Feargal Quinn (Independent)

Fáiltím roimh an Aire. What an interesting debate we have had so far and I am sure it will get more interesting. What a joy it is to hear Senator Maurice Hayes talking about knowing Peig Sayers. It sounds like somebody who knew Napoleon as it seems so long ago. I also enjoyed listening to Senator McHugh to an extent. He used a term that reminded me of something when he talked about the significance of the Irish language.

At an early age when I was in my late 20s, I believe I was the only person who won a case at the Supreme Court, which found certain legislation to be unconstitutional as it discriminated on the grounds of religion. I was prosecuted for selling meat and I found that it excluded meat where the animal had been killed under the Jewish ritual method. I relate the story because I remember two things from what I learnt about law at university — that it was not possible to discriminate on the grounds of religion and that the Irish language took precedence over the English language in case of doubt. The argument used against me in the Supreme Court was that one could not discriminate in favour of somebody as one discriminated against somebody. However, as the Irish word used in the Constitution was idirdhealú, to distinguish between not against, I won the case on that basis. I mention this as it shows the significance of the Irish language.

I welcome the debate and I agree entirely with Senator Maurice Hayes. I do not believe we need votes tonight as everybody is on the one side. The debate echoes what I said some years ago when we debated the Official Languages Bill in this House. I remind Members that I was one of the very few people — perhaps the only one — in this House to speak against that Bill. I opposed the Bill not because I was against the Irish language, but because I am in favour of it. I argued then, and I still believe now, that the Bill diverted money and attention to the wrong place. The attention and the money should be directed to the area addressed by the motion and Senator O'Toole's amendment, which I support, and that is the teaching of the language in our schools.

In the debate on the Official Languages Bill, I asked given that our young people learn Irish from their first day at school, why can so few people speak it? Why do so few adults wish to speak Irish in their daily lives? How do we fail our children and the citizens of the nation and what must we do to succeed in engendering in them a love for the language? On that occasion I drew attention to the massive State apparatus devoted to the teaching of Irish, which went back to the 1920s. In spite of that apparatus, the vast majority of young people do not learn the language effectively. A large number of young people leaving school do so not just with a lack of enthusiasm for the language but also with a negative attitude to it. The current system of teaching Irish has failed miserably to engage the majority of the population.

Why have we failed so badly? It is not that Irish is a particularly difficult language to learn and it is certainly not that we have failed to devote enough time or resources to the teaching of Irish. There must be some other reason for this monumental failure to achieve the objectives we set down for ourselves, but which we have not reached. How can we ensure that we will achieve what we are setting out to do? I argued then many of the same points that are being revisited in this debate. I said that we would be far better off investing in research to find out what we were doing wrong in the teaching of Irish in our schools than spending vast sums of money on translating documents into Irish that nobody would read.

I got the Competition Authority report — two big, thick and glossy documents — today. I do not know how long it takes to translate such documents into Irish, or the length of the delays which arise for that reason. I suggest that time has proved me right because the costs of implementing the Official Languages Act 2003 have caused a national outcry. That gives me no pleasure because it has helped to bring the Irish language further into disrepute. I welcome one consequence of the passing of the Act, however. The inaugural annual report of the Office of An Coimisinéir Teanga, published on 14 March 2005, states:

It is estimated that almost 1,500 hours of tuition in the Irish language is provided to school pupils over a period of 13 years, from their first day at primary school to the end of secondary level. This clearly raises the question: is the State getting value for money from this investment, if it is true that so many are going through the educational system without achieving a reasonable command of the language — even in the case of students who succeed in getting a high grade in Irish in their final examinations? I believe that there is an urgent need for a comprehensive and impartial review of every aspect of the learning and teaching of Irish in the educational system, so as to ensure that the continuous and substantial State investment in Irish will ensure that students, having spent 13 years learning the language, acquire a reasonable fluency or command of the language by the time they complete their schooling. This is essential if we are serious about promoting Irish in every aspect of national life, including public administration.

What more is there to say? We do not have an infinite amount of time to continue to dither about this issue.

The case for the language becomes weaker and the voices speaking against it become stronger as further generations of young people emerge from school unable to speak Irish. We are fortunate that enough goodwill towards the language remains to enable us to mount a final rescue operation. That is the purpose of the motion before the House and the two amendments to it. We need to make a final effort to undo the damage we have been making since the foundation of the State. If we do not take this opportunity to face reality, the time may soon have passed when it is possible to do anything about it. That day may be closer than many of us think.

Senator O'Toole spoke about the proposed facility at Baile Bhúirne. I am not sure he is correct when he suggests it has not been supported because it is regarded as being an awful long way from Baile Átha Cliath. Perhaps there is some truth in the suggestion and perhaps there is not. The Minister for Education and Science can do something about it.