The time remaining for the Minister is eight minutes and for the debate on the motion one hour and fifteen minutes.
Private Members' Business. - Language Revival: Replacement of Compulsory Methods—Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That in view of the failure of the use of compulsion in regard to the language revival to appreciably further the objective of making the Irish language the spoken language of the people, and of the apparent growing disquiet and dissatisfaction among responsible authorities and among parents and pupils alike about compulsory methods, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should seek by means of a public referendum to ascertain whether a majority of the people would favour the replacement of compulsory methods, where used in the attempted revival of the language, by voluntary schemes for its encouragement. — (Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan.)
I intended to-night to go into the question of the Irish language in general as it has been argued by the chief sponsor of the motion that our policy in relation to Irish is to some extent a barrier to the unity of the country. I cannot accept that contention. Nationhood is an integer, and to abandon the Irish language in the hope of smoothing the way towards the ending of partition would be to try the impossible feat of dividing an integer, of yielding on one principle for the sake of another.
Besides, I believe it would be futile. Neither our Northern fellow-countrymen nor anyone else is going to be impressed by any lowering on our part of our national self-respect with an eye to pleasing them. One hears on all sides these days suggestions that we should discard this, that or the other part of our national ideals in the hope of uniting the country. Such people should realise that when the outer rampart of principle is surrendered, further demands grow by what they feed upon, until eventually the citadel itself has fallen.
Of course, it may be possible that we could solve partition as such by the abdication of our nationhood—and abandoning the language would be a big step in that direction. I take it that there is no self-respecting Irishman who would even think of such a piece of bartering or huxtering, and I merely mention the point in order to stress that initial weakness may eventually lead us to the loss of the very citadel of our principles.
In relation to the question of submitting the problem of Irish to a referendum I suggest that we should not lose sight of fundamentals. The Irish language is inextricably bound up with love of our country, its history and its traditions. In short, it is an integral part of our national heritage. It would be an insult to our people to ask them, in essence, whether they are prepared to abandon an integral part of that heritage. I would not be a party to such an insult. Even if the question of a referendum was merely to deal with methods it would be objectionable since it would carry the implication that the State was abandoning part of its duty to the nation.
No referendum is required to make an appraisal of the methods hitherto employed and no referendum is necessary for us to alter in any way these methods should we think it necessary to do so to hasten the fulfilment of our aims. What we should strive for would be to take the question of the Irish language out of the field of controversy and to have it accepted as an agreed policy among us all. I thought, from some of Deputy Dr. Browne's remarks, that he implicitly agreed with this.
Táim ag iarraidh ar gach aoinne bheith ag cuimhneamh ar conas is fearr is féidir cabhair a thabhairt agus conas is fearr is féidir aon aighneas i dtaobh na Gaeilge a sheachaint. Leanaimís an lorg san.
I was rather disappointed with Deputy Dr. Browne's approach to this matter as indicated in his submission of the motion and, indeed, I was also disappointed with the approach of Deputy Corish to the motion. I accept completely the suggestion of Deputy Corish and the implication of Dr. Browne's statement that opinions on this matter should be received with the greatest consideration and that facts should be looked at in the clearest possible way. I feel that, apart altogether from the general tone of the remarks made by Deputy Browne in supporting his motion, it would have been rather interesting, and constructive and informative if, instead of suggesting that we have a referendum on the matter, the Deputy had approached the matter from the point of view of looking at the facts through the light of his own particular experience.
The mover of the motion had the interesting and informative experience of looking at the Irish language in administration and in the position in which it is in the country from the point of view of a Minister, a Minister who gave very considerable attention to the use of the language in so far as it could be used.
I think it would have been better, if, instead of stating what the position is in the schools and what people are saying, he had given us his experience because there is no question that he is going on the same note as everybody else when he says that there is nobody satisfied with the progress made. On the other hand, there are many people who, when they look around with a careful and sympathetic approach, see what has been done and who must feel that, whatever the generation which comes after the present one does with regard to changes of methods and approach, they will be very grateful for the work done and for the spirit that has been spread in so many directions by the people who have gone before them.
The motion that is before us is that we should have a referendum. If the mover of the motion wanted a referendum the proper thing for him to have done would be to have framed a question that could be put to the electorate in a referendum. I would be very interested to see the mover of the motion, instead of moving the motion, drafting a Private Members' Bill for a referendum which would indicate the question upon which he wanted to have an answer given by the electorate. I do not see that any considerable minority within the House would approve of a referendum on the subject that is referred to here but it would be a serious exercise for a person who thought there was any possibility of a referendum to draft a question he thought the people could answer. I do not think there is any question the people could answer at the moment.
The question is, is the Irish language to be left to fend for itself or is the State going to assist its development and its spread at every step of the way? As far as the schools are concerned the whole argument that is made by those who have spoken on this motion is the injustice being done to the children and the damage being done to education by reason of the fact that the language is, as they say, compulsory in the schools. I notice Deputy Corish does not pin himself down to a complaint against that. He emphasises the case of a person who because he did not pass in Irish did not get an examination. If that is to be made the subject of a referendum, a question should be framed asking people to vote whether, in an examination where Irish is a subject a person who does not pass in Irish should or should not get the examination. That is a typical straight question the people could be asked to vote on.
A question asked by way of referendum should be simple to understand. There is no simplicity in any general aspect of the language which could be put to the people in a referendum. There is dissatisfaction. Are you going to ask the people: "Are you satisfied with the present policy in relation to Irish or are you not? Vote ‘tá' or ‘níl', as the case might be." That would not lead you anywhere.
The report of the Council of Education dealt thoroughly and effectively with the work of the schools and they say at one point that if there has not been achieved what was hoped for 30 years ago there have been very good reasons for that. There are reasons of all kinds. However, the Minister has just made an appeal that the general policy of the language would not be made a matter of Party controversy. Up to the present no aspect of the Irish language policy has been a matter of Party controversy. There have been political effects on the language. The Gaelic League would have been better if it had functioned differently after 1925. The Gaelic League might have been better if it had been encouraged to develop differently and if, say, a semi-State assisted body was not set up to supplant it. These are matters which have affected all kinds of people outside and have influenced people pro or con the language.
So far as the Oireachtas is concerned the policy in regard to the language is not a matter of party politics. There has been no cleavage of opinion between the main sections of the Oireachtas on it. There is a danger that for particular reasons it could become a matter of various Parties wanting to strike a particular note which might take the fancy of a section of the people. Happily we do not seem to be in that situation and while some people might not agree with the particular examination that is being carried on by the committee set up by the Government to deal with the matter they are prepared to take that in good faith and to see what kind of evidence will come from it.
Apart from that, people are looking at the language and the problems connected with it from various points of view. We have been asked by some speakers in this debate to admit that no progress has been made in the last 40 years. I could go back not more than 40 years to a school in Thurles where Irish was not being taught. I could visit there as a Minister a few years ago, speak to the whole school entirely in Irish and be fully understood. I could go to see the Arch-bishop of Cashel being consecrated, feting his guests and listen to him making his address entirely in Irish. I could listen to other members of the hierarchy, the clergy and laymen one after another making some part of their contribution in Irish.
In the face of all that we are told here: "Speak to any children of 12 to 14 years of age and ask them if they are in favour of Irish and the great majority of them will say ‘no'." Remarks along those lines were made during this debate. Surely there is no foundation for statements such as those in the face of what you can hear in any school you go into, or at any public meeting where you will hear speakers addressing their audience in Irish, at an assembly such I spoke of in Thurles or indeed at the annual meeting of the Cumann Gaelach in Clonmel. It is simply just stirring up dust, or throwing dust on a road where there is enough dust already. But dust that can be cleared away, or is being cleared away at the present time, is that particular kind of obscurity with regard to Irish in the school, Irish in administration or Irish elsewhere that could not afford to be looked at, perhaps, in the years we have passed through or would be made a matter for Party division or Party criticism or complaint of one kind or another.
A very considerable amount of time has been lost because—both where Irish is used in administration, or in the development of Irish in the schools, the general objective, No. 1, but particularly the immediate objectives, which are the things without which in a problem of this particular kind you cannot reach surely towards your general objectives or see where your general objective is—these immediate objectives have not been examined in any way at all, you might say, or at any rate in any systematic way.
This committee that dealt with primary school programmes up to 12 years of age have, by an overwhelming majority, approved of the work that is being done in the schools and made the complaint that if work is being done more satisfactorily outside by public bodies and by official bodies outside the schools and others, that the schools would give a very much more effective contribution as a result of such encouragement but that the child can hardly be expected to become a pioneer in the use of Irish.
To leave the question of schools, I would just refer to the American School Curriculum, the volume of the American Association for 1953. One of the chapters deals with how to appraise classroom achievement and on page 311 it says:
...curriculums are badly overcrowded. The time has come to assess realistically the specific responsibilities and the degree of responsibility which schools can and should assume. However, Cureton points out that "... responsibility has no meaning in the absence of some method for determining whether it has been discharged effectively or ineffectively. If the school wants to accept some responsibility, but lacks either the necessary authority to discharge it or the ability to evaluate, however crudely, the results of its proposed efforts, we must conclude that it is unable to accept this responsibility."
While the Department of Education and the schools here have accepted a very considerable amount of responsibility in connection with the language the following remarks, I think, are relevant:
The preceding statement implies that decisions as what achievements should be evaluated and as to how they are to be evaluated should not be delayed until after the curriculum has been constructed, and certainly not until after construction has been completed. Rather it implies that, both in formulating objectives and in devising means for the attainment, decisions as to how and what to evaluate play an important part. In other words, curriculum construction and plans for evaluation should go hand in hand. A realistic consideration of how the achievement of any objective can be appraised will contribute markedly to its clarification and aid in determining whether or not its achievement is a responsibility which the school should accept.
One other thing that the Council of Education Report in relation to primary education recommended was that a research department should be set up. That has not been done or, at any rate, there has not been any kind of systematic—not so much research but—examination and assessment of what has been achieved in the schools and without that I do not think it is possible to state in respect of our schools at any particular stage what the immediate objective was where the primary schools or the secondary schools are concerned in relation to the general language problem. I take it that the schools do their own work in a particular way or on a particular curriculum but even on the amount of circumscribed objective that the schools have themselves I doubt if, in relation to the general problem, there has been that particular type of systematic assessment of the work that would enable it to be changed here and improved there at various stages.
However, I think that is not a matter that we can transfer to this Assembly either to discuss effectively or on which to advise effectively. We have very highly-qualified educational authorities on the managerial side, in the Church, and in the teaching line and we would be very ill-advised to attempt to decide either at referendum or at Oireachtas level, questions that are properly to be decided at the level of those engaged in education on the various strata. Only comparatively recently have we, in a general way, come to examine things in that regard. It is quite true that the Department of Education has been in touch with various groups from time to time but it was only a few years ago that the Council of Education was set up for the purpose of reviewing things generally. The very slowness with which the Council have done their work may be a matter of grave disappointment, say, on the primary side, but that slowness is not at all out of keeping with the slowness with which the Department and the Government have done their work in taking the facts as disclosed and the recommendations as made by the Council. It is a matter of considerable surprise to me that the second request that was made to the Council to deal with the curriculum for secondary schools was made nearly five years ago and I do not think the Department has yet got the report on that although it was a rather constrained thing.
That may be disappointing but there may be very sound reasons for it and I think those who realise how securely the foundations of our educational policy and institutions are laid will not in the long run have any fault to find with the great slowness in this matter. To me, personally, it is a bit disappointing because I thought when the primary and secondary sides were dealt with that what came in after 12 in the national schools and in the vocational schools would be reviewed and time is rather important in educational matters at present although it is much more satisfactory to spend time in examination rather than take decisions and thus involve a futile waste of time in following a type of blueprint that might affect, if not the present, the next generation.
At this particular time in the development of the general language policy we ought not fall into the danger of making any small aspects of it, in relation to schools or administration, a matter of Party irritation on the one hand. We ought to avoid as much as possible taking things out of the hands of the educationists, things that are entirely theirs. On the other hand, we ought to encourage them to understand that their recommendations will be understood, their approach understood, and that we are anxious only to get the best possible thing done in our schools. We ought all be satisfied at the present time so far as the school are concerned with the opinions that have been expressed by the Council up to this that there is no diminution of the educational effectiveness of our schools by reason of what has been done in these schools for the Irish language, whether you object to what is being done here, there and elsewhere.
The Minister has stated fairly what the general situation is. However, we are concerned with the whole of the Irish language policy. I think that the mover of the resolution is a bit depressing when he summarises the situation by saying that the present generation, for all they did and all their ideals, have failed in everything, the "everything" being the three things the mover set out: to solve Partition, restore the Irish language and bring about social justice in a state in which there would be security for everybody. However, a referendum in that particular atmosphere will not settle anything for anybody.
The general position of the Irish language depends on what is being done in the Gaeltacht, upon the position of Irish in the Civil Service and the position of Irish with the Local Appointments Commission. It also depends on what kind of contribution can be made to the schools by cultural traditions. Being cultural traditions, they are the heritage of our people and may be viewed in terms of the people and their mentality. I think it is time there would come from the Department of Celtic Studies of the Institute for Advanced Studies something of what came to our generation through the Standish O'Gradys and the Eleanor Halls and those who introduced us first to Cuchulainn, the Fianna Cycle and all the old Irish mythology.
I think there has been from the very early days of the old Gaeltacht Orders under Local Government and Agriculture a very slipshod approach towards seeing that the Irish-speaking districts were served with Irish-speaking officials, while on the other hand very great play was made of requiring Irish standards from people appointed in other places. On occasion there have been suspicions as to the equity and fairness with which that was done under certain circumstances. All kinds of suspicions, jealousies and disappointments of various kinds have all helped to add to a disparagement of Irish as a requirement in public appointments. For years now there has been a document awaiting approval or decision by the Government with regard to the use of Irish in the Civil Service. The sooner some of these things are settled the better. For years there have been considerations as to the necessity for reviewing the position in regard to Irish and the Local Appointments Commission. The same applies to that. There are many other aspects of Irish and its use that require examination.
As far as the schools are concerned, there is no use in running away and making a case of weaknesses here and hard cases there. Let the situation be looked at from an educational and national point of view. Let us understand at the same time how necessary it is to see that there will be an appreciation of what the language means. I feel that something more than a three hour discussion, and a lot more information than is available at present to anybody engaged in such a discussion, would be required to deal satisfactorily with the matter the mover of the resolution wished to be dealt with. I do not think he really meant that there would be a referendum on the question of—I really do not know what question. I think if he did desire a referendum he would have framed the question upon which he wanted the people to say "níl" nó "tá".
Ní dóigh liomsa go raibh an Dr. de Brún dáiríre nuair a mhol sé an rún seo. Im thuairimse ní raibh ann ach aiséirí nó leanúint den chuspóir a bhí ag Clann na Poblachta ó 1948 go dtí 1951. Tá sé ag ligean air anois ná fuil aon ní ag déanamh tinnis dó ach cúis agus bail na Gaeilge. Tá sé ag caoineadh na díobhála atá á dhéanamh ar an rud ar a dtugann sé Gaeilge éigeantach sna scoileanna. Murar thuig sé go nuige seo nach bhfuil a léithéid ann ba chóir go mbainfeadh óráid an Aire Oideachais an dalla-púicín dá shúile.
Ní dóigh liom go bhfaighfí i dtír ar bith eile daoine a ligeas orthu go bhfuil grádh acu do nósa agus béasa a gcine agus a bheadh ag plé leis an rud seo ar an nós amaideach seo. Ba mhaith liom a mheabhrú dhóibh gurb í seo Éire agus gurb í an Ghaeilge teanga na hÉireann agus, fós, go bhfuil de dhualgas ar gach duine an teanga a chaomhnú agus í a chur á labhairt ar fud na tíre athuair. Is linn go léir an Ghaeilge agus ní mór dúinn go léir í a shábháil.
D'fhonn an púicín a bhaint dá shúile, ba mhaith liom aghaidh a thabhairt siar is aniar ar bhóithrín na staire—bóthar crua corraiceach do chine Gael. Tagadh sé siar liom go ré Eilíse a hAon ris a ráitear "Beití na muice". Rinne sí siúd a dícheall le láimh láidir agus cos-ar-bolg deireadh a chur lenár gcine agus a dteanga ársa a chur ar ceal. Nuair a theip ar an iarracht sin fuair si cladhaire Gaedheal chun abairtí seafóideacha a cheapadh i nGaeilge chun dí-mheas a chaitheamh ar an teanga. Sampla amháin de sin is ea an abairt seo: D'ith damh dubh ubh amh ar neamh. Ba ghreann le hEilís an rá seafóideach agus is mó duine de chine Gaedheal ar ar cuireadh ceann-fé agus náire leis. Theip ar Eilís is do mhair an Ghaeilge.
Ina dhiaidh sin tháinig Reacht Chill Chainnigh. Is faoin Reacht sin ba choir in aghaidh dlí Gaeilge do labhairt nó cluichí na nGaedheal a chleachtadh. In ainneoin an Reachta sin do chloigh ár gcine leis an dteangain.
Do cuireadh Acht eile i bhfeidhm i bParlaimint Shasana sa bhliain 1831. Fuaireamar na scoileanna náisiúnta ach, foraoir, ní raibh cead ag aon oide oiread is focal Gaeilge a labhairt sna scoileanna sin. Ní hamháin sin ach chuirtí gobán le muineál gach linbh a bhí ag freastal ar na scoileanna sin. Gach aon uair a chloistí oiread is focal Gaeilge uathu chuirtí scór ar an ngobán agus tugtaí leadhb den tslait don leanbh bocht thar ceann gach scór díobh.
Do cuireadh leabhrán i láimh gacha linbh agus ar an gcéad leathanach de sin bhí rann áiféiseach i dteanga na nGall. Bhí ar an oide bocht an rann seo a dhingeadh isteach i n-aigne na leanaí. "I thank the goodness and the grace that on my youth had smiled to make me in my early days a happy English child." Nach truagh nach acmhainn do dhaoine áirithe ná h-ainmneod a rá anois: "I thank the goodness and the grace that on my youth had smiled to make me in my early days a truly English child."
Lean an scéal mar sin go dtí ré an Phiarsaigh agus ba chóir dúinn cuimhneamh anois ar an gcéad uair agus an uair dheireanach dár labhair an Piarsach i gcúirt dlí na nGall. Séard a thug ann é ná seanduine as Tír Chonaill a chosaint. Cuireadh an dlí air sin toisc go raibh a ainm i nGaeilge ar leathlaí na trucaile aige. Buadhadh air agus cuireadh fíneáil air.
Ina dhiaidh sin arís in aimsir na nDubhchrónach cuireadh an dlí ar dhaoine a labhradh nó a thugadh a n-ainmneacha agus a sloinnte i nGaeilge. Sampla amháin de sin is ea Peadar Ó hAnnracháin. Cuireadh fineáil nó seal i bpriosún air sin toisc go dtug sé a ainm i nGaeilge do phíléir. Níor dhíol sé an fhíneáil agus cuireadh fé ghlas é.
Mholfainn don Teachta de Brún agus dá lucht leanúna machnamh a dhéanamh ar staid na Gaeilge sna scoileanna nuair do cuireadh an Stát seo ar bun. Bhí slua oidí ag múineadh sna scoileanna an tráth úd. Daoine ab ea iad a oileadh sna Coláistí oiliúna ar bheagán Gaeilge. Chuir an Roinn Oideachais cúrsaí Samhraidh ar bun dóibh agus, idir óg agus aosta, rinneadar freastal ar na cúrsaí sin agus chaitheadar laethanta saoire an tSamhraidh ag saothrú na Gaeilge. Ba mhór an éacht dóibh a leithéid agus tá moladh dá réir ag dul dóibh. Ón uair sin i leith rinne gach Aire Oideachais, bíodh sé ar thaobh Fhianna Fáil nó ar thaobh Fhine Gael, a chroí-dhícheall chun cothrom a thabhairt d'urlabhra Gael. Pé deighilt pholaitíochta a bhí eatarthu bhíodar go léir dílis do phríomhchómhartha an náisiúin.
Ó shoin i leith rinne an Roinn Oideachais, na cigirí, na bainisteorí agus na hoidí cion fir chun an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn sna scoileanna. Ní airítear puinn díobh siúd i dtreis agam ag cur síos ar Ghaeilge éigeantach sna scoileanna. Trua ná faigheann siad cuidiú ó na daoine atá de shíor ag caint fé Ghaeilge éigeantach. Tá sean-fhocal againn sa Ghaeilge adeireas gur beag an mhaith an mhaith gan fonn. Is mó fé dhó an mhaith obann. Méadaíonn an mhaith, dar mo chógús, tán deintear í le dea-ghnúis.
Dá bhfaighimis dea-ghnúis is deaghmhéin ó dhaoine mar an Teachta de Brún b'fhéidir go n-éireodh linn cuspóirí an Phiarsaigh a thabhairt chun chríche.
Rinne an Teachta de Brún tagairt do bhuachaill bocht a bhain an tArd Theistiméireacht amach i scrúdú na bliana seo caite. Adeir sé linn go raibh ar an mbuachaill bocht sin aghaidh a thabhairt ar Shasana agus nár éirigh leis post ar bith a bhaint amach ann toisc go raibh sé ar cheal Béarla. Nach é an feall é nár thug sé ainm an bhuachalla sin dúinn ná ainm na scoile inar hoileadh é?
The Deputy does not believe him?
Ní chreidim é. Ansan do dhein an Teachta Mac Fheorais tagairt do chailín cliste a chaill an scrúdú céanna toisc nár éirigh léi dhá mharc bhreise do ghnóthú sa Ghaeilge. Is ar éigin a chreidim a leithéid. Dá mba chailín cliste í rinne sí faillí ina cuid oibre agus, de ghnáth, ní ghabhann clisteacht agus faillí lena chéile.
Bíodh a fhios againn uilig go bhfuil tír mhór Béarla ar an dtaobh thoir dínn agus tír mhór Bhéarla ar an dtaobh thiar dínn, an Bhreatain Bheag agus Meiriceá. Dá mhéid iad an dá thír sin is mó ná iad an litríocht a ghintear iontu. Deirtear linn go bhfuil an litríocht sin go holc, go bréan agus go salach. Conas is féidir linne ár leanaí do chosaint ar olchas agus gársúlacht an Bhéarla má tugtar droim láimhe le Gaeilge sna scoileanna, ag cruinnithe agus istigh i nDáil Éireann?
Tugaimis an deagh-shompla don aos óg agus le cúnamh Dé ní fada uainn an lá ba gheal le croí an Phiarsaigh, go ndéanaidh Dia grásta air, nuair a bheidh Éire ní amháin Gaelach ach saor chomh maith; ní hamháin saor ach Gaelach chomh maith.
I shall be very brief. I believe that in discussing this important motion we will have to avoid two extremes. There is undoubtedly certain proof over the years that so far as the Irish language is concerned as a whole it has not made the progess we would wish for it, yet at this stage I believe that two extremes can be dangerous, one swinging away completely from the Irish language and the second that we must learn Irish and forget everything else. As a member of this House I oppose the holding of a referendum on this question. In asking the parents to decide we are, of course, asking everyone over 21 who has a right to vote and from our experience in relation to referendums in the past we can have speakers go out in a fair, honest, manner pointing out that we do believe in the Irish language but that we have our doubts about how it may be improved in certain directions.
There will be two factions. I am not suggesting that any member of the House will adopt that line but outside there will be one faction saying that they want to do away with Irish. The proposers of the motion are not suggesting that but if the matter should go to the country it will go out of their hands. There will be one faction who will suggest that not alone do they want compulsory Irish abolished but want to go even further away from the language while the other faction will put the opposite argument. The result will be that the position in regard to the Irish language will be worse than it is today.
I must congratulate the Minister on a recent speech. It is my belief that there should be less concentration in the schools on points of grammar in connection with the Irish language and that the children should be encouraged to speak the Irish language, even if at times there might be grammatical errors. I have in mind an old seanachaidhe, a native Irish speaker, from whom I learned Irish before I learned English. That old man was illiterate but he could express himself in the Irish language most fluently because he had heard the language and used the language all his life. The children in the schools should be encouraged to converse in Irish. Grammatical errors should be overlooked. In that way we can hope for better results than have been achieved so far.
Unfortunately, the results to date do not warrant the 100 per cent. praise we would wish to give the efforts made to restore the language. Let us learn from past mistakes. The Irish language may not be used to the extent that we would wish but we represent only one generation and when we have gone to Tír na nÓg or elsewhere, the Irish language can survive if we encourage the children to use it in their everyday life. Let us get away from the two factions, those who want to do away with the Irish language and those who want to do away with everything else but the Irish language.
I just want to make one or two points before Deputy Dr. Browne replies. This is a simple motion which asks the House to leave it to the Irish people to decide whether or not the methods which have been used in the last 40 years are the correct ones to save the language, apart altogether from the question of spreading the language and making it the spoken language. Surely the Irish people have some rights in this matter or is it that we are afraid to face the people on this issue? Deputies will describe me—and they are welcome so to describe me—as a West Briton. I do not mind how they describe me. I want to say clearly that our system of priorities has been haywire in the last 40 years. I agree with Bishop Lucey of Cork when he says, "save the people first". Bishops have been quoted here all night as being in favour of the revival of the Irish language. We are told about an Archbishop who was consecrated the other day, who spoke in Irish. Were the people who were listening to him able to understand him?
Quite definitely.
Do not kid yourself.
I was listening.
We know your history. Bishops and Archbishops are quoted here as being in favour of the revival of the Irish language. We can also quote sincere bishops who believe that the methods used up to this have proved disastrous. Will any Deputy describe Dr. Lucey or Fr. O'Doherty as West Britons? Let us be clear about it. The people who have a vested interest in the system used to-day are those in this House and outside it, with full bellies, who have done well out of the Irish language. I restrained myself when the Deputy opposite, on his first, and possibly his last visit to this House, made his maiden speech. He was long in the tooth before he got an opportunity of making it. One-third of the population of his own county are working in Manchester and Liverpool since his chief took over here.
The Minister said that statistics were not available to prove anything about the Irish language. I will give the Minister statistics in regard to University graduates.
After 30 or 40 years of the system in operation, surely we should see the results amongst the educated class of our people. I want to refer the Minister to a survey, carried out in 1953 by the Central Statistics Office, of Irish university education. The period covered is 1939 to 1953. The survey shows significant changes in all the faculties since 1938. In Science and Architecture the number of students doubled in that year. The number of Dental students quadrupled. The number of students taking Arts, Medicine, Agriculture, Commerce, Divinity and Law showed a terrific increase. The popularity of the Arts is shown in the number of students who have taken foreign languages. In 1953/54 the most popular foreign language was, of course, French. There were 64 honours primary degrees awarded in French in 1953 as against 37 in 1938. In 1939 there were no honours primary degrees in Italian but in 1953 there were ten. The study of History and Economics shows a huge increase in popularity. Only two subjects declined in popularity amongst the educated element of our people. One was the Classics; the other was Irish. The Classics showed a temporary set back only but the figures for the Irish language can only be described as startling and showed a prolonged decrease from 1938 to the present moment. I will give the figures as quickly as possible.
From what is the Deputy quoting?
I am quoting a Central Statistics Office publication as given on 4th December, 1955, in the Irish Times. The number of honours primary degrees in Irish in 1938-39 was 44; in 1953 the number was 15. The number of advanced students of Irish—and we know who the people outside this House are who are keen on the question of advanced Irish—in 1938-39, was 12; the number in 1953 was three. These are facts. These are statistics. They refer to the educated element of our community. They are dissatisfied because of the methods used to teach Irish. They have been disgusted, disillusioned.
I personally feel that although the situation is very serious at the moment with regard to the language there may be a possibility of relieving the situation by changing the teaching methods. I am doubtful about it. I want to be quite honest; every Deputy should be honest in his approach to this matter. I cannot be more frank than that. As a last resort, the system will have to be changed or those who have stood by this system for 40 years must take the blame if the language disappears.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to the Gaeltacht as one of the places where the language must be held. Surely he knows that people are flying from the Gaeltacht and have been all down the years, that the population of the Gaeltacht is dwindling. I am as familiar with West Galway as any Deputy who represents it. I know what happens in West Galway today. Most of the hotel properties and the fishing and shooting rights are in the hands of non-nationals. I am not criticising non-nationals. I am merely pointing out that in those areas the property belongs to non-nationals. If an Irishman wants to get a day's shooting or fishing he must go to their agent in order to get a day's shooting or fishing. The only employment given is to young girls who are brought into toy factories——
The Deputy is getting away from the terms of the motion.
I am not. I am discussing the terms of the motion so far as the Gaeltacht is concerned.
Unless Deputy Dr. Browne wishes to give way the Deputy must cease because the time has arrived for him to finish.
I shall give way.
Deputy McQuillan may continue then.
What I am saying is within the terms of the motion, completely within it.
Unemployment and emigration are not within the terms of the motion.
The question of the economic position in the Gaeltacht is undoubtedly within its terms.
The Chair says it is not.
If the economic condition in the Gaeltacht is such that the people have to leave it, then the language goes too. Of course it has a bearing on it. I suppose there is no use appealing to even what I consider the reasonable members of the Fianna Fáil Party at this stage because the grip of the banshees is upon them. The banshees are behind the present Minister whom I have always found to be a courteous and gentlemanly Deputy at all times. I am sorry for him. I would ask him, if at all possible, to allow his Party to decide for themselves on this matter and have a free vote of the House.
With regard to Deputy Mulcahy's contribution, he has been consistent in that line for years. I have no personal criticism of him on that because at any rate I believe he is sincere in it. I also believe he is mistaken in his approach and also that his Party does not see eye to eye with him on the line he adopted here to-night. I feel that in his Party there are other members who feel that a great deal of damage has been done. I hope when this debate ends we shall get in the division lobby the support of these elements of the Fine Gael Party, if they are allowed to vote without having the Whip imposed on them.
I found the Minister's speech disappointing because, being a young man of my own generation, I felt that he was at liberty to assess the position in a new light, to give the views of a person who has given deep thought to the great problem involved here, and that we would have a new approach to the question. I can understand a Deputy or any of the people who have been closely associated with the revival of the language movement being reluctant to admit failure because of their association and because of the sincere efforts which, I believe, failed. But it is disappointing to find a new generation should continue the old fallacious ideas on the question of the revival, ideas which have clearly proved themselves to be unsuccessful in the objective which they set out to achieve.
As to Deputy O'Kelly's speech, may I say how much I envy his fluency and how much I sympathise with the passion he feels over this question. All I would like to say is that I think he dealt unfairly with us in so far as we do not want to contribute to the decline of the language. We want to stem the demonstrable decline; we want to preserve it. We are not trying to get rid of it at all. He associated us with the British and made that kind of comment, which was unfair.
Ni duairt é.
All right. In reply to Deputy Mulcahy who raised the point that we might suggest the lines of the referendum, the obvious ones that occurred to me are, of course: first, would the people like the language retained as a compulsory subject or as a voluntary subject in primary and secondary schools? Secondly, would they like the language to be retained as a subject for passing examinations, such as the Leaving Certificate? Another question which could be asked is: if they fail in Irish, do they fail the whole examination? There is also the question of the necessity for having the language in relation to professional appointments and the Civil Service. Those are the questions which would occur to me as being reasonable.
There was mention of an isolated incident, the recent consecration of a Bishop in Clonmel, the speech in Irish and so on. That is, I think, an exception. If General Mulcahy had told me that the Bishops had laid down that, in future, prayers for children in schools and churches shall be in Irish, I would say that was a very definite advance towards restoring the language. General Mulcahy asked me as to my own experience in the Department of Health. My attitude to the language was—I tried to show at that time—that in every way I could, speaking on the radio, preparing advertisements for newspapers and so forth, to use Irish as much as I could. Equally, I think I was the first Minister in the history of the State to make films entirely in Irish for children, from the point of view of health propaganda. Those were some small ways—questions and answers and so on in the Dáil—in which I tried to make a contribution towards the voluntary restoration of the language because I believe the voluntary method of learning the language is the way in which one can learn the language and love it at the same time.
I am sure Deputy O'Kelly learned it in a voluntary way. Many Deputies who, because of their inherent love of the country decided to learn the language—Deputy de Valera, as he was, Deputy Mulcahy and the late Deputy Josie Mongan,—spoke Irish extremely well and were enthusiastic about the language but I believe they used the language because they loved it. They felt they wanted to preserve it, but why do these people when they have the power to decide whether they will have compulsion or not, presume that another generation would not have that same sense of nationality or same love of devotion to this beautiful heritage we have? I think it is a presumption which is ill-founded and led to the policies which have shown themselves in the ultimate analysis to have failed.
Deputy Mulcahy chastised me for making the statement that the language policy had been a failure. I do believe it has been a failure, broadly speaking and in making the statement I was depending on the support of a most honest speech by Professor Hayes. I think the older generation have shown a much greater measure of honesty in their assessment of this problem. It must be very difficult for someone like Senator Hayes to say: "I am examining my own conscience in this matter because I was in at the start." Then he went on to say: "I think it has been a complete failure." Senator Baxter supported that.
I am not the only one who believes it has been a failure. The Minister for Education mentioned that the Department of Education insisted on the teaching of geography, history, mathematics and arithmetic and all these other subjects. He suggested I thought that that was all right, that compulsion was all right for those subjects but was not all right for the Irish language, and that to that extent I was denigrating the Irish language. That is not so. The reason why one forces a child to learn arithmetic, geography or Latin is that a child will not learn these subjects voluntarily, but there are many people who will learn the Irish language voluntarily.
It is for reasons of its unpopularity that a language has to be taught compulsorily. The reason I believe the language should be taught voluntarily is that it would then be much more popular than it is at present. If one examines the question of the different subjects taught to children in schools one will understand what I mean. You compel children to go to school. Children dislike school. You compel them to go to school, because otherwise they would not do so. They dislike it. It is an unnatural state for them; I know that I disliked going to school anyway. When it comes to subjects like arithmetic, mathematics and geography we force them to learn them. They do not love them and they drop them as soon as they leave school. Most of us did that and only continued the subjects which were necessary to earn our bread.
It would be wrong to single out the Irish language and say it is disliked in the schools. There are many subjects disliked because people are forced to learn them. It is not in any way denigrating the Irish language to say that it is disliked. It is an established fact that it is declining and that is an established fact because of the method we use to teach it. Just as the children forget their mathematics they forget their Irish if they are not compelled to continue it and the only way you can compel them to do that is to make it impossible for them to survive without Irish.
The general atmosphere facing the children when they leave school is an English one. We have become Anglicised in our whole way of life. For that reason the child forgets the Irish language when he leaves school just as readily as he probably forgets his arithmetic and geography. The former Taoiseach, President de Valera, emphasised that point when he said on one occasion that if you were in a Gaeltacht area, and you were starving, you would learn the few words of Irish necessary to keep you alive. That is what happened with the English language. The people were forced to learn it if they wanted to live.
One of the difficulties which every generation has to face is that there is no use in giving the Irish language an importance which the children will not accept. The present generation may attach great importance to the revival of the language but the next generation will not know what it is all about. It is impossible to convey to the children of this generation the reasons that impelled the men of this generation to impose it compulsorily on the children of today. I think that point has been emphasised by the fact that the children have refused to speak the language. I wonder to what point the Minister is prepared to go in order to insist on this policy of compulsion. I have quoted various authorities on the matter, politicians, psychologists and doctors.
The time for the debate has expired.
There is one further quotation I should like to make. On page 103 of the Report of the Council of Education the Irish National Teachers' Organisation stated:
The average child comes to school already equipped with a vocabulary sufficient to express in simple language the experience of his everyday life. He is suddenly transferred into a new and unnatural world. The simplest expressions of the teacher or of the more advanced pupils are quite unintelligible to him....
I would ask the Minister to give this matter further serious thought and to bear in mind that the general view of people, whether in the Seanad or in the Dáil, is in favour of a complete readjustment of the whole question. The whole underlying dynamic on this question of the revival of the language is the question of compulsion. It is that matter which needs examination and the people of Ireland should be given an opportunity of considering it for themselves. I do not agree with Deputy Mulcahy that this is a matter for the managers. The parents definitely have a right in the matter.
Is the Deputy pressing the motion?
I am.
Question put.
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 11; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Browne, Noel C.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Casey, Seán
- Corish, Brendan
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Spring, Dan.
- Tierney, Patrick.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- de Valera, Vivion
- Doherty, Seán
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Russell, George E.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Smith, Patrick.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Question declared lost.