Feargal Quinn (Independent)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Is cuimhin liom seanfhocal ón scoil: éist le fuaim na habhann agus gheobhaidh tú iasc, listen to the sound of the river and you will catch a fish. It is a saying that I have used in my lifetime, listening to the public whether they are customers or citizens.

This debate is attracting a lot of crit

I supported the thinking behind the Bill for the same reason that I supported the establishment of TG4, which celebrated its tenth anniversary last night. We all want the Irish language perceived not only as acceptable but interesting, fun and useful. If a language is to be more than a museum piece, people must be able to carry out the main activities of their lives through that medium. Given the standing of the Irish language in the Constitution, it is logical that people should be able to conduct their business with the State in the national language.

I refused, however, to support the Bill because I thought it was putting energy, effort and expense into the wrong place. I feared, and rightly as it turned out, that the implementation of the Bill would have enormous implications for the cost structure of all public bodies. It has added a new layer of expense to the provision of every public service, to say nothing of the delays that have occurred while translation takes place, something we have raised on a few occasions.

The Act failed to acknowledge a key fact of Irish life: the majority of our citizens are not competent enough to conduct their business as Gaeilge. If everyone could speak Irish, we would not need the Act, but reality is different. That reality has been repeatedly denied by successive Governments of all hues. Our young people learn Irish from the first day they start school so why can so few people speak it? Why do so few adults wish to speak Irish in their daily lives? They may wish to use it but they do not feel competent enough to do so. How did we fail our children and what must we do to engender in them a love of the language? All of my children went to the Gaeltacht and came home enthusiastic about the language. It was a joy to see them coming out of reunions speaking as Gaeilge again but as time went on they failed to hold on to it. That is the issue the Act failed to address.

If we must invest money, enthusiasm and effort, it makes sense to devote that investment to improving the teaching of Irish in schools. There is a massive State apparatus devoted to the teaching of Irish and in spite of that the majority of young people do not learn the language effectively. Many young people leave school not just with a lack of enthusiasm but with a negative attitude towards the language. It must be possible to overcome this because other countries have succeeded in doing so. Some time ago I visited Israel where immigrants who cannot speak Hebrew when they arrive have consistently learned the language. We can learn from this example.

The current system of teaching Irish has utterly failed to engage the majority of the population, particularly students. Why have we failed so miserably? The reason is not that Irish is a particularly difficult language to learn or that we did not devote sufficient time or resources to its teaching. There must be another reason for the monumental failure to achieve the objectives we set ourselves.

I was pleased to read today that the Minister for Education and Science proposes to tackle the issue by taking a different approach. Her message appeals to me. Most of the communication in which we engage in daily life is spoken rather than written, whereas the teaching of Irish has been focused on grammar and written skills as opposed to speaking. The Minister appeared to send out a message today that she will change this approach.

If we genuinely have the interests of the Irish language at heart, we should not waste time making political footballs out of place names. Instead, we should ask questions such as those I have posed and pursue the answers regardless of where they lead us. For example, how can we achieve our objectives and obtain the best value for money? I was virtually a lone voice in the House when the Official Languages Act was being passed. I was interested to note, therefore, that in his first annual report, the Coimisinéir Teanga, whose office was established by the Act, stated:

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?

There is much meat in this sentence. The passage continues:

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 thirteen 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.

These are not my words, but those of the Coimisinéir Teanga. Has the Minister, to whom the Coimisinéir reports, read these words? I note he is nodding his head. If that is the case, has he paid attention to them? He should use his time to do something useful to promote the Irish language rather than wasting time and money on a wild goose chase trying to bend the people of An Daingean or Dingle to his will.

There is considerable good will towards the language and the Minister's heart is in the right place. Although I do not have the solution, I believe that, with commitment, we will achieve the aims we have been striving to achieve for 80 years. While I wish the Minister well, I believe he has chosen the wrong path in concentrating his energies on the issue of place names.