Tairgim:—
Gurb é barúil Sheanad Éireann gur cóir bord a bhunú láithreach leis an Fhíor-Ghaeltacht a chaomhnú agus a fhorbairt.
Tá suas le 20 duine annseo a bhfuil a n-ainmneacha le fáil fén rún seo. Tá baint ag cuid acu le Páirtí polaitíochta sa Stáit seo agus tá cuid eile acu neamhspleách. Mar sin, tá mé ag caint anois mar primus inter pari—the first speaker among equals. Creidimíd go bhfuil an Ghaeltacht ag fáil bháis, go bhfuil na daoine ann ag éirí gann go tapaidh, agus, muna ndéantar rud éigin díreach chun an Ghaeltacht do shábháil anois, go mbeidh deire léi a bhfad roimh dheire na haoise seo.
Creidimíd gurb é an tslí is fearr chun an Ghaeltacht a shábháil ná bord neamhspleách a chur ar bun gan aon bhaint a bheith aige le cúrsaí polaitíochta ach freagarach don Taoiseach nó don Stáit.
Cloisfidh an Seanad óráid níos fearr ná mo cheann-sa, ach tá sé mar dhualgas trom orm anois mo chuid féin atá le rá agam a chur ós comhair an tSeanaid agus déanfaidh mé é sin chomh maith agus is féidir liom.
I do not think any of us will dispute that the Gaeltacht is declining. However, I should just like to give some practical proofs of the fact—some proofs which have emerged fairly recently. Not so recent is Volume 8 of the Report on the 1946 Census of Population. That report showed that the number of Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht decreased by about 20 per cent. between 1936 and 1946. It is also certain that a kind of increased velocity attaches to this kind of decline. It is certain, too, that with the growth of emigration and the passage of time, that velocity must attain almost maximum and fatal proportions during the decade 1946 to 1956.
More recent figures published by Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge show that, on the most conservative computation, the number of traditional Irish speakers has shrunk very seriously in 25 years: it has been reduced from 70,000 25 years ago to something over 30,000 at present.
Recent maps prepared by Muinntir na Gaeltachta show that, since 1925, the Irish-speaking areas of Donegal and Galway have shrunk by 50 per cent. They show, still more alarmingly, that, in the same period, in the Kerry areas Irish speakers have dwindled by 75 per cent. Equally alarming are the figures in regard to the Mayo Gaeltacht. Only one-eighth of the Mayo Gaeltacht of 1925 now remains.
Lastly, and I do not think its accuracy can be questioned either, the figures published by Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge show that the number of households in the Gaeltacht in which Irish is spoken is now somewhere only between 7,000 and 8,000.
In short, to ring the changes of the London Times of 100 years ago, the Gaeltacht is going and going with a vengeance. Long before the end of the present century, at the present rate of decline, it seems certain that, as an Irish-speaking area, it will have finished altogether. I do not think it is necessary to argue at great length that its preservation is vital to this nation. I take it that none of us is interested in preserving the Gaeltacht as a kind of Indian reservation to which the well-to-do will go in search of culture and in search of backgrounds and I take it also that there is no necessity to underline its cultural value to the nation. That has been done ad nauseam. While there has been a great deal of talk about the tremendous heritage of which the Gaeltacht is part, there has been nothing really significant in big enough proportions to arrest its decline. I should like to emphasise the right of its inhabitants to a decent way of life that will ensure the continuity of their traditions. That is a fairly obvious right in a democracy such as ours.
I should like to point out further that on the Gaeltacht and on its preservation rest two things—first of all, the movement for the revival and restoration of Irish as a spoken language and, secondly, the strength of the modern writers of Irish. I am certain that none of those who have set their names to this motion will hold— although we can hold if we want—that neither our older tongue nor the modern literature born of it is necessary to this nation, but we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we believe in the Gaelic tradition and in a modern Irish literature and at the same time allow the Gaeltacht to die. So I turn to the best methods of preserving it.
It has been argued from time to time that idealism alone can save the Gaeltacht. I have long ago reached the conclusion, as many of my generation have, that idealism alone is not enough. It must be translated into practical action. Idealism alone certainly cannot conquer the very formidable material considerations weighing against the existence of the Gaeltacht in the present circumstances. It is perfectly certain that where Irish is the language of the home and English is the language of the market-place, English will win.
The President of Muinntir na Gaeltachta, Mr. Peadar Ó Ceallaigh, recently pointed out that Irish was lost in the Iveragh peninsula because it is divided by a mountain mass at its centre, and part of its Gaeltacht abutted on English speaking places such as Cahirciveen and Valentia. Irish declined there and not alone did it decline but the decline inevitably spread to the parts on the other side of the mountain mass. The only natural Gaeltacht remaining in Munster is the Dingle peninsula. One can go on to show that that same process has gone on east of the Corrib and in parts of Donegal.
Idealism must, therefore, be translated into action. That action, I think, must have a twofold purpose— to foster Irish in the Gaeltacht itself and to provide steady employment on a proper scale in the Gaeltacht. Idealism then is not enough. Other methods must be discussed in all fairness to those who are identified with the matter.
There is a suggestion that this problem can only be tackled as part of the wider problem of unemployment and emigration. It is pointed out by its protagonists that the Gaeltacht is merely part of a larger area, corresponding roughly to that in the Congested Districts Board. I do not think this argument holds good because the Gaeltacht itself demands special treatment because it combines two problems—a linguistic and an economic one; even if wider schemes were launched for a wider area such as that covered by the Congested Districts Board, the Gaeltacht would still need special treatment. In any case, in tackling the wider areas of the Gaeltacht, the Breac-Ghaeltacht or the area covered by the Congested Districts Board, you have to concentrate on the problem common to the Fíor-Ghaeltacht, the Breac-Ghaeltacht and whatever little pockets—big or small—there are where English is spoken. As well, you have to concentrate on the common problem which is economic and you must emphasise the no less important problem which is a linguistic one.
Further, the language of the people, operating wider schemes of the nature I have indicated, would unquestionably be English and, again, English would win. Therefore, tackling the problem as part of a wider area might very well destroy what it was in fact intended to save.
I turn to the next alternative which is, I think, a more serious alternative and one worthy of somewhat lengthier consideration. It has been suggested that the proper method of facing this problem should be that of setting up a Government Department, under a Parliamentary Secretary, who would, perhaps, delegate fairly large powers to a number of commissioners.
This is a suggestion worth considering. It is advanced by a number of people whose judgment I value. It is argued by these people that a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary is absolutely necessary for the proper operation of such an area if the case of the Gaeltacht is to be fought in the Cabinet and fought also with the Department of Finance. I think that a closer consideration reveals certain obstacles which to my mind at any rate outweigh these few advantages.
First of all, I think that the Government Department charged with this task can function effectively only with the close co-operation of other Departments and, generally speaking, under the control of the Department of Finance. I think there would, therefore, be conflicts of interest and slowness of procedure where you have these various Departments having to come together to iron out their differences and then having to iron out their differences with the other Departments concerned. As the utmost flexibility is called for, the arrangement of a Government Department with commissioners, perhaps, would not work. I do not want to try to judge in advance what Senator Hawkins is going to say. I think his amendment may be linked up with that idea of commissioners for the Gaeltacht with the Gaeltacht Development Fund.
The second argument I have against the running of this by a Department of the Government is that experience suggests that whatever efforts have been made in the past by Government Departments have not, in fact, provided large-scale employment in the Gaeltacht and that they have arrested neither the emigration which is still going on nor the decline of spoken Irish in the Gaeltacht. Further, I would argue that civil servants are to a large extent, through no fault of their own, bound by a fairly rigid system of grading and promotion and also bound —and this may be partly their own fault—by routine. They are not as a rule—and I say this with all due respect for the work they do—the most imaginative of people. I think that this task calls for flexibility of system, originality of view and also calls for an almost crusading zeal, so formidable is the task of saving this area. Further, I do not think that a Civil Service Department would have the kind of responsibility which a board would have. I would argue at any rate that a board could be directly responsible to the Taoiseach, whereas with a Civil Service Department you would have to have commissioners, also a Parliamentary Secretary who in turn would be responsible to the Taoiseach and, of course, the control of the Department of Finance would have to be brought in somewhere. I suggest that that kind of Department, operating by this kind of remote control, would be operating through a control almost as remote as its prospects of success.
Finally, as regards these reasons against a Government Department running the scheme, a Government Department would undoubtedly, much as we dislike the idea, be affected by political considerations, by the number of voters in certain areas and by pressure from different Deputies in certain areas. I cannot imagine any political Party in power facing with equanimity the task of reconciling not only the conflicting interests of these various Deputies but also the various conflicting interests of the politicians involved. It is logical to conclude that a board is the correct means. A board such as Bord na Móna or the E.S.B., with independent powers, not tied politically but responsible to the Government as the Government has some say in financing it, could function effectively.
As regards the constitution and financing of such a board, the Comhdháil has made certain proposals. The Comhdháil visualises a board of six part-time members, Irish speakers with the best business experience and administrative qualifications and with a genuine interest in Gaeltacht products. They say in their memorandum:
"Persons likely to be subject to local pressure should not be chosen. If the Government so desires the Comhdháil will be happy to suggest suitable nominees. The day-to-day management would be in the hands of a full-time managing director, who should preferably be a member of the board. Consideration might be given to the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government as ex-officio President. It is not suggested that he should be under an obligation to attend meetings of the board but if he were a member he would always be in possession of information regarding the board's activities and would be a most valuable link between the Government and the board.... The board should be represented throughout the Gaeltacht by 14 or 15 local officers each having an area with a population of about 3,000.... The board's staff, all of whom would have to be fluent Irish-speakers, would require to be specially selected for organising capacity, ability in public relations, and familiarity with the Gaeltacht and its problems and, in the case of technical members, appropriate qualifications and experience.... The board should be financed by means of a Grant-in-Aid, which might be fixed at about £25,000 for the first year. This amount would need to be increased very substantially thereafter according as the board's operations matured...."
I do not say that is the only way of constituting a board and financing it but it gives a working basis and should be considered. It is a positive approach and a possible one as well. The board would foster the use of spoken Irish in the Gaeltacht and provide adequate employment there. Its work would include the promotion of industries, the improvement of holdings and the development of tourism and recreational facilities. It would also provide employment outside the Gaeltacht for those who wished to leave the Gaeltacht—since the Indian reservation complex is a bad one. The board would advise on the special conditions of the Gaeltacht in regard to any larger schemes such as afforestation and fishing. The board is the best and perhaps the only means by which the Gaeltacht may be saved.
Senator Hawkins's amendment implies an alternative, but a Gaeltacht development fund of itself could do practically nothing. Such a fund must be administered and must have means to apply what it collects. I do not see how the amendment could be translated into action: the mere creation of a fund might be like the creation of the Anti-Partition Fund, which did not do a lot. Tá mo dhóthain ráite agam anois. Iarraim ar na daoine nach bhfuil ar aon-aigne leis an dtairiscint seo, go nochtóidis a dtuairimí go soiléir. Creidim go bhfuil grá don Ghaeltacht ag an chuid is mó de na Seanadóirí, ach is beag an tairbhe é má theipeann orainn í do shabháil.
