of garnishing the fruits of our experience and seeing whether we are going too slow in some directions and too fast in other directions. The only way to do that is to get away from name-calling and from the old clichés, which were all very fine when the British were here and when you were talking to a Chief Secretary, but which are no good when you are talking to an Irish Minister for Education or an Irish Department of Education. I suggest that the Minister should take some steps to do that. I am not standing in any way either for the report itself, in its details, or for the Ministerial reply in the Dáil, but what struck me about the Ministerial reply was that it is in a rather objectionable spirit, and I think that a different spirit is necessary if we are to make any progress at all.

Mr. Goulding

I suppose it takes some courage for a mere layman to stand up here after the eloquence of the professors, and, personally, I must say that I was very interested and found that the subject was treated very fairly and impartially. Some time ago, speaking in this House and dealing with the same question, I referred to the fact that one of the faults of the system of primary education in this country, and perhaps one of the reasons for the lamentable lack of interest in the Irish language amongst the pupils, was the fact that the pupils were not taught, in the national schools, the reason for the language, and I made a plea here for the teaching of patriotism in the schools. Many Senators did not agree at all with me. Senator Tierney, for instance, did not at all agree with me or consider that my view was a good one, and he wanted to know if I wanted professors of patriotism sent around the schools. I did not, but I know well that the children coming out of the national schools of Ireland to-day have no love for the Irish language.

Senator Sir John Keane dwelt on the psychological aspect of the matter. The people who drove Irish out of this country were good psychologists, and those people started by teaching the Irish children through the medium of a language that they did not know, and they beat the Irish out of them. What I am afraid of now is that we are following a bad example, that we may be forcing our Irish children to learn Irish and, in doing so, instilling into them a dislike and, actually, a hatred of the language. Senator Hayes spoke a moment ago of a young man who was well taught through the medium of Irish, who was taught foreign languages, mathematics and other subjects through the medium of Irish, and yet who had no interest in Irish. Why is it that our young people coming out of the schools who can speak Irish never will speak it? They may do so occasionally, but they dislike the speaking of Irish, although as we all know they can speak it. I am very sorry to have to say it, but I believe that the majority of the young people coming out of the schools to-day actually dislike the speaking of Irish. There are too many of them who refuse to answer in Irish when spoken to. They do not like Irish. I wish we could discover the reason for that. One of the reasons for it, I believe, is that these children are not taught Irish history in the schools as it should be taught.

Minister for Education (Mr. Derrig)

And in the homes.

Mr. Goulding

Yes, and in the homes. Other countries do not leave it entirely to the homes. They make sure that their young people are taught to respect their different countries. American children are taught to salute their flag. Think of what takes place in an Irish cinema house where you have a crowd of young people gathered together. Even in the smaller country towns, you find that when the National Anthem is played many of those young people pay no attention to it. They do not appear to know what the National Anthem or the national flag means. I think that, to a great extent, is responsible for the children's lack of interest in the national language. During the past 20 years there has been a lamentable lapse of national spirit in this country. There is no doubt at all about that. The younger generation rising up appear to care nothing whatever about the Irish nation or Irish nationality. When we ask ourselves what is the matter with Irish, perhaps we have the explanation there—a lack of national spirit. Senator Hayes very rightly pointed out that 30 or 40 years ago there was far more enthusiasm for Irish than there is to-day. I wonder if we were to try the British method and were to ban Irish, if we were to penalise the children for speaking Irish, would that prove more effective? There is something in the Irish character that reacts to that sort of thing. Perhaps if we got a Government in power that would turn on Irish, that would drive it again out of the schools and penalise the Irish people for speaking it, our efforts for it might be more successful.

Dealing with the report, I am of opinion that it would be a good idea to have an inquiry into the whole matter. I agree that the inquiry should be held by people who are sympathetic to the language. I would not ask that they should be all Irish speakers. At the same time I would not care to have on the committee of inquiry men or women who were known to be antagonistic to the Irish language, Irish ideals or the Irish nation, because we have in this country to-day people born in it who are not alone indifferent to Irish nationality but who hate and despise it, people who, if they had their way, would again place the country under foreign rule. I do not want to see people of that kind on a committee of inquiry. I agree, however, that it is essential that some inquiry should be made into the lamentable condition in which we find the Irish language to-day, and the lamentable lack of interest in it amongst those who have left school. We should endeavour to find the reason for that. If it is due to the teaching of other subjects through the medium of Irish, then abandon that policy. If it is found as a result of a fair and impartial inquiry that damage is being done to the Irish language and to the Irish nation through the policy of teaching other subjects through the medium of Irish—and if that is damaging to Irish nationality and to the Irish nation—then I say it should be scrapped. I do not know that it is. I reiterate that the teaching of patriotism to the pupils in the schools is of the utmost importance. They should be taught the reason for the Irish language. That is the important thing to teach them. They should also be taught what the Irish flag means, and what the National Anthem means, and a respect for both should be inculcated in them.

I would also suggest that the children in the schools should be taught civics; that this is their country, and that they should be careful of everything in it. They should be taught not to damage anything in it, not to damage what is the property of the State, the town or the city. They should be taught that all these things are their property. Perhaps if we could instil into them a true civic pride it would lead them eventually to take a national pride in the language.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Cummins

I think we cannot overstress the importance of the document that has led to this very enlightening discussion to-day. It seems to me to be an epoch-making event in the history of the various parties who are interested in the Irish language and their efforts to perpetuate the life of the language. Why do I say that? The history of the document was not, perhaps, sufficiently emphasised by Senator O'Connell. I know that since 1930, and even long before that, the material of which the document treats was a frequent subject at every branch and county meeting of teachers throughout the country. Time after time notes were compared at these meetings, formal sometimes and informal sometimes, as to the progress that the language was making. I know that there was a general consensus of opinion that the teaching of Irish—and, of course, in teaching Irish you have to deal with many subjects in order that the teaching may be direct—in the days of the old régime, when it was taught as a voluntary extra subject, was, perhaps, more effective than under the new methods; not so general certainly, but more effective, inasmuch as with the teaching of the language you had enthusiasm for the language and those who embraced the profession of teaching were the people who had a genuine enthusiasm for the language. In the old days of the Society for the Preservation of the Irish Language, as many Senators will remember, you had an oak tree showing the branches and schools where Irish was taught.

It has been suggested to-day that in the teaching of Irish sufficient stress is not laid upon the raison d'étre of the language. I say that there is no foundation for that, because any teacher who knows his business will try to present the subject at first in the most attractive possible way. In dealing with Irish he would, of course, refer to the beauties of the language, to the treasures wrapped up in the language, to the bearing that the language had on the history of the country, on its fate, on the poets and philosophers, on the chiefs who spoke Irish, and on the scholars who spread the light of Christianity throughout Europe. It would be idle to suggest that in any school sufficient stress is not laid upon this aspect.

We find in this document the revealed minds of pioneers in the language movement. Many of these men who signed this document, 1,400 out of 2,000 teachers in the Galltacht, were pioneers in the Gaelic League and in the foundation of Gaelic colleges. Many of them attended courses of instruction in the native language years before the colleges were financed by the Government. They paid their own expenses and they spent four and sometimes six weeks assiduously studying the language, which they subsequently taught in their schools. The bona fides of the men who signed this document cannot be challenged. It is unfortunate that the Government, through some misconception, looked upon it with a certain amount of suspicion and distrust, regarded it as coming from a body of men with an axe to grind, men who were possibly anti-Irish. I can assure you that those men are as keenly Irish as Irish teachers ever were. We know from the history of this country, even before 1916, the part many of those men who signed the document played and are playing in the national movement. It is very unfortunate, in these circumstances, that their action on this occasion should have been treated with any sort of suspicion or distrust. What they have done should be warmly welcomed, and their findings should be made the basis of some kind of inquiry.

I think this is an epoch-making document and I suggest that from this House should go forth the feeling that various elements should combine to make the language a living language, so that it can take its proper place in the life of the country. Those various elements would include the Government, the teachers, the parents, the pupils and the public generally, and, unless those elements can be induced to work as one harmonious unit, I do not see any great hope for the language. We find the Government forcing the language in the schools, forcing it on the children and on the teachers. We find the parents becoming dissatisfied. They are no longer proud of having their children taught the Irish language. We find murmurings pretty general even to-day among people who were enthusiastic about the revival of Irish. We find them not opposed to the aims of the Government, but opposed to the methods adopted by the Government. If this matter is allowed to remain as it is, if the teachers' advice is ignored, then the teaching of Irish may be looked upon as a sort of enforced and unwilling labour. Unwilling service is of very little use in any cause that requires enthusiasm, perseverance and loyalty.

Why do children not like to speak Irish when they leave the schools—and it is a fact that they do not? We have thousands of children leaving the national schools in June and we never hear of them making an effort to speak the language afterwards. The majority of them are competent to carry on an ordinary conversation in Irish, but there is no encouragement at home, in the streets, in the market place. The encouragement will not be there until some system is adopted by which the various elements I have referred to may work in harmony.

It is strange to find the Government so sensitive to criticism in this matter. The document which sets out the opinions of 1,400 teachers on the subject of whether the teaching of subjects through the medium of Irish could be approved, or whether the teaching of infants solely through the medium of Irish could be approved, was originally prepared for the purpose of informing the teachers of the faults, the weaknesses, of the system adopted in the schools, and it compared notes, as it were, among the teachers as to how the system could be amended. When we find a representative body of teachers saying that the teaching of infants through the medium of Irish has not brought about the results that were hoped for, and when we find the teaching of subjects such as history or mathematics through the Irish language is not, in the opinion of these teachers, to be approved of, surely we must regard their opinion as worthy of consideration?

The teachers are the only people in Ireland who are properly qualified to give an opinion on this subject. I suggest they did not give that opinion with any hope of being relieved of the task. The people who occupy the responsible position of teachers in our schools acted purely in the interests of the pupils and the language. It has been a well-known characteristic of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation that in all their agitations the child was never forgotten. The teachers have a powerful organisation, which has done much for the improvement of the schools, the school buildings, the playgrounds and the pupils. The welfare of the children has been kept constantly in mind by the teachers and it is very sad to think that any motive except an honourable and patriotic motive should be attributed to those men and women.

While offering no opinion on the merits or the demerits of the methods of teaching Irish, I should like to mention that the teachers delayed issuing their report for several years, and possibly it would never have seen the light of day were it not that it came to the knowledge of somebody that such a document existed since 1936 and it was only then it was made public. I submit that it is a document of real value and the matter cannot be allowed to rest there, because it is too serious. We must find some remedy for a situation in which parents, children and teachers are dissatisfied with the methods adopted by the Department of Education. I suggest some small board of inquiry or a commission, such as that of which the late Dr. O'Donnell was president, or a council of education, should be set up, such a council as was indicated by Senator Hayes, consisting of men with a broad intellectual outlook. Let them by all means be Irish speakers, and let them by all means be men who are wholeheartedly out for the propagation and maintenance of the language. That is not an unreasonable request. I think good will come of its acceptance and I hope the Department will seriously consider the many voices which have been raised in its favour here to-day.

Professor Johnston

I should like to express some personal views on the various matters which have engaged the attention of the House to-day, and, in doing so, I would suggest that, although they are primarily personal views, it is not impossible that they are the views of many of the people whom I have the honour to represent and to speak for in this House. In some ways, I am perhaps able to look at this matter from a more external point of view than many of those who have already spoken, because the geographical origin of my family is in that part of Ireland which I might call the Fíor-Ghalltacht, in the sense that it is not yet under the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas. Consequently, the point of view of a person emanating from that region in Ireland, who nevertheless has found himself comfortably established as a citizen of Éire during more than a generation, might not be without interest to those who have spoken on both sides of this very debatable question.

I may say that I also speak as the proud father of two children, one of whom belongs to the fair sex, and is now grown up and happily married, the other being a boy of some 12½ years. Both these children attended school in Eire and both have followed the course in the Irish language prescribed by the National Education Department. Coming to it, as they did, from an environment which is not imbued with the Gaelic tradition, the reaction of those two people has been not unsympathetic and they have a real interest in the learning of the Irish language and, I think, were glad to add it to their pabulum of mental furniture. That is, I think, true and fair to say, and I think the fact that the Irish language was the ancient language of the people of this country, and still is the spoken language of a small minority of people living in the Gaeltacht, is one of the reasons why people with our outlook and tradition approach the study of this language, when it is put to us in a reasonable atmosphere, with a certain measure of sympathy and goodwill; but I may also say—and this I would emphasise—that there has never been any question of teaching any other subject through the medium of that language at any time in the educational career of either my son or my daughter. I hope that will never happen because, if that were attempted, I should regard the whole proceeding as an educational monstrosity, and my sympathetic approach to their learning of Irish in the schools they attend would be completely changed.

I have some recollections myself of the problem and difficulty of learning languages other than the mother tongue, and it must not be forgotten that, for 90 per cent. of the people of Ireland, the mother tongue is English and the other language, however sympathetic we may feel towards it, is a language different from English, and, although not exactly foreign, is nevertheless more foreign to the English language than German, Danish or even Latin might, perhaps, be said to be. I remember studying French, Latin, Greek and even German during my educational years. I studied those languages as languages other than English which I wanted thoroughly to understand and appreciate both in their grammar and structure and to be able to translate from them and to them, but only when I had attained a certain degree of proficiency in those languages did I attempt to use them as a medium for acquiring knowledge other than knowledge of the language itself.

For example, Greek is a sufficiently difficult object of study, and it would be sheer folly to attempt to require a student in the first year or two of his study of the Greek language to use Greek as a medium for the acquisition of a knowledge of Greek history or Greek philosophy. Yet when he had reached a certain stage of proficiency in the knowledge of that language, and in fact a very advanced stage, not only might he but he should use the Greek language as a medium for the acquisition of a knowledge of the things which can be, and have been, better expressed in the Greek language than they ever could be in any other language—for example, Greek philosophy; so Irish, if it is to be acquired at all by the majority of our people, must be studied as something which is to be learned as a language, and only in a few exceptional cases and then only when great proficiency has been attained, can it be or should it be used as a medium for the acquisition of something other than the Irish language itself.

I do not know whether I fully understand or appreciate what is the ideal of the Gaelic revival. In some of the forms in which it is expressed, I sometimes wonder whether my ears are working correctly. If it is part of the object of the Gaelic revival that the inhabitants of the whole 32 Counties should in due course, after we achieve a united Ireland and after a generation or two has elapsed, become unilingual in the Gaelic language and do all their national and private business through the medium of the Gaelic language, that ideal, I think, is frankly and utterly impossible. On the other hand, if it is the Gaelic ideal that every citizen of Éire should, during his school years, acquire a thorough knowledge of the grammar and structure of the Irish language, and be able to speak and think and converse in that language, in the same way as persons have learned to speak and think in French and are able to use that language as a medium of conversation when they find themselves in a French environment, then I have every sympathy with the desire and policy that every child, during his formative years, should acquire knowledge of that kind of the Irish language, partly because it is the Irish language and has a certain sentimental appeal to everybody who loves Ireland and partly because it is a second language, a language other than English and different from English in many ways which add to its value as an educational instrument.

There has been some talk about the desirability of sacrificing educational ideals, if necessary, in order to achieve the national ideal of bringing about the Gaelic revival, but if the Gaelic revival is regarded in the light in which I think it ought to exist, so far from any sacrifice of educational ideals being involved in the acquisition of a second language by every child in the country, I think it would be a way in which the educational standard of our people could be raised rather than lowered, for I think it is a considerable educational advantage to young people that they should have a second language, as well as the mother tongue, English being in this case the mother tongue of most of us.

If it were merely an educational question and not a national question, merely a question of a second language and that it did not matter what that language was, I should be prepared to advocate, purely on educational grounds, that every child attending school should, in addition to English, acquire a knowledge of, say, Latin—at all events an elementary knowledge of Latin. I think if that were studied as a second language by everybody it would be a distinct educational advan tage.

I know it is not practical politics to require that every person in the country should have a knowledge of the Latin tongue, but I know it is practical politics, and that in fact it is part of our national policy to require that every child attending an Irish school should acquire a knowledge of the Irish language, and consequently if one could have that second language taught in a thoroughly scientific manner, primarily with a view to obtaining a competent knowledge of that language, I think that that would be as advantageous educationally as a knowledge of Latin. From a sentimental and cultural point of view it would be more advantageous because of the fact that it is the Irish language. Now, I suppose, in practice, some form of bilingualism must be regarded as the only feasible national ideal, the only national ideal with reference to the revival of Gaelic which is a possibility and the bilingualism which I should like to see in due course created, would be that in which everyone in addition to the mother tongue, which, for the majority of us is English, would acquire a knowledge of a second language, and that language Irish. At the same time, we must remember that Irish is the spoken language of a part of the country which, although not economically important, is nevertheless nationally important, and which is rightly beloved by the Irish people everywhere, and indeed by others than the Irish people who frequently visit that part of Éire.

I think the bilingualism we have in mind to attain should be both geographical and personal. We should cultivate and cherish the Gaelic language in those parts of the country where the Gaelic language is the spoken language of the people, and in those parts alone we should use that language in every possible way, not only for its own study on account of its literary and cultural value, but also, as far as may be, as a medium for the acquisition of other forms of knowledge. In the rest of the country the Gaelic tongue should be a second tongue, and not used as a medium for the acquisition of other forms of knowledge.

I do not know how far the Gaelic tradition claims to monopolise the whole Irish national tradition, but not being brought up in the Gaelic tradition, and yet claiming to be Irish in a very real sense of the term, I personally would resent any claim on the part of those representing the Gaelic tradition to monopolise the whole national tradition. I think the Irish nation is a greater thing than the Irish language itself and it should have a bilingual outlook on life. I think one of the advantages of an Irish education for people like myself belonging to the Fíor-Ghálltacht is that it opens a window in our minds to enable us to look out on many things about the Gaelic tradition which we cannot otherwise understand and appreciate, but if this acquisition of the Irish language is to be made prison bars from behind which we are to see nothing else but the Gaelic tradition and one which in some ways tends to degenerate into a racket—if that be the attitude and if that be the policy, then I think people with my origin and outlook would resent having the Gaelic tradition put to us in that form. In other words, we sympathise with the ideal of learning Irish as a window, a window opening to us a view of the soul of Gaelic Ireland, but we resent the notion of learning Irish as prison bars behind which our intellectual life is to be suppressed. I hope I have not disedified any Senator. I have expressed as best I could something that has been coming into my mind on listening to this debate but without perhaps that degree of logical coherence, that I might have employed if I had had a longer time in which to prepare my remarks.

Mrs. Concannon

When Senator O'Connell began his speech he reminded us that the Appropriation Bill appropriates about £5,000,000 for education and because of that fact he emphasised the importance of education in the national structure. It is particularly important at this juncture, remembering that at the end of the war we shall be faced with a world in ruins and that perhaps our own country will be bared to the bones. Therefore, we shall have a good deal of building up to do. The best thing on which we can build is our own people and it is through education that a people is built up. The Vote for Education, therefore, is very important. I think it is a pity in a way that only one aspect of the whole big subject of education has been discussed.

That, unfortunately, always happens; only the part played by Irish in the schools occupies the attention of Deputies and Senators when this Vote is discussed. I think that is a pity, because we must have some kind of opportunity to find out how we stand in matters educationally, whether we have the system of education that is best fitted to building up our country, whether we are making the best use of the system that we have, whether the money we spend— and we spend it generously, as is proper—is spent to the best advantage.

With regard to the point which we are now discussing, a point specifically raised by Senator O'Connell, I think it is only right that it should be considered very carefully. The teaching of infants exclusively through Irish under certain conditions and the teaching of Irish in other respects was admittedly an experiment, a bold experiment, which the teachers themselves suggested and fostered. That has been carried out, and I think it is only right we should consider their views as to the fruits of that policy. We should consider them dispassionately. I do not know whether there is any answer to the case they make, but we shall have to find that answer if there is. It is only right that their case should be examined and that the other side of the case should also be presented. That is very important. If there are teachers who have expressed those views, and there are other teachers who differ from them, let us hear the other teachers. We have not heard them yet, and most of us cannot make up our minds as to the actual deductions to be made from the consideration of the case. However, we must acknowledge that the document is a serious one, and requires to be examined in the interests of the country, in the interests of its education, and in the interests of Irish Ireland, the interests which the teachers have in mind. I was greatly struck by what Senator Goulding said about the necessity for love of the language, and for love of our country. If we have not that love, it seems to me that it is like getting an engine and filling it up with coal, or whatever passes for coal at present, but, if you do not put a light to it, the engine will never move. That is the case, in some respects, with the way in which Irish is taught in certain schools. There is no love for it. There is no understanding of why it should be taught; there is no understanding of why an Irishman or woman should learn his or her native language. The reason for that should be put clearly to all, so that it would become plain as the palms of our hands.

I was greatly struck by what Senator Johnston said about the educational advantage of Irish. I think, when only the spoken side of it is considered, there is a great danger of the educational advantage to be gained from the study of the language being overlooked. The written and grammatical forms from which the intellectual advantage is drawn should not be forgotten. There is a danger that we have been, perhaps, trying to do too much too quickly, and that if we had gone on quietly we might have gone on better. At the same time, we recognise that if we are to survive as a nation we have to restore Irish as a spoken language as well as a written language. Both things have to be done. People who have a good deal of knowledge of teaching have thought that the way to restore it is the way that has been tried out. Well, it is a question of method; it is not a question of aim. Everybody is united in maintaining that we have to do what we set out to do, or at least that we must try to do what we set out to do, and to my mind the question is: what is the best method of doing it? In the consideration of that question the experience of teachers is of the greatest importance. Therefore, I think that we should not condemn unheard the views put forward by the teachers whose sentiments are expressed in that document. There should be a reasoned discussion, and I think this House has given a lead in that direction.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I want to intervene in this debate for a very few minutes, firstly, because it is one of my great regrets that when I was a boy I was not taught to speak Irish, and secondly, because I lay claim to King Cormac, the only man who ever beat King Conn. I find, when I am going around my county, which is to a great extent an Irish-speaking county, particularly up in the mountains, and talking to the principals— I do not say that I go examining the principals or the clergy in any sort of way—and, when the question of teaching in the national schools comes up, there is a consensus of opinion amongst them all that things are not anything like as satisfactory as they ought to be. I may say that they appear to think word for word what the national teachers' organisation has already pressed on the Minister. Particularly that is the case with regard to the very young children.

The second point I want to make is that now, after 20 years, we are going through the teething process of a young nation. We are trying experiments, and finally attempting to get something which will gradually lead to improvement, but we find after 20 years that the average standard of primary education—I use the word "average" because there are a great many boys who leap up and get into good positions; I am not counting those at all—is disappointing. I find that the older men write with better character, spell better, and are infinitely quicker at sums and head work of that kind than the average young fellow who comes out of the schools. That is what I find, and I am in constant touch with the people. I feel very disappointed that, instead of our being able to stand up and say: "There is a marvellous improvement in the average standard," people besides myself in this House to-day have said that there is a definite deterioration.

The serious thing is this: suppose in many cases the Minister's policy of teaching through Irish, starting with the infants, is successful—you will find that there are certain very apt pupils who will absorb what they are required to learn—the minute the pupils leave school they have other preoccupations, and with the exception of two classes very few of them go on speaking the language. One class is composed of those who go to secondary schools and become bilingual because they are going to take up Government appointments or some professions where a good knowledge of Irish is necessary. The second lot are those apt pupils who develop early, who realise the national spirit, and who, of themselves, learn Irish and try to keep it up. A great many even of those do not keep it up. I feel that, instead of this running through the whole country and getting everybody to learn a little, the Minister's policy should be to concentrate on those apt pupils who have got this outlook on learning the language. He should concentrate on those as fertile soil, and get them to maintain the language.

I disagree with people who say that the question of finance does not enter into this at all. I suggest that a simple examination—oral, if you like, or written, if it is thought necessary— should be held about every three years for boys and girls who have reached a certain standard in the primary schools. If they pass those simple examinations, and the nation knows that they are maintaining that standard, they should be given some small burse. If you keep that up— people gradually absorb more as they grow older and their minds develop— I think you will in that way produce a new class, people who are constantly speaking the language, and who go on speaking it after they leave school. I think you will make the language a very much greater reality with the few to start off with and more to go on with than you are doing now by trying to teach everybody, quite regardless of their capacity, their outlook on life and their normal psychology. So far as the Education Vote itself is concerned, that is all I have to say. For the Committee Stage, I have given notice of certain points on agriculture, forestry, and so on, which I propose to deal with there.

Mr. Baxter

I have given notice of a special point that I want to raise about the Education Vote, but if I may make a contribution as a mere parent on this all-absorbing question of the teaching of Irish in the schools, I can say that whatever has been alleged in the past against members of this House, or of the other House, or against individuals who are not members of either House, who raise their voices in a questioning manner with regard to our policy in the teaching of Irish, I am prepared to be numbered amongst those who, at this stage, will put down a note of interrogation as to the results of our labours over a period of years. We have heard a great deal to-day from people who are competent to speak on every side, from university professors and teachers. We also heard the views of Senator O'Connell and Senator Cummins and, in a discussion of an educational question like this, that is at the root of our whole system to-day, naturally views are bound to be expressed with a considerable amount of force, because people are thinking strongly about the significance of the present efforts in the educational system.

It may have escaped the attention of Senators who have spoken that in 1926 I happened to be a member of the Programme Conference that signed the report which has been referred to to-day. I was also a member of the Gaeltacht Commission. I was not invited to join either the Gaeltacht Commission or the Programme Conference in 1926 for any other reason but my known sympathy with the object of restoring the language. It is true that we signed that report despite certain protestations in 1926 from the teachers' representatives. It is also true to say now that it is a good thing that that report was signed, and that we have had this experiment, but I would make this comment—that it would be a very good thing for us to throw our minds back to the year 1926, and try to realise the difference between the conditions that prevailed then and the changed conditions of to-day. We have passed away from that very troubled period, perhaps one might say into more troubled times, but, nevertheless, into a period when there seems generally to be acceptance of Irish nationalism from every Irish citizen.

We have reached such a level now that we ought to have discarded the inferiority complex that is the mark of slavery and tyranny of bygone centuries, and at this stage should be able to sit down together to take stock of what we have achieved. I sometimes feel that the attitude of the Government generally towards the teaching of Irish is not the attitude of realists. There is nothing which tires the people or depresses them more than to discover that we are afraid to face our problems. Really when people begin to think about this question as to where we are leading in the teaching of Irish, the greatest fears are in the minds of those who were most enthusiastic about the language, and who are still working for its restoration. If I aim to produce a good crop I have to send out men to do the work of tilling, but if the methods are not the right methods, nobody will be more afraid of the results than I will be. How do we approach this question to-day? I was not a parent when the Gaeltacht Commission or the Programme Conference was set up. My experience is different now. I have a family twice as large as Senator Johnston, so that I am in the position of being able to say that there are quite a number of people who would adopt methods with other people's children that they would be prepared to adopt with their own.

When I am thinking about the teaching of Irish, I know exactly what the effects in my own household are. I have no hesitation in saying that the labours my children had to undergo in their efforts to bring their Irish up to the level necessary to pass examinations have been out of all proportion to what children should be asked to bear. They laboured and slaved late into the night, until they had to be taken from their books and sent to bed. Goodness knows, the work of farmers in the fields, either in spring, summer, harvest or in the winter is bad enough, but I do not think the work farmers have to do has been half as hard as the slavery that many children have to undergo. My own children are numbered amongst those. I would not believe it if I did not see them going to school at 8 o'clock in the morning.

I am talking of children who went to a secondary school, one at 4½ years. After the first day she was there all she could say was: "Ní maith liom thú" and "Tá mé ag dul abhaile". She wanted to get away from the place. The instruction was in English, and she had nothing but Irish. That child is over 16 years old now but the slavery she had to put into her work was so colossal that if her health and vitality had not been so much up to the standard it might have been impaired. That is the situation in many houses. The mother of my children and her people, as some of the Senators know, were as enthusiastic as I was for the restoration of the language. Other members of her family spent their lives working to restore the language, and yet when that mother, who had considerable experience educationally, was up against the problem of deciding whether her children in the secondary schools were to go into classes in which the subjects were taught through the medium of Irish or not, she definitely decided, because she wanted the children to be educated, that they were to go into classes where they would not be taught through the medium of Irish. I really agree with those who say that our greatest difficulty in working for the restoration of the language is not alone the atmosphere of apathy, but rather the attitude of despair, which the pursuit of a certain policy has created.

Intelligent parents, whether they be educated in the fashion in which we sometimes talk of education or not, know quite well whether children are making progress or not. If they are not making progress they have a very shrewd idea of what is retarding them. Cognisance of that must be taken. The Minister and those working with him, as well as all who have a common aim, must take cognisance of the attitude of parents towards what has been achieved in the way of working through Irish to restore the language. I feel definitely that the Minister, after hearing the views on every side in this House, has had a clear demonstration of the end sought to be attained. We ought all to be sufficiently realistic to examine the progress we have made and consider, after examination, whether that progress is sufficient to satisfy us that the method in operation is the right method. If it is not the right method, no feeling that we are going back on what we decided in the past should deter us from retracing our steps. I know a considerable number of national teachers, some of them very efficient teachers. I have discussed this question with them many times. When I was a member of the Programme Conference, I invited a number of teachers in my own county, with whom I was intimate, to discuss the common problem with which we were faced and advise me. Many times I have discussed with the same teachers the question as to the progress we are making and whether our methods are the correct methods. A number of these teachers are getting somewhat mature and, like myself, they are more tolerant than they were on this question of the language. But these people are not satisfied that we are doing the right or fair thing by the children. Because we are not doing the right or fair thing, they are satisfied, as Senator Hayes said earlier, that the fruits we should garner are not there to be harvested.

We have turned out thousands of children from the national schools who reached the seventh standard. Many of these children are in the country but one never hears them carrying on their conversations in Irish. I know schools where the language is being as efficiently taught as it is possible to teach it. But that is the position. A continuation of that policy is not going to re-establish the language. I suggest that the time has come for the Minister, and all those associated with him in the Ministry and outside the Ministry, to examine the question whether the methods we are employing are, or are not, the best methods available. There is no lack of goodwill and there ought to be no lack of courage on our part. All the Minister has to do is to exploit the sympathy that exists. We should all be as one as to our policy with regard to education, generally, and the Irish language, in particular. It would be disastrous for the future of the language if men in this House and the other House, whose common aim it is to re-establish the language, should appear to speak with divergent voices.

I want now to deal with another matter of which I gave notice—our policy with regard to school buildings. The Minister dealt with this matter in the other House. The purpose of our schools, of the employment of our teachers and of the spending of this sum of £5,000,000 is to train the minds of our children, to educate them and equip them for their way of life. I make this concession to the Minister— that he has pursued the policy which was his inheritance, if one may put it in that way, in the matter of school buildings. But I find fault with the Ministry in that they have not shown more courage and imagination in their approach to this problem of the reconstruction of our school buildings. I should like to get from the Minister his estimate of this problem of school buildings. How many schools are there which he, or the county medical officers of health, regard as unsuitable or unfit for the purpose for which they are being used? I said that we used our school buildings, paid our teachers and spent our money so that our children might be trained for their way of life. If anyone were to ask me what would be the first thing I would do for my children, I would say that I would try to feed them properly and make them strong and healthy. If, as we say in the country, they never had a word in their heads, but had good health and strong bodies they would be able to make a living. Many of our boys and girls have no other asset than their physique, which they can use with profit on the other side of the Irish sea. It is regrettable that that energy is not being used in their homeland.

I speak of what I know when I say that a great many of our school buildings are a disgrace to civilised society. I have been to some of them recently. I know a three-teacher school in which two highly-efficient teachers are employed. It was built about 80 years ago to house 90 children. The average over a number of years has been as high as 120, which meant that, day after day, there were 140 children in that school, built 80 years ago to house 90 children. I am a registered dairyman, and I do not think I could keep my cattle, and have my dairy registered, under the conditions in which these children have to spend day after day. That may not mean very much to us, but I assert that a great deal of the money being spent to educate people and to raise the standard of health, through the agency of the scheme for county medical officers of health, established during the past ten years or so, has gone for nought because of the housing conditions under which our teachers are trying to impart training to our children. If you look through any report of a county medical officer anywhere in the country, you will find that some of the children have defective teeth, others are suffering from malnutrition and a very considerable number have defective eyesight. I often wonder how many of those children's eyes are affected by the conditions under which they are trying to labour in the schools. I do not wish to dwell unnecessarily long on this, as I recognise that the Minister has addressed himself to this problem before.

I would like the Minister to give us an approximate idea of the total capital which must be expended to build schools that we would be not ashamed of but proud of. How many of those schools are there, and what is the amount of money needed to give them to us? If we have a defeatist policy at all with regard to the whole future of the Irish nation, that defeatist policy appears to be in the Department of Education. I find that they have a general policy for the amalgamation of schools. If you want to build a school in some particular place where there is an old school, the Department is looking ahead and makes up its mind that that school will not be built, but that two schools will be closed and a new one built somewhere else. It is not that they are so keen on centralisation, but they have accepted it as a fact that the race is dying so fast that, in a short time, they will be able to dispense with a great many of the schools we have, and they are not prepared to risk the capital expenditure involved in building new schools where our fathers and forefathers went to school. I would build the schools and, side by side with that, I would go on with a policy which would try to make certain that young people come on where the old people are to-day, and where the children were in centuries gone by that made it possible for the Irish nation to survive. I would have nothing to do with the other attitude of the Department of Education.

We should have an indication from the Minister as to the capital expenditure necessary to make every school in the country a decent house where the children of decent men and women can come and be at least as comfortable during their school years as they would be at home. How many of the schools are not comparable even with labourers' cottages? It is not a very pleasant thing to say, but I am quite satisfied that a number of school managers who come up to the Department of Education—I have met some of them —do not praise the courtesy they receive when they want to discuss the problem of building new schools. The line of policy in the Department is to say to managers of schools that the Department will give so much if they can provide so much locally. That is an impossible policy to carry out any longer.

A peculiar thing about our race and stock is that schools are needed generally in the poorer districts, where there are usually more people than on the better-off lands. It is on these poor parents that you are putting the burden and obligation to build a school big enough to house their children. The Minister for Education knows as well as I do that there are not children in all the houses in a parish or a half parish at the same time, and the net result is that certain parents are concerned about the erection of a school and others are not. The old man and maid going on for 50 are not very concerned about the next generation, but the fellow with seven or ten acres of land, and with six or seven children, must be, though his capacity to make a contribution to the erection of a new school is very limited indeed. We must have a change with regard to this whole policy of the Department, and we must make up our minds that, where schools are needed, they will be built at the expense of the State and of the taxpayers generally. We must not continue the policy that parents who have children are to be taxed, and that if they are not prepared to tax themselves for the erection of a school the children must go without.

Our whole policy about school buildings has been appalling for years. The Department appears to get a certain amount of money year after year, and it is just a question of how many people they can keep it from, how many they can refuse, and how many school managers they can turn out. They are fighting with the right, and keeping them off with the left, doing as little as they can, and that little takes years and years to do. It may be due to the scarcity and high price of money and the difficulty there is in getting it off the people who are keeping other people's money. All this is a point of view for which I have very little respect. We have reached the stage now with regard to the whole question of how to find money, where to find it, and how to pay for it, that we could say that the job is there to be done, that there are men there to do the job, and that we should get on with the doing of it.

There is no more essential work in the country to-day than the erection of school buildings. If you give teachers a chance to work in decent houses, they will do the work. I saw a case last week where a building had its slates off the roof, and where a teacher had to put a bucket on his own desk to contain the water that came in. That is true, and there is worse than that to be seen all over the country. Whatever professors may say about the standards of education, the people are really an intelligent people, though they may not have spent many years in schools. How they have tolerated these conditions so long and with such patience is beyond imagination. The policy of the Department definitely should be very much more forward and progressive in this matter than anything we have had up to this.

I recognise that there are very considerable difficulties in the erection of buildings and the procuring of materials. When the time comes and the chance is given to us to get the materials to go on with the job, the Minister should be able to point to every county and say that 40 new schools are needed in Cavan, 22 in Leitrim, 24 in Monaghan, and so on, from one end of the country to the other; and that programme should be carried out with the maximum of speed and efficiency, and we should abandon for all time the imposition of this local tax which makes the erection of new schools impossible in very many districts. In my own native parish, I know a school which I have passed many a time since I grew up, as the building was there in my great-grandfather's time. I have seen children, not merely outside the door but out in the yard and across the road. These are conditions which make neither for health nor education.

That can be met certainly by insisting that that teistimeireacht should only be granted when the teacher had proved himself eminently capable of teaching through the medium of Irish. If that policy is pursued which I think is the right policy, then I think the result will be that there will be fewer schools in which the medium of instruction will be Irish. I should like the Minister to state perfectly clearly what the real policy of the Department is, and how the prospect of the children having a spoken knowledge of Irish would be calculated to justify the diminution in the educational standard or how far the desire to have a high general educational standard in this country and its attainability would be considered to justify the diminution of the Irish programme. I want to know what is the Government's policy. I do not believe that anyone could really give a coherent account of what the real policy is.

Mr. J. Johnston

I want to say that I fully agree with Senator Campbell in his reply to Senator Johnston's statement about English being the mother tongue of this country.

Professor Johnston

It is a question of fact.

Mr. Johnston

Not at all.

I understand that they have been agitating there for a school for years, that the manager has done his part, that the parishioners have subscribed their part, that the site has been acquired but, for one reason or another, the matter has been put back. The school in Finglas has not been started yet, and if I had boys I would not allow them to go to the national school there owing to the bad condition it is in. The convent school is a first-class school, fit for children to attend. I would appeal to the Minister to take up the matter of these two schools; they are in a very bad state; and also the matter of Carrowkennedy School, in Mayo. I am sure it is the wish of the Minister that the schools should be in good repair, but I think there must be some officials who are neglecting their duty, the schools are in such a bad condition.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.50 p.m. until 11 a.m. Thursday, 23rd July.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 22 Jul 1942