Bhíos ag rá, sar ar scar an Seanad roimh tae, go labhróinn as Béarla, i dtreo is go dtuigfeadh na Seanadóirí go léir an méid atá le rá agam as seo amach.
As I have said, the mover of the motion has not put the question of the revival of the language in issue, as I expected. Most of those who have spoken so far have adopted the same line and have shown themselves to be fully in support of the revival of the language as a vernacular. Even those who did not appear to be favourable were anxious at least that some form of inquiry be set up. They suggested, as indeed did some of the other speakers, that if an inquiry is to be set up, it should be conducted in a realistic attitude. I do not think it is fair to suggest that to be a realist, one must be a defeatist—as appears to be the suggestion made by some of the speakers.
This is a national question and it has been consistently declared to be the policy of all Governments since the State was established. Even though it is suggested from time to time that one Department more than another, or more than any others, should be responsible in the main for the attempt at revival, I must insist that, this being fundamental Government policy, it is the responsibility of all Departments. There are two Departments with special responsibility in that regard—the Department of Education, which is responsible for the educational system, and the Department of the Gaeltacht, which was so recently set up.
The statement made by successive Governments, as to the fundamental policy being towards the revival of the language, has been declared in a statutory form in connection with the Bill that set up the Department of the Gaeltacht. Probably it was in this form that for the first time it appeared as a statutory declaration. I referred the Seanad already to the relevant section—Section 3 (2) of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1956—in which the function of the Department of the Gaeltacht was set forth. In suggesting the various methods that might be employed in that Department, in co-operation with others, it concluded with these words:
"... which affect the cultural, social or economic welfare of the Gaeltacht or which concern the national aim of restoring the Irish language."
We can take it, therefore, that that is our policy and our intention. No Government has declared anything to the contrary.
If there is to be an inquiry, I suggest that the emphasis should rather be on what further or other steps can henceforth be taken, rather than an examination of what has been done. The wording of the motion itself is rather comprehensive and I would suggest that, in the form in which it is set forth, the stress appears to be on an examination of what has been done. There is no distinction in the form of the motion between what has been done by the State and what has been done by voluntary and other bodies. In that respect, I suggest that the motion as it stands is too wide and would impose a very great onus on anybody who might be asked to inquire into the intention of the motion.
As I said, the Department of Education, while it is not responsible for fundamental State policy in this respect, has a particular responsibility and a particular concern in so far as it regulates the conditions under which our schools are run. Therefore, perhaps it would be opportune, in relation to that part of the motion which refers to an examination of what has been done, to give a short résumé of the position of the teaching of Irish in the schools and what the fundamental policy is.
One of the main lines of attack on the language of the people by the invader, so many centuries ago, was through the schools. Perhaps the greatest blow against the Irish language was its exclusion for almost three centuries from State-aided schools. From the establishment of the parish schools by Henry VIII down to the 1880's, if Irish was ever given place in the various school systems, it was for the purpose of proselytising the people and so that they might more readily and quickly learn English and be anglicised generally.
It was proscribed and outlawed from the schools because the invader felt it was the symbol of the separate Irish nationality. His aim was to cut off the Gael from the inspiration of the past, to leave the Irish people without a knowledge of the culture and achievements of their forebears, to prevail on them to look upon themselves as being without hope for the future, except in so far as they might be prepared to conform with the customs and ways and language of the invader.
Whilst it is perfectly true that the language cannot be revived through the schools alone, and I subscribe wholeheartedly to what Senators Hayes and Ó Siochfhrada said in this respect, it is equally true that if the schools do not make the effort, the attempt at revival might well fail. There are almost 500,000 of our young people conveniently assembled in the schools. They are assembled there for the purpose of learning and it is more convenient, and certainly it is bound to be more fruitful, to base our main efforts at revival on them rather than on any other body of our people. It is, of course, through the schools that we can really ensure the revival of the language.
There is, I believe, general agreement amongst educational authorities that the period when children are best suited to learn a language for colloquial purposes is between the ages of four and eight years. Naturally, it would, I am sure, require a greater expenditure of time and energy to impart a vernacular at a later stage. We have all of us seen instances where children are placed in the charge of governesses and can readily acquire, under their tuition, a knowledge of and a colloquial power over two or may be three languages.
If a colloquial knowledge of Irish is imparted to infant classes, I think it is reasonable to assume that much time and energy will be spared in later times. The continuous use of Irish necessary to obtain the best results can be secured in the infant classes, I believe, without imposing an undue burden on the children. But it is of the utmost importance in that respect that the tuition of the children be entrusted to teachers who are properly qualified to impart that colloquial knowledge, people who are well equipped in speaking and writing Irish itself.
I think it is clear, too, that much of the criticism of the policy of teaching through the medium of Irish comes from persons who have not acquainted themselves with the conditions laid down—the conditions which are laid down in the Department's regulations, and which must be satisfied before such teaching is permitted. It is, unfortunately, too often the case that opposition to Irish as a medium of instruction is due to false reasoning based on mere prejudice against the language. As in other educational questions, many of those who express the loudest dissatisfaction with existing aims and methods allow themselves to be unduly influenced by what they have heard, or perhaps by what they would prefer to believe the position is, rather than what the actual conditions are. Too often, they ignore the opinions of those who are in the best position of offer judgment on the work that is done in the schools.
If we accept, and I think it is generally accepted, that if a colloquial knowledge of the language can be imparted more readily at these ages, between four and eight, I think it would be well to refer at this stage to what the rules are in relation to teaching Irish and teaching generally in the national schools. The first official document concerning the teaching of Irish was a circular issued in 1922 which was prepared by the Irish Provisional Government. The circular is described "Fogra Puibli Uimhir 4, Ministry of Education. Concerning the teaching of Irish language in the national schools." It says, in paragraph one, that, "The Irish language shall be taught, or used as a medium of instruction, for not less than one full hour each day in all national schools where there is a teacher competent to teach it".
I think the first, and possibly the continued description of the teaching of the language as a compulsory subject emanated from that rule which was made, as I said, in February, 1922. In April, 1922, a new programme of instruction prepared by the National Programme Conference, and accepted by the Government, provided that where it was impracticable to introduce the new programme in its entirety, each pupil should receive instruction in Irish for at least one hour per day as an ordinary school subject. The programme also provided that, in infant standards, the work was to be entirely in Irish.
The National Programme Conference was set up by the I.N.T.O. and comprised representatives of that body and the Department of Education. In a circular addressed to inspectors in November, 1922, it was stated it was realised that the teaching of infants entirely through Irish would not be feasible in a large number of schools, but even in such schools it was expected that steps would be taken to provide at least one hour per day for the gradual extension of the use of Irish. The second National Programme Conference was set up in June, 1925, and included representatives of the I.N.T.O., the managers and of the Department of Education. Its report of March, 1926, contained the following:—
"The work in the infant classes between the hours of 10.30 and 2 o'clock is to be entirely in Irish where teachers are sufficiently qualified."
A further circular was issued, No. 11 of 1931, on teaching through the medium of Irish. In that circular were laid down the conditions which were expected to exist before the policy of the Department should be implemented in relation to the teaching of Irish. These conditions are still part of the rules of the Department to this day, and they include: "where a teacher is competent to teach through Irish, and where children can assimilate the teaching so given, the teacher should endeavour to extend the use of Irish as a medium of instruction as far as possible. Where these conditions do not exist, such teaching through Irish is not obligatory."
Later on, it was suggested that the inspectors, as it was suggested here, were rather severe in interpreting and enforcing these rules, whereupon in March, 1936, a further circular was issued in the following terms:—
"In regard to the question of teaching through the medium of Irish it is considered necessary to direct inspectors' attention to the circular of July, 1931, dealing with this question, and particularly to the warning it contains as against using Irish as a teaching medium in classes where the conditions set out as necessary for the success of such teaching are not present."
The regulation requiring the work to be entirely in Irish in infant classes where teachers were qualified was amended in 1948 to allow the teaching of English for a half hour per day, where managers so desired. It is clear this concoction of "compulsory Irish" does not contain all that the enemies of Irish suggest when they bandy about this poltergeist of compulsory Irish being to the disadvantage of the language. With regard to the general results achieved in national schools and the effect, good or bad, that teaching through Irish in national schools has had, I will comment at a later stage.
I think we should realise that the Department of Education lays down the conditions under which certain subjects are taught. Our system of education is rather a free one. It gives those in charge of imparting knowledge, those who manage schools and those who teach in schools, a reasonable degree of flexibility so that they may use their own experience to impart knowledge properly. The teachers are not employees of the Department; they are employees of the managers of the schools. It is true the Department pays the national teachers their salaries, but, apart from laying down the qualifications necessary to become a teacher qualified to teach in national schools, and the managers having regard to these regulations when they appoint teachers to particular schools, the relationship between employer and employee does not apply further to the Department of Education.
In vocational schools, the teaching of Irish is continued in various degrees. The vocational school has three main functions, the first of which is to give post-primary education and pre-employment education to boys and girls who want further education and who are anxious to take up employment in later years, probably at the ages of 16 or 17. The second is to provide technical education for trade apprentices and others already in employment and the third is to give practical and general education to adults. In relation to the first function, to give continuation education and technical education to preemployment students, it has, as one of the continuation subjects, Irish prescribed in the programme. So also is English and other ordinary subjects. Again, there is no compulsion in respect of Irish beyond the other subjects.
Irish is a subject in the continuation course, but the rule required for a vocational teacher is that he possess the Ceard Teastas Gaeilge, a certificate to the effect that he is able to speak and write Irish, and if necessary, teach through Irish. With regard to teachers of Irish and continuation subjects, the qualification is rather higher, the Teastas Timire Gaeilge; but there are certain exceptions where certain technicians qualified in Irish. It is permitted that such qualified persons may teach in vocational schools even though they do not know Irish.
In some of the vocational schools, there are evening Irish classes for adults and we cannot claim, in fairness, that they are satisfactorily attended in all centres. Nevertheless, the degree of attendance of parents and adults generally at these evening Irish classes is reasonable. The people who attend these classes are people who want to learn Irish and, unlike the people Senator Hayes would appear to have met in Gaeltacht areás, do not want to have the Irish for any particular purpose other than to know their own language. A few vocational committees have special organisers of Irish who make contacts with different groups throughout the vocational committees' administrative areas and they promote the extension of the use of Irish in these different organisations.
With regard to the secondary schools, teachers, of course, will have to be qualified in the particular subjects which they teach. Again, the Department has no direct control over the teachers. The teachers are employed by the managers of the secondary schools and all secondary schools are private schools. Teachers come under the Registration Council which is a statutory body comprised of teachers' organisations. It lays down the qualifications necessary for a secondary teacher and the qualification in relation to Irish was introduced by that council in 1942. It required that there be an oral examination in Irish for teachers from that year. Again, there is no compulsion by the Department. If there is compulsion on the teachers to know Irish, it is one imposed by themselves through their Registration Council.
There is, of course, a wide variety of approved subjects not taught through Irish in secondary schools, subjects which will be recognised by the Department and in respect of which capitation grants will be paid, if these subjects are taught for a certain minimum of hours. Irish is one of these and, in fact, must be one. Again, if there is compulsion in that, I fail to see any offensive degree of compulsion.
There are certain inducements given to schools to teach through the medium of Irish—schools described as A. schools, which give teaching in all subjects, except English, through the medium of Irish. They get certain increased capitation grants in respect of teaching through Irish. There are also B. 1 and B. 2 schools which get extra grants in a varying degree in relation to the amount of Irish used in the course of the teaching in these schools. I do not think I will have time to go into all the details of Irish teaching in secondary schools and the inducements given to encourage the use of Irish in these schools. I repeat it is not compulsion but inducement.
Special scholarships are available to students from Gaeltacht areas to secondary schools. Beyond the secondary school level, special scholarships are given to students of secondary schools to pursue courses in Irish in universities. There are also special scholarships given to secondary students from Gaeltacht areas to pursue university courses after they leave the secondary schools. These are all inducements; certainly no compulsion is attached to them. I do not want to dwell any more on the set-up in the schools—national, vocational and secondary. I hope I have given a reasonable outline of how the teaching of Irish is pursued and what conditions are laid down in respect of the various schools.
With regard to the motion, which is much wider than the examination of what has been done in the schools, I must say that, when I saw it, I thought it had been prompted by the controversy we have recently read in the public Press, but I accept entirely from Senator Baxter that the motion was contemplated——