On the last occasion when one of those motions was before the Seanad I suggested that although there were no definite rules applying to them we should limit the speeches to a quarter-of-an-hour for the proposer and ten minutes for every speaker in view of the fact that there was only one-and-a-half hours altogether allocated. May I suggest to the House that that procedure be followed on this occasion?
Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: Teaching of Languages: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities on the Commission's proposals on the Teaching of Languages in the Community which was laid before the Seanad on 8 November 1978.
It is interesting and encouraging to find ourselves twice in the same afternoon in the Seanad debating matters relating to education. We are moving from the very broad and obviously politically engaging, if not dividing, area of how we allocate resources to and how we cope with higher education in a very specific area, and that is the proposal that there be more concentration on the teaching of languages in schools, on the training of teachers, mobility of pupils in the European Community and on the involvement of the Commission's proposals to ensure that the European Community would match with European Community funds what was being done at national level. The proposal in general terms is to provide 50 per cent of the costs of implementing the various proposals at the European Community level. I understand that these proposals will be considered by the Council of Ministers for Education at a meeting on 27 November 1978 and for that reason I am particularly pleased that the Minister has chosen to remain in the House for the debate on this report. I hope that he will be prepared to comment on the report and on any views expressed to him by Members of this House.
I think it would be a fair and accurate representation of the views of the sub-committee which considered this proposal that every member of the sub-committee across the political divide felt that for Ireland in particular the teaching of languages, a familiarity with languages and an emphasis on training our teachers of languages is a vital necessity, that it is important to redress the situation in which we find ourselves as an island which already has itself the richness of two languages. We have our first and second official language in Ireland and we have now, through our membership of the European Community, aligned ourselves with other countries in a situation which is going to require of our people generally, and especially our young people, a familiarity with other European languages. I suppose this will be specifically and more particularly with French and German in the context of the European Community but also with important languages such as Spanish and other European languages.
I think the members of the sub-committee felt that the situation was an urgent one. We should seize the opportunities both at an official and diplomatic level of ensuring that Ireland's interests are represented in the various forums and discussions. At an economic and commercial level it we are to avail of the export potential and to market our produce, it is important that we be able to argue our corner in these areas and, therefore, advance the economic and social life of our people. The sub-committee responded very positively to the Commission's proposals and the draft of the report by that sub-committee was subsequently endorsed by the full Joint Committee at their meeting on 8 November.
Basically the outline of the Commission proposals is summarised in section 3 of this report. The plan suggested by the Commission would be carried out over a period of three years from 1980 to 1983 and would involve an expenditure both by the European Community itself and by member states. It is proposed that 50 per cent of the costs would be met by the member states and there would be the following elements in this overall plan. First, the initial training of teachers. The objective here would be to secure that trainee language teachers would spend a period of study in the country of the language they proposed to teach and that per capita grants would be paid by the Community for this. There are also proposals relating to the continuing training of teachers, both the provision of long-term interchange of teachers and also medium and short-term teacher exchanges or visits. There is provision for early foreign language teaching by requiring that the member states appraise the way in which they would introduce more extensive teaching right from the beginning. The sub-committee had the advantage of a written submission from the INTO favouring the possibility of introducing the teaching of languages more positively at the primary level while bearing in mind that Irish children at the primary level are coping with the two languages of the country. This should be encouraged and opportunities to do this within the context of additional European Community funding should be availed of. There are also proposals for greater mobility and exchange of students involving group visits, exchanges of pupils between the ages of 11 and 16, activities during the holiday periods by pupils between 16 and 19 and various private projects in this area, establishing special measures for the teaching of less able pupils and for information and documentation services which would be necessary in order to provide specialised information on foreign language teaching as a matter of priority.
In section 4 of the report the views of the Joint Committee are summarised. The Joint Committee endorse the general approach of the plan but would go further than the Commission's proposals in identifying a number of priorities. It is stated at paragraph 4: the Joint Committee would add that in the case of Ireland, increasing contacts and trade with the Continent since our accession to the Community has brought with it a clear need for more and more people with a command of Continental languages". We point out that there has been a comparative neglect in the teaching and expertise in languages in this country and we refer to the unsatisfactory fact that there are no oral tests or examinations for secondary students taking public examinations except in Irish. The Minister could comment, when he contributes to the discussion on this report, on whether it is the intention to introduce oral examinations for modern languages into our examination system and, if so, in what kind of a time span. I know this has been discussed before. It does seem to be a great lack. It is not possible to really assess the ability of a student without emphasis on an oral examination, and if there is an oral examination it would be of benefit in the approach to the teaching of the language.
It is stated at paragraph 5 that a community involvement in the teaching of languages would be very much in Ireland's interest because of the necessity to concentrate on building up that kind of resource. The Joint Committee urges that Ireland should argue a case for getting not a 50 per cent involvement in Community funding in this but a 75 per cent bearing of the cost at the European Community level. If one looks at the situation here in contrast to other countries, for example, The Netherlands or Belgium, they do not have anything like the same need to stress and to focus on the teaching of languages in schools. We do not have—and the Minister I am sure knows this more than any of us—unlimited resources. We have very limited and highly sought after resources.
If the European Community is genuinely a Community concerned about the peoples of Europe and about emphasising both their shared identity and the diversity of their cultural identity, a strong case should be made for arguing that an island on the periphery of Europe, which already has two languages of its own native culture, should be able to get special additional funding from the Community to promote the teaching and knowledge of other European languages.
Another important matter which was brought very forcibly to the attention of the sub-committee by the representative of ASTI who came to a session of the sub-committee was the need to go further than just providing certain courses for teachers involved in modern language training and to provide a genuine free movement of teachers. It was emphasised that this could be of considerable benefit to teachers from here who wished to teach English as a foreign language in other European Community countries. They would have the benefit of the fact that English was one of their native languages and they should be able to travel freely under the provisions for free movement and right of establishment and teach English in other countries if they wished to do so as a career. They should not have, as they do at the moment, to go through an examination system and qualify under the particular provisions for the qualification of teachers of English in that other country under the French or German system or whatever. It would be interesting to hear the views of the Minister as to whether there are active steps to promote free movement of language teachers, because this would be a career possibility and an advantage for Irish teachers who might wish to pursue that career in the European Community.
That summarises the main focus of the report and the matters which the Joint Committee wished to bring to the attention of the Seanad.
Senator Cooney referred to the question of whether this was a priority in the ordering of business. When the European Community is involving itself financially in an area like education, even if it is a very specific area which may not be an urgent social priority in a general context, it is of immense value to Ireland to seize the opportunity with both hands, to welcome the European Community involvement and to call down the additional funding while making a case for more than 50 per cent involvement so that the teaching of languages here can get the necessary boost, emphasis and focus that will bring us more into line with the other countries of the European Community. The United Kingdom is, at least in general terms, more on the same level as we are in the approach to the command by children, young people and adults of a second or third European language. The subject matter is precise but it has a political relevance in that it was understood by the members of the Joint Committee that it would be discussed at a meeting of the Council of Ministers for Education on 27 November. I commend this report to the House and I look forward to hearing the views of other Senators and of the Minister if he wishes to contribute to the debate.
I am happy to second this motion which has been dealt with so well by Senator Robinson. I will not add very much to it. The Minister, with his wide competence in languages, is I am sure well aware of the handicaps of those people that are not so gifted or indeed so lucky as to be able to communicate with other people in modern European languages other than Irish.
The Minister is also, I am sure, very much aware that the private conversations which take place after the public debates have been finished with the aid of simultaneous translations are often as important if not more important than those public debates. Irish people, particularly Irishmen, suffer a great handicap in this area. It is a source of shame that so many Irish people representing this country cannot communicate except in English, because so few of our European partners can speak Irish. They only have one language to speak to them in. It is a severe handicap and, historically for some reason, boys are more severely handicapped than girls in this respect. Yet it is men who are going abroad and hold senior positions in our diplomatic missions, political missions and in the institutions of Europe.
If I thought there was an improvement in the learning of languages by boys and girls I would not be so concerned. I have the figures for boys and girls studying French and German in the 1976-77 academic year for the leaving certificate course. There were 27,500 girls taking French and 16,000 boys taking French—nearly twice as many girls. There were 2,243 girls taking German and 700 boys taking German, which is a remarkable figure considering that German is widely regarded as being one of the principal languages of technology and is very important to a great many people studying in that area. 1.89 per cent of all boys taking the leaving certificate are studying German and 45 per cent of all the boys are studying French as opposed to a figure for both boys and girls of about 97 per cent taking Irish. There is something very wrong there. An examination needs to be made by the Department of Education to draw up plans in order to take advantage of the European Commission's interest in this subject. Ireland is a special case and needs special attention. It will not get that special attention unless we are prepared to present our plans before the people who have the giving of the funds, as one might say.
I notice among my own children and among the children of people I know, that the language is still largely being taught by the old fashioned written method to children of 11, 12 and 13 who are starting at secondary level. I am sure the Minister is at least as aware, if not more so, than I am, that it is a totally wrong approach to a modern continental language to begin by teaching it in the written form. Children should learn these languages for at least two years before they see anything written down. Audio-visual equipment costs money. We are back to the money again, but now that Europe has evinced interest in this subject let us take them up on it quickly. It is a matter of urgency and of concern. This country has a lot of prestige in many areas but we are very badly off as regards the learning of languages.
I take this opportunity of speaking to this motion also. We all know that the people who go to Europe to sell our wares and make sure that we capture the right amount of world trade are handicapped because they are not able to deal in the nuances of language which are necessary when it comes to selling a product. The figures that Senator Hussey has just quoted are rather frightening. I knew they were bad but I did not realise that they were quite that bad.
Our research in the Irish Management Institute some time ago showed a terribly bad state of affairs in relation to the ability of businessmen to speak a modern continental language. We, in the institute, have provided a service to try and have crash courses and total immersion courses to try and catch up with the situation. I am glad to say that a lot of success has been achieved. I took part in the discussions in the Joint Committee on EEC Legislation. I was very pleased to see the EEC were going to give some help. Help means cash. We were talking about cash earlier tonight. I wonder whether some co-ordination of the effort is not required. It really does need crash action. Perhaps the Minister for Education, who has a great interest in language, might give time to thinking about some crash action on this that would co-ordinate efforts in places like the various language institutes that are doing good work which, perhaps, could be improved and make sure that any funds that are available are used. When we are taking a later motion on the Order Paper I will be pointing out that, on many occasions, there are scholarships available from the EEC and they are not even known about. I hope that this money will be used.
While I was pleased to have Senator Hussey give me some information that I find useful if dismaying, I am worried about her comment on the Irish language. We are old friends on this but I never let her get away with any implication that the Irish language or its study is going to be downgraded in favour of a continental language. They must all go together. As Senator Robinson said, and I agree totally with her on this, we already have the richness of a bi-lingual system. We are not a nation of monoglots like our neighbours. Research has shown that it is easier to pick up a third language once one has broken out of the system of the monoglot into two languages. I hope the Senator did not mean that, because the teaching of language, whether it is the Irish, German, French or any other continental language, is something that we have to give more attention to. We have an Institiúid Teangeolaíochta, which operates in association with the Minister's Department. There they do studies in this area. Maybe they might be the people who would provide the co-ordination I am speaking about.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in public in support of this EEC move, and I hope that the Minister and the Department will take every advantage of it.
What time are we adjourning at?
At 8.30 p.m.
I commend the work which the sub-committees formed from the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation are doing. I have had the opportunity on a few occasions of attending meetings which members of the European Parliament are entitled to attend. I am very much impressed by the work which they are doing in examining reports and legislation coming from the Commission.
I would like the Minister to take a serious look at the prospect of introducing a third language at some stage in the primary school system. Judging by the European performance, I do not see this as in any way being inhibitive or as in any way affecting the two languages that are taught in our primary schools. Looking ahead into the future and into our greater involvement as one of the European nations I see the acquisition of at least one Community language as becoming of greater and greater importance in the future. The right place to begin is in our primary schools.
The whole area of language learning has been undergoing change in the past ten years or so. Today young people are getting an opportunity to expand their communicational and mental horizons in ways that were not open a generation ago except perhaps to the elite—the minority who had better opportunities. Indeed, one can be somewhat envious today of the opportunities which young people have and will be having from now on in relation to our involvement in Europe.
I welcome the many points raised by the committee in this report. I will not go over them again. I welcome the possibility of expanding the teaching of language with the assistance of the Community.
I had the opportunity during the summer of spending ten days at an audio-visual centre in north-west France, and I found it a very useful and interesting experience. It is partly subsidised by the French Government and also by the Community. There were students there from all the European countries and countries outside the Community.
The ideas set out here are excellent. I cannot think of any way of improving on them. The suggestions of the exchange of students, of arranging group visits between the ages of 11 and 16 and arranging exchange holidays between 16 and 19 are excellent ideas. I am glad to note in the report that the problems of less able pupils are not neglected, including the idea of teaching children of migrant workers in schools where there is more than one language taught.
Another aspect of it which I welcome is the stress on free movement. The Minister might break with some of the rules and regulations that constrain his Department by considering the idea suggested in the report of arranging for the free exchange of teachers for periods without loss on an exchange basis in teaching the language of their own country in another country. This is something new that is being talked about. It is part of the new horizon which is opening up before us in our involvement in Europe. I welcome it.
I commend to the Minister the report from the Joint Committee and hope he will be able to give consideration to the many suggestions in it. We must avail, so far as we can, of the opportunities for using the funds for the educational system that become available from the Community as put forward in the report.
I agree with what has already been said. It can be embarrassing for people going to Europe to have to rely on their counterparts to be able to speak English so that they can carry out their business. When I was in national school, before Irish was compulsory, we had three languages, Irish, English and Latin. If that is still the case one could drop Latin and substitute a modern language. I often wonder why doctors still have to learn Latin. The time to teach a language is when a child is very young. The way to teach it is orally. The scheme to interchange teachers is a very good scheme, but if we are to wait until the teachers interchange to be able to teach the language then it is going to be a long time before we get off the ground. If any scheme is going to be put forward I suggest it should start with the young child.
I thank Senators Robinson and Hussey for asking us to take note of the report of the Joint Committee and for requesting the debate. It is only by debating the reports that we show our appreciation of them and put ourselves in the way of benefiting from them.
As one of the people who formed the AEDE in the early sixties, the European Association of Teachers, to prepare us for entry to the European Economic Community, I am more than disappointed with the place that education has got in the European Economic Community. In fact, it has not made any significant impact in the Community since the Community was established. Perhaps we were too idealistic in the AEDE when we established it. The Economics Ministry has taken it over and I regret to say that the meeting of the Council of Ministers of Education scheduled for next Monday has been either totally abandoned or postponed. I do not know why. I was informed today. I will not say what I suspect. It is of a pattern with the grave letdown that education and educationalists have suffered from the EEC. I feel very strongly about it. I had intended to tell that to the meeting in Brussels. They did not deliver in any significant way in education. Admittedly the social fund has supplied us with very useful money to spend in the regional technical colleges on the training of young people. They are very careful to avoid the word "education". It is a dirty word. It bears out what I say. that they are not as interested as they should be.
I had an idea that, purely for information, there could be, for example, a Leabhar na hEuropa or a Libre European in which all nine countries would feature with a brief resumé of their history, cultural traditions, literary history, economy, population and so on. All the pupils in the nine countries would study that book. There would then be a common field of knowledge of Europe among young people. We could relate it to this report in that a student who had studied and mastered it in his own language could get the French version, the German version, the Italian version and so on and in this way advance his or her knowledge of the language.
The basis for hope that the report gave—that we would be in a position to have a scheme, 50 per cent or hopefully more as Senator Robinson said, available to us—is delayed if not abandoned. I am not sure what the reason is for the abandonment of the meeting of the Council of Ministers, but it is not a hopeful sign and I am not too sanguine about the recommendations ever being made effective. The draft resolution proposed by the Education Committee for adoption by the Ministers at a meeting which will not now take place on Monday suggests that member states should take the following measures: examine ways and means of ensuring that future form teachers spend a period of study and preparation in a country where the language they intend to teach is spoken. That decision could only be taken by the Ministers. It will not be taken on Monday but I am in agreement with it: to examine ways and means, including the negotiation of new bilateral agreements, for ensuring that practising teachers of foreign languages will have the opportunity to spend officially recognised periods of refreshment and training in a country where their target language is spoken—I wonder is it the best translation of whatever was the original. Senator Robinson referred to this when introducing the report and I am in agreement with it. It goes on to say: increase the opportunities to perfect one or, where possible, two Community languages during the final years at school and/or during vocational training.
I will take the comments of Senators and make some comments of my own. I agree with Senator Robinson that Ireland is a particular case. It is on the periphery of Europe and we do need a very strong movement in the teaching of modern languages. We have two official languages, as she rightly pointed out, and she urged that we take steps to improve the position of the other continental languages. I am very glad that she mentioned Spanish as well, which possibly will be an official language of the Community, is not one at present but is spoken over a very wide area of the world.
The idea of introducing a third language at primary level is an interesting one. It would have to be done with great skill. I would say that the flexibility the new curriculum gives would be a help in this regard. The possibility should be explored. The one thing that I would fear would be an attempt to over-achieve, to bring too much pressure with three languages and the other wide areas being studied now in the new curriculum at primary level. In many preparatory schools the modern language, or classical language, is introduced before the period covered by the primary group has ended. It will be interesting and we will have a look at it anyway.
On the question of orals, I am totally committed to introducing some form of oral test on at least an experimental basis as soon as possible. As Senator Robinson said, an attempt has been made before and has been under discussion for a long time. There have been difficulties, there still are difficulties. It is to me totally ridiculous to have heavy concentration on the writing and reading of a modern continental language to the exclusion of oral expression. I am not saying that the good teacher in the class cannot do it as it is. But Senator Robinson rightly pointed out that if an oral examination existed it would focus attention on it. I have not great belief in any form of examination except that you have an objective. If you have an objective, as you will have in an oral test, of developing facility in the use of the language, then the oral is highly desirable. I will read some detail of what I intend to do later on when I get through the remarks made by Senators up to now.
It is news to me that Irish teachers have to do some kind of an examination in order to be allowed to teach English in some of the continental countries. I am just wondering if it were challenged under the free movement and right of establishment clauses it would hold up in, say, a court. But then we do not want to have to involve ourselves in that type of thing for every teacher who goes out to the Continent. I do not know what is the argument behind that. Again it is a little bit of a derogation from the spirit of the Treaty of Rome which guarantees freedom of movement and right of establishment.
Senator Hussey talked about the situation—which was a factual situation—that the boys in this regard are more handicapped than girls, and have been traditionally, in the Irish education system. John Milton got his daughters to read Italian to him but never taught them Italian, on the basis that one tongue was enough for any woman. With such an intelligent man using language like that it is no wonder a women's liberalisation movement had to develop. The boys were more handicapped because they concentrated more on the classical languages, particularly Greek, and the girls generally took French. I have some statistics which I will give the House in a moment about the present position. I think Senator Mulcahy has made the comment that I would make: I regard it as a great shame that 98 per cent only are doing the Irish language; I would think that the other 2 per cent should also be doing it.
Senator Hussey mentioned the importance of methodology. Great strides have been made in the matter of methods of teaching modern languages. Senator Brugha mentioned that he had been on a ten-day audio visual course somewhere in France which was subsidised by the French Government. If it was the type of course that they did develop there one would want to be very physically fit to come through. I am sure that Senator Brugha is physically fit, but it is a very severe immersion course which has been developed mainly since the last war, mainly for purely practical purposes to enable students, particularly from the United States, to study in French universities. The whole scientific study of audio-visual teaching of modern languages began from a practical necessity. Certainly great strides have been made. In this country those teachers who have used it to teach the Irish language have been singularly successful.
Senator Mulcahy emphasised what is obvious to all of us, the economic necessity of competence in the languages of the Community: the businessman who is trying to sell, who is trying to manipulate, trying to wangle a deal, if you like to put it that way, is severely handicapped if he has to do it through an intermediary or if he only poorly understands the language. The obligation is on us not merely to provide for more teaching, more oral teaching particularly, of the modern languages in the normal school periods but also for specialists, for engineers, businessmen, scientists, people who will need it increasingly in the future. I think the Institiúid Teangeolíochta has done work already on the oral examination and the results of their work and research are available to me.
Senator Brugha advocated the introduction of the other language in the primary school. The idea is an interesting one. It would have to be done with great skill. We would have to have plenty of courses for the teachers. I think it would have to be done piecemeal; it would have to be done experimentally first and develop from there.
I just want to give the House some of the facts on languages in our schools at present. The question of the teaching of the languages may be considered from the quantitative point of view which was referred to by Senator Hussey when she mentioned German. Also we can consider it under the headings of balance and quality. The quantitative aspect of modern language teaching is readily studied from the statistical records of my Department. Here they are; they will be interesting for the House. Taking 1967 as a base year, we find that from a total of 13,590 candidates at the leaving certificate examination there were 6,635 entries for examination in the continental languages, French, Spanish, German and Italian. As only relatively few students present more than one continental language it is reasonable to give this figure as 48.8 per cent of total entry for the purpose of establishing a trend. The comparative figures for the leaving certificate of 1978 were 35,000, 25,174 taking one of those languages and 70.3 per cent respectively. In 1967, of 21,822 candidates for the intermediate certificate there were 11,492 entries for continental languages giving a percentage of 52.7. The corresponding figures for 1978 were 49,423, 40,119 and 81.2 per cent. So there is a significant change quantitatively.
I have here a statistical table which will be available to Senators showing those statistics under those three headings for the years from 1967 to 1978. This table and the figures I have quoted show very clearly that there has been an extraordinary response from the school system in terms of increasing opportunities for the learning of continental languages.
As well as a significant increase in the numbers studying continental languages at the universities there has been a marked demand for language study in conjunction with the study of nonliterary subjects. This trend is particularly evident in the colleges of technology and the regional technical colleges. There is little need for me to stress, as has been stressed by Senator Mulcahy already, the extent to which the study of continental languages has been a growing trend in the adult education sector as evidenced by increasing demands for extra-mural courses for business people and so on, evening courses run by vocational committees. The services of the cultural institutes are very important and they are doing very effective work in this field. All of this is not to say that I am complacent—and one cannot be complacent about the general position—far from it. But I am satisfied that the trend is strong, that we are playing with the wind, so to speak. I would hope to do all I can to meet the demands of the schools and of the public generally in this respect in the institutions for which I am responsible.
I mentioned also balance and quality. At the outset I indicated that French had a strong position, particularly in girls' schools. This was mentioned by a number of Senators. They had this long before the matter we are now discussing became a matter of public debate. In the 1978 leaving certificate while some 21,668 candidates sat for examination in French the entries for German, Spanish and Italian were 1,498 for German, 1,817 for Spanish and 191 only for Italian. For the intermediate certificate this year there were 34,000 entries for French, 3,204 for German—which really covers the pattern for two years with a little loss—2,595 for Spanish and 301 for Italian. These figures illustrate very clearly the prominence of French among the continental languages in our educational system. While in no way wishing to diminish the popularity of French it is very clear that special attention should be given to the development of the other Community languages. I should like also to advert to the question of quality. There are many factors that go towards making up the quality of language learning. Foremost among these are the objectives of the teaching given in schools and the influence which public examinations exert on these objectives. The emphasis on listening, comprehension and oral skills in continental languages has been reflected in the nature of the methodology programmes offered to teachers on an in-service basis for more than a decade, and the response of language teachers to such programmes has been very heartening indeed. It would not be an over-estima-tion to claim that upwards of 1,000 teachers have benefited from such in-service training courses. An alternative examination in French at the intermediate certificate level was introduced in 1972 for the purpose of stimulating listening comprehension and oral skill, the two things that an oral examination would test as important features of language learning at this level.
For a variety of reasons, which I do not propose to go into now, the introduction of oral and listening comprehension components into the leaving certificate examination has been too long delayed. I intimated at the Congress of the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland in Sligo this year that I was having proposals on this matter worked out in my Department. It would be my intention to have an oral/listening comprehension examination in French available on a voluntary basis to leaving certificate candidates in the first instance. This would be followed by a similar facility to students in the other continental languages. Students who took these examinations would be credited with a separate extra grade in their leaving certificate results. After due consultation with school authorities and an adequate period of notice these arrangements would be introduced as an essential part of the examinations in continental languages at the leaving certificate level and the examination results would be issued as a single grade incorporating the written, oral and listening comprehension components of the examination. This matter is still under consideration and I hope to expedite the study of it as much as possible. How am I for time, a Chathaoirleach?
Acting Chairman
There is a certain limit on the debate but I think at this stage if the Senator who is to reply is agreeable perhaps the Minister would care to continue.
I will conclude. The initial and continued training of teachers is very important also. It is especially important here because we have not the opportunity—this has been mentioned also by Senators—of conversational practice. We are on the periphery—the word used—of Europe. This is so but, of course, with all the means of communication we have nowadays it is somewhat easier than it used to be, particularly with the tapes, discs, radio programmes and so on made available to people. While the efforts to provide practice and familiarity have been considerable, particularly in the case of French—under the auspices of the Franco-Irish cultural agreement— through such mechanisms as teacher exchange and the provision of long, and shorter-term scholarships to courses in the country of the target language, a policy for the development of oral skills and the promotion of a balance of continental languages in our schools add new urgency to the improvement and extension of such mechanisms. At the student level the "assistants" scheme which operates in respect of French and to a lesser extent German supplies opportunity to our students to engage in conversation classes with native speakers from the country of the language they are studying, as well as supplying Irish undergraduates, potential teachers of the future, with the opportunity of living, working and studying in France or in Germany. In the present year there are 36 French and four German "assistants" in Ireland and 36 Irish "assistants" in France.
It is in the context of this background of activity, its achievements as well as its problems, that I welcome this debate on the Joint Committee Report and I look forward to hearing the various views. I have heard quite a few already on this very important topic, which interests me personally and has done for a considerable time.
I should like to begin by thanking Senators on both sides of the House and the Minister for the welcome given to this report from the Joint Committee and to the strong endorsement of the priority felt by the sub-committee which originally drafted the report and by members of the Joint Committee; the emphasis that we need to give to improving the teaching of languages in Irish schools, to improving the training and mobility of teachers, the mobility of students, the backlog we have to catch up on in trying to ensure that modern European languages are well taught and learned by young people here in order that we may ensure, in governmental, administrative, business and personal contacts, that we advance our priorities as a people, particularly in the context of the European Community, but generally in a cultural context.
There has been adequate opportunity to discuss the proposals of the report and I do not intend to reply at any great length but merely to make a number of specific points. Obviously it is disappointing that the Council of Ministers for Education has either been postponed or abandoned—the Minister did not seem to be quite clear which it is. This reinforces the comment he made, with which I agree, that education has not been treated seriously in the context of the European Community. To that extent it is perhaps still too much a European Community and it has not succeeded in giving itself that human face which was so much part of the underlying commitment of the Paris Summit in 1972. I would turn the subject around on the Minister a little because we are coming rapidly towards the next period when Ireland will be chairing the Council of Ministers, as of next July. It will be an extremely important time because this will be the first six months of a directly elected European Parliament. At that point the Minister will be President of the Council of Ministers of Education. He will be able to take initiatives in relation to the importance placed by the European Community on the subject of education, on the kinds of proposals which are being discussed here this afternoon. In view of a very strong personal commitment to the subject and in view of the opinions which have been expressed on both sides of the House here about the importance of the knowledge of and teaching of modern languages in the Irish context, I hope the Minister will seize the opportunity and take any initiatives he can to focus attention, at European level, to support the Commission in its proposals and to involve the directly-elected European Parliament in these proposals. I am sure Senator Brugha would play his part in that.
I hope all the Ministers will be so committed.
The purpose of the presidency is to allow each country to establish certain priorities and initiatives. I do not underestimate some of the difficulties of getting commitments from other member states. The ball is at our feet for those six months. Therefore, I hope the Minister will be able to focus for the first time the attention of the Community on the importance of education and on the importance of taking these kinds of initiatives at the European Community level.
The objective of the members of the Joint Committee has, I think, been achieved. Members of the Joint Committee feel that when a report has a particular relevance to this country—even if it is a specific matter—the report should be debated in either or in both Houses of the Oireachtas. A number of us on the Joint Committee feel that the Seanad has a particular role to play in providing time for debates on the particular subjects, therefore giving them an emphasis and a priority. Otherwise the Joint Committee would just continue to compile and publish these reports but they would not get the attention of politicians generally, of the relevant Minister and of his advisers. To that extent since we are a Joint Committee which is established to report to both Houses it is very encouraging that the Seanad is prepared to give time for debates where they are called for. I hope this practice will continue and that the Seanad will renew the necessary amendment of its Standing Orders to allow it to continue to debate reports of this sort.
Once again, I thank Members of the House and the Minister for their contributions. I am glad that they gave a welcome to the contents of the report.
Question put and agreed to.
Acting Chairman
It is now almost 8.30 p.m., the time we had agreed to adjourn the House. There is one remaining item of business. What does the House wish to do?
It is hardly worthwhile starting it now but it will be taken next week.
Acting Chairman
May I ask when is it proposed to sit again?
This day week.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 November 1978.