SECTION 2.
This Act shall not apply to any person who was over the age of sixteen years on the 1st day of January, 1928, and in this Act the word " person " shall be construed accordingly.
There are a considerable number of amendments to this section. The first point that arises is on an amendment by Deputy Wolfe, which is No. 2 on the Order Paper, and which reads as follows:—
Section 2, line 18, to delete all words after the word " Act " to the end of the section and substitute therefor the words " shall come into operation on the first day of January, 1935."
That amendment proposes to make a radical change in the form of the section and I must rule it out of order as making too great a change and substituting something completely different for what is in the section. The object of the amendment is clear. It is to reduce the age at which the Bill will come into operation. Perhaps Deputy Wolfe will be prepared to move an amendment to this effect in the same form as the other amendments.
Deputy WOLFE
I would suggest that you reconsider your decision, because the only thing that amendment 2, in my name, does, is to postpone the coming into operation of the Act. Surely the date of coming into operation is portion of the Bill. Take it this way: If there is no date specified for the coming into operation of the Act, it automatically comes into operation eight days after it receives the assent of the Governor-General.
There is a date. The date is prescribed in a certain way under Section 2 as it stands. And in Section 2 the word " person " is defined.
Deputy WOLFE
Section 2 deals with the date on which this Act comes into operation and my amendment does the same.
MINISTER for FINANCE
I should have thought that this amendment would be in order as an amendment to Section 6. If no other changes were made in the Bill, it might produce a somewhat ridiculous general effect. But I have seen many Acts which set out: " This Act may be cited as so and so and shall come into operation on such a date."
The amendment would not be out of order as an amendment to the Bill. As a clause in the Bill, it would not be out of order, but as a substitute for Section 2, as it stands in the draft Bill, it is out of order. It does purport to do the same thing as Section 2—to settle the date on which the Act will come into operation—but it omits the definition of the word " person." Section 2, as it stands, regards the matter from the point of view of " persons " and it defines the word " person " in a certain way. What the Deputy seeks could be got quite easily by moving to substitute the word " nine " for " sixteen " in the same sub-section.
The section would then read:
" This Act shall not apply to any person who was over the age of nine years on the first day of January, 1928 " . . .
Deputy WOLFE
Surely, in every Act you must consider, whether it is put into the Bill in one form or another, when the Act is to come into operation.
Deputy WOLFE
But you have just ruled that that is one of the things we are precluded from discussing.
No. You can discuss it under Section 2 as it stands. Your amendments to Section 2 deal with that matter.
Deputy WOLFE
I am bringing it under Section 2.
But in such a way that you are departing from the sense of the section. You are introducing something new into the section, and if your amendment were carried it would involve leaving the definition of " person " out.
Deputy WOLFE
Am I not entitled to move as an amendment that Section 2 be deleted?
No, but you are entitled to vote that Section 2 do not stand part of the Bill. That is equivalent to moving it as an amendment, but it is a different form. I do not see what object there is in dealing with the matter in this fashion, except the Deputy is unwilling to move his amendment in the ordinary way. It is possible to do what the Deputy is seeking by moving that the word " nine " be substituted for the word " sixteen." As it is, the question does arise whether the Deputy's amendment does not change the section so much as to be a complete contravention of it and out of order. I suggest to the Deputy that he should move to substitute the word " nine " for " sixteen." That would get exactly the same effect and it would be in order.
Deputy WOLFE
Shall I be in order in moving that now?
The consent of the Committee will have to be obtained, but I do not think there will be any objection.
There are a lot of amendments practically on the same lines. They suggest the substitution of the words " twelve,"" thirteen " and " fourteen." Would it not be possible to take one of these amendments and decide upon it?
MINISTER for FINANCE
If Deputy Wolfe is agreeable, we could discuss the question of age here, but he should be allowed to move the amendment he has down as an amendment to Section 6, where, I think, it would be entirely in order.
I suggest again that he would get the same effect, without making any alteration in either Section 6 or Section 2, by moving for the substitution of the word " sixteen " by " nine." I suggest that he deal with that question when we are discussing the whole of Section 2.
I submit that the amendment is clearly out of order under Standing Order 42. It is a direct negative.
Deputy WOLFE
I do not think it is a direct negative.
Deputy HOGAN
In amendment 4, could not the Deputy change the word " twelve " into " nine "?
He could let amendment 4 stand. What I propose to do is to put the motion " That the word ‘ sixteen ' stand part of the section " and debate all these amendments together. If there should be a change made, then the Committee can agree on that change and substitute one of these amendments for what is in the Bill. If that motion is defeated, I will next proceed to put amendment 9, which seeks to change the age from 16 to 18, because I think the principle involved in that is slightly different from the principle involved in the other amendments. If that amendment is defeated, I will proceed to put the other amendments and whichever of them is carried will stand part of the section. If that procedure meets with Deputy Wolfe's approval, we can go on and debate these amendments en bloc, but before doing that we would have to discuss amendment No. 3, which proposes to make a slight change in the date. Does Deputy Wolfe agree to allow his amendment No. 2 to stand on the same footing as the other amendments from 4 to 9 inclusive?
Deputy WOLFE
I have no objection to letting it stand with the other amendments, but I suggest that it is in order. Of course, I am bound by your ruling.
I do not think it is in order. I think it raises a different principle from the principle involved in Section 2. It is not a direct negative to Section 2, but it raises a different principle.
Deputy WOLFE
It is the same principle but a different method.
Does it not raise the principle of postponing the entire operation of the Bill.
Deputy WOLFE
But that principle is one which is in the Bill. I want to give some opportunity to students to qualify in this respect.
If Deputy Wolfe's amendment, as it stands, were carried, the Act would come into operation on the first January, 1935, but the section would not contain anything as to the manner in which the Act would come into operation or as to the type of person that it would apply to at that period. As the section stands, it applies only to persons over the age of sixteen on the 1st January, 1928. The Deputy's amendment would make the Act come into operation on the 1st January, 1935, and the Act would say nothing as to the type of person to whom it would apply on that date.
Deputy WOLFE
It would then affect all persons seeking to become apprentices to solicitors. The age of these students would be about sixteen.
The amendment would affect very seriously men going for the Bar.
Deputy WOLFE
It would give persons seeking admission to the Bar a sufficient opportunity of learning Irish.
MINISTER for FINANCE
It is rather discussing the merits, but the amendment would hit a class of persons who are not hit at present—namely, solicitors' clerks who are seeking to become solicitors.
Deputy WOLFE
Why—because they are over sixteen?
MINISTER for FINANCE
Yes. If this amendment were passed, it would hit them.
Deputy WOLFE
Why should it not hit them?
MINISTER for FINANCE
I think you should not hit them in that particular way. I think there would be objection to hitting any person in that particular way. You would leave the whole purport of the Bill in a certain amount of doubt and you would raise questions that would have to be interpreted with a considerable amount of difficulty.
You can get the same effect by moving that the word " nine " be substituted for the word " sixteen," if you wish. Is Deputy Wolfe agreeable to that course?
Deputy WOLFE
I must be. I bow to your ruling.
I move amendment 3:—
Section 2, line 19, to delete the figures "1928" and to substitute therefor the figures "1929."
The reason I put in that amendment is that there are a number of persons who have become apprentices even in the past year. They have already become apprentices and they would be over sixteen on the 1st January, 1928. There is some difficulty there.
Deputy WOLFE
What the Deputy's amendment means is that there are a certain number of people who passed an authorised legal examination, who have paid in stamp duties and fees to Saorstát Eireann approximately £100, who have paid an indentureship fee of £200 or more, and that it would be unfair to make these people re-start as if nothing had occurred up to the present. That is the object of the amendment. In common decency, if the student comes from Northern Ireland, they ought to give him the money back that he paid to the Saorstát.
I think the amendment raises the question as to whether the Bill should be retrospective or not. In that sense, I think we ought to be careful as to the date on which this Bill will become an Act. We ought to make the date such that it will be after the date on which the Bill becomes an Act.
MINISTER for FINANCE
There is one little difficulty. I do not know what the fate of the Bill will be in the Seanad, but it might be held up even beyond the 1st January next. I feel that it would not be fair to make the date from the 1st January last but from the 1st January next would be fair because the principle has been debated in the Dáil and people will have got fair warning. I think there would be no material injustice done in that way.
There will be certain difficulties. There are only three months given and individuals will suffer.
Amendment 3 put and agreed to.
Amendment 4.—Section 2, in line 19, to delete the word " sixteen " and to substitute the word " twelve."—(Jasper Travers Wolfe.)
Amendment 5.—Section 2, in line 19, to delete the word " sixteen " and to substitute the word " thirteen."—(Jasper Travers Wolfe.)
Amendment 6.—Section 2, line 19, to delete the word " sixteen " and to substitute the word " fourteen." (Jasper Travers Wolfe.)
Amendment 7.—Section 2, line 19, to delete the words and figures " sixteen years on the 1st day of January " and to substitute therefor the words and figures " fourteen years on the 1st day of October."—(Gearoid O'Sullivan.)
Amendment 8.—Section 2, line 19, to delete the words and figures " sixteen years on the 1st day of January " and to substitute therefor the words and figures " fifteen years on the 1st day of October."—(Gearoid O'Sullivan.)
Amendment 9.—Section 2, line 19, to delete the word " sixteen " and to insert the word " eighteen."—(T.O Deirg.)
I propose to take all the amendments from 4 to 9 together and to debate, if necessary, Deputy Wolfe's amendment to substitute the word " nine " for the word " sixteen." I will take amendment 9 first.
I move amendment 9. I believe a sufficient opportunity has been given to students. Irish has been subsidised heavily in the secondary schools and sufficient opportunity has been given to students in secondary schools in the Free State to acquire a knowledge of Irish. I, therefore, suggest that the word " sixteen " should be altered to " eighteen." That means that I want the Act to operate two years sooner than Deputy Conlon seeks. I am not satisfied that the principle of the Bill inflicts too great a hardship on persons even who have not been at school in the Free State. If they are eighteen years on the 1st January, 1929, it will give them at least three or four years to acquire a knowledge of Irish, even assuming they have not any knowledge. If it is argued that they have not sufficient opportunities at present, that the facilities do not exist, I would be prepared to consider the matter, but I am quite convinced that there are sufficient facilities to acquire the language between eighteen and the age at which they will enter for lectures.
Deputy WOLFE
Deputy Derrig asks that the entire Section 4 be deleted?
No, I am only objecting to the age, which, I think, ought to be increased.
Deputy WOLFE
The Deputy suggests in effect that Section 4 should be deleted from the Bill, because while it is there no opportunity will be given to the lads who are being educated outside the Free State, and inside the Free State in many cases, of entering the profession.
We cannot enter upon a discussion of Section 4 at the moment.
Deputy WOLFE
It was Deputy Derrig opened the discussion.
If there are real difficulties, I should like to have them pointed out. I believe there are quite sufficient facilities. If people can afford to pay several hundred pounds to enter a profession, they should be able to provide sufficient for tuition in Irish. This will mean that a certain class must wait until they are 20 or 21 before entering the profession. You want to keep all that class out of the profession.
MINISTER for FINANCE
So far as the age limit is concerned, the Bill has taken the limit as set down in the White Paper on the Gaeltacht Report. I drafted that particular section of the White Paper and I think I originally put in eighteen years. After some discussion, I was convinced that eighteen was too high, for two or three reasons. First, you had people who had gone a considerable distance with their studies, people who would have gone a considerable distance in their apprenticeship and who might have no Irish. I was not looking so much at the matter from the point of view of any hardship that it might impose on them, but we are dealing with human agencies in carrying out any Bill. If a man had been two or three years an apprentice, having entered without any Irish and having no Irish, I think if this amendment were passed a good deal of sympathy would be felt for him and the tendency on the part of everybody who had to deal with the examinations which he had to pass would be to make it easy for him. We have to find a standard of Irish, but the decision as to whether a person has reached that standard of knowledge or not depends upon individuals. If the individuals felt that there were a great many hard cases amongst the candidates coming before them, the inevitable tendency would be to try and let those people down as lightly as they conscientiously could. I came to the conclusion that the result of that would be that people would be let through with a standard of Irish which would not be taken if we made the age limit lower and made it possible for everybody who had to do with the administration of the Act to feel that the young men coming forward had ample opportunity of acquiring the standard of knowledge set down. As at present, with Deputy Conlon's amendment accepted, there is no difficulty so far as the Bar is concerned. A man like that will not have to pass an examination in Irish for three or four years, and having set about it he could take a holiday or two in an Irish-speaking district or study elsewhere. He would not have much difficulty in making up the requisite amount of Irish. But so far as a man in the solicitors profession is concerned, he would have to pass examinations immediately, and sixteen years next January is, I think, high enough if we are to keep the standard right and not have this sympathy with the individual. This is really modifying some-what the views I had when I originally suggested eighteen. I think that possibly fifteen on the 1st January next would be better. It may be that fixing that age limit will let a few people through without a knowledge of Irish whom we would catch if we kept the age limit up. On the other hand, if we keep the standard of qualification really high, I think the result in the long run will be better. I would not suggest going below fifteen, because there is no doubt that if students have taken no steps to acquire a knowledge of Irish up to the present they or their parents are to blame. The general policy in respect of education and the declaration that is in the Constitution were before them. The attitude of the main political Parties in the country was well known and, while we must try to avoid extreme harshness, at the same time I do not think we should take the line that the exacting of a high standard of Irish is a thing that must be put off simply to benefit people who have done nothing up to the present time. I feel certain that if we adopt Deputy Derrig's amendment, no matter how we try to safeguard the position, the tendency will be to have sympathy with hard cases, to let men through and to lower the standard in the beginning. Those who have experience of other examinations know that if the standard be lowered in the beginning it will be very hard to raise it afterwards.
This is really a question as to what extent a Bill can be evaded. If we had any suggestion from the Societies that are affected that there was an intention on their part to move with the times, I think we would be prepared to modify our view in this respect.
Deputy WOLFE
As far as the Incorporated Law Society is concerned, I think I can say that its members will carry out both in the letter and the spirit any regulations that are fairly made. It has been said that people are themselves to blame if students have not learned Irish up to now. There is a not inconsiderable section of this community to whom that does not apply. There is a not inconsiderable section who had not an opportunity of getting their sons educated where they could learn Irish. I take it that the remark of the Minister does not apply to them. Let me give a concrete instance. My own son never got an opportunity to learn Irish. I would have no objection to his learning Irish. I would encourage him to do so. I am not opposed to the teaching of Irish. I was a member of the first governing body of University College seventeen years ago when this question came up. I was not then popular and I then favoured the teaching of Irish in every way and went out of my way to support it.
I think we should be careful about this Bill, because the opportunities for learning Irish in the Midlands are, I think, much less than in other parts of Ireland. A concrete case came to my notice within the last two months. An examination for County Council Scholarships was held. That examination did not include compulsory Irish. One of the candidates did not take Irish in the examination. When his time for going to the University came, he had no knowledge of Irish and could not get into the National University. Our County Council had to withhold the scholarship on that account. That is the case of a boy in a small position. If his parents were wealthy, he would not be eligible to compete, because the eligibility of the boy depends on the income of the parents and on the valuation of their property. That is a case which has occurred this year. It seemed to me an extraordinary thing that a boy winning a County Council Scholarship did not know Irish. I asked the County Council to keep over his scholarship, to give him a year and to let him compete at the next Matriculation examination. Deputies from other parts of Ireland know the position there, but I know that the knowledge of Irish in the Midlands is very small. There may be great hardship imposed on candidates for the legal profession from that area, and I would be inclined to make the age lower.
MINISTER for FINANCE
What is the common age at which boys become apprenticed to solicitors?
Deputy WOLFE
If boys take a University course, they might wait some years later.
Deputy WOLFE
I was apprenticed this day forty years, at sixteen years of age.
MINISTER for FINANCE
Seventeen or eighteen would be more usual.
Deputy WOLFE
Seventeen would be more usual now. At that time, he had to do the whole five years. Now he can go in at seventeen and get out at twenty-one.
If an apprentice takes his degree in the University before he becomes an apprentice, he gets two years off, but he begins at a later age.
Deputy WOLFE
That leaves him twenty-two. If he gets a degree during apprenticeship, or if he goes to the University and takes law lectures, he gets a year off.
MINISTER for FINANCE
Suppose we make the age fifteen on the 1st January next? The average boy will not enter before seventeen years. That means that he has two years in which to make up Irish.
Deputy WOLFE
What about the sixteen-year old boy going up for examination?
If you take the age at fifteen, he escapes.
MINISTER for FINANCE
If you make the " catching age " fifteen on the 1st January next, that boy escapes.
Perhaps we could refer here to an amendment to be proposed by Deputy O'Sullivan. If we take the 1st October, 1929, as the date, and make the age sixteen, then we are only two months short of fifteen years.
Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment proposed to take the date as the 1st October, 1928, and not the 1st October, 1929.
The Minister for Finance suggests fifteen years on the 1st January as the age limit. I would be opposed to that. I was of opinion that eighteen should be the age limit, and I made that suggestion in the Dáil. I see that there are objections, and I do not want to inflict a hardship on any student. I do not follow Deputy Mathews regarding Irish in the Midlands. I have attended Feiseanna all over the Midlands. I have adjudicated at Feiseanna at Naas, Mullingar, Tullamore, Athlone and other places, and I have examined scores of children who secured the Fainne.
Could they address you in Irish?
They had to maintain a conversation for twenty minutes. I see the difficulty in making the age limit eighteen, and I am sure my colleague, Deputy Derrig, would withdraw that. If we made the date the 1st October—it is a big concession and I am not sure whether or not I would vote for it myself—and say sixteen instead of fifteen, perhaps it would meet the case. The 1st October was probably chosen in the amendment for the reason that the Brooke Scholarship, which is now the Bar Final, takes place in October.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
The 1st October is the beginning of the legal year.
MINISTER for FINANCE
I think sixteen on the 1st October next would be fair enough.
Deputy WOLFE
It will still have the effect of driving some people out of the profession.
Deputy WOLFE
The learning of Irish is no humbug at all. It is a very serious matter, and it will take time.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I would like to refer to amendment No. 7, where I suggest fourteen years on the 1st October.
There has been a change there.
It is 1929, in any case, now. What I suggested was that instead of making it Janaury, 1929, we make it October and leave it sixteen years.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
It is important for the language and for education that in the two years before a boy gets his Leaving Certificate in the Intermediate he should devote a good deal of time to the study of Irish, so that when he comes up for his preliminary he will have a decent knowledge of the language, and that it will not be a matter of cramming for eight or nine or ten months. If that is not done, then whoever will be the authority will say that sufficient notice had not been given and everything will be against a good standard in Irish. I do not say anything against the National University, but we all know that compulsory Irish there originally was a terrible humbug. If we can arrange matters as I suggest, a boy or girl will have two years' study of Irish before he or she begins professional training.
What are you actually proposing? We have already decided to change the figure 1928 to 1929, in Section 2, line 19.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
You will observe that I have not referred to the year.
Your original intention was fifteen years on the 1st October, 1928.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
That refers to the Bill, of course.
It was 1928 was in the Bill.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
That is why I put in the alternative. I wanted the student to have two years' study of Irish before coming up for examination.
Would you be agreeable to making the age fifteen on the 1st October, 1929?
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
You are prepared to withdraw amendment No. 7?
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
MINISTER for FINANCE
Supposing a student has done no Irish before these two years, he cannot do the two years' Final Certificate stuff if he has not the foundation.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
I quite appreciate that. But at least he will have two years' study of Irish, and it will not be a question of grind or cram. Everybody who has gone for a professional examination knows that he is told in the grind that such and such a question will surely be asked. Everybody who has done law knows that. I really think it would carry out the intention of the promoters of the Bill if that amendment were adopted.
MINISTER for FINANCE
Your contention is that it should only apply to persons who were fourteen in October last practically.
Deputy O'SULLIVAN
To persons who have just now entered into the final period of their secondary education.
Who have passed the Intermediate Certificate examination of the Secondary School.
Deputy WOLFE
It makes no difference whether it is seven or two. Why not keep up the good spirit with the Incorporated Law Society? If you go to them they are willing to meet you.
It is a simple fact that no amendments have come from them, as far as I can see, which would put that principle in the Bill that people would have a proper knowledge of Irish.
MINISTER for FINANCE
I am afraid that the disposition of the Incorporated Law Society is not yet that.
I should like to see the general body doing the right thing.
Deputy WOLFE
I tell you they have generously accepted the situation and, having accepted it, they will carry it out. I do not know anyone who will carry out their undertaking more loyally. It will be carried out exactly as prescribed.
I am altogether in favour of Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment as it stands. In carrying that amendment, you run the risk of letting a certain number through who may not be fully qualified in Irish, but if you leave the Act too rigid it may be interpreted in a very generous spirit and the standard of Irish may very easily become a matter of form. No matter what you do there is a danger that the standard under it will become a matter of form. You are going to deal with big numbers and examinations carried out in a formal sort of way. It seems to me the one way you could possibly get the intention of Deputy Little's amendment carried out would be by full agreement on all sides. If you have not got that, it will be the easiest possible thing to defeat the Act. The only way I could think of to avoid its being defeated is to limit its scope to Irish-speaking districts. I would be very glad to see this Bill carried into effect with that definition of a competent knowledge of the Irish language included in it. I believe the one way you will get that done is by going fairly slowly and in getting consent and agreement all round.
The Committee adjourned for the purpose of attending a division in the House, and resumed.
I do not know whether that question has been sufficiently discussed.
In the absence of Deputy Wolfe, I was saying that if it were a case of an undertaking on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society, we would be satisfied with fifteen on 1st October, 1929.
Deputy WOLFE
I will give you an undertaking that if the Incorporated Law Society are not interfered with they will carry it out. They have realised the situation and that the will of the majority must prevail.
Their Secretary and President were with me and they wanted fourteen years. That is fourteen years on the 1st January, 1928. By making it fifteen on 1st October, 1929, you are giving them——
MINISTER for FINANCE
Deputy WOLFE
Almost what they ask. That will be Deputy Gearoid O'Sullivan's amendment No. 8.
The question I propose to put first is that the word " sixteen " stand part of the section. If there is agreement on amendment No. 8, I presume it will be agreed to defeat that motion. Then we can deal with the other amendments and negative them all, except amendment No. 8, and pass that. I put the motion then: That the word sixteen stand part of Section 2.
Question put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9 put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 7, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 put and agreed to.
Question—" That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill "—put and agreed to.
The section now reads: " This Act shall not apply to any person who was over the age of fifteen years on 1st October, 1929, and in this Act the word ‘ person ' shall be construed accordingly."
