Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1988 > Committee on the Irish Language (2nd Committee) > Report No. 03 - Survey amongst the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas in connection with the Irish language

1. THIRD REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 The Second Joint Committee on the Irish Language has functioned since 30 September 1987 and a good deal of time has been spent since then dealing with the question of Irish in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The bulk of that work related to the Second Report from the Joint Committee i.e.

“Recommendations in relation to the promotion of Irish in the Houses of the Oireachtas and within the Political Parties.”

which was published on 12 May 1988.

1.1.2 It was mentioned in that report that this Joint Committee proposed to continue with the work which the First Joint Committee started in relation to the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was clear to the members of this Joint Committee when they commenced business that limited progress had been achieved in relation to the promotion of the Irish language. Although that progress was not over-significant it showed that the decline had been arrested and that the correct road had been taken once again. That was a good sign, obviously, but it was clear that the work was only beginning.

1.2.1 In order to assist in the effort to promote the Irish language within the Houses the members of the Joint Committee decided that information would have to be obtained from the Members of both Houses. The members noted that an effort to that end had been made by the First Joint Committee but that it had failed. That Joint Committee issued a circular to every Member seeking views but it is noted from the Annual Report which was published on 16 July 1986:

“The Joint Committee was not satisfied with the number of replies received.”

1.2.2 To ensure that there would be a more satisfactory outcome to any effort to gather information from the Members of both Houses it was decided that it would be worthwhile to conduct a survey and this report contains an outline of the following aspects:

—the background to the survey;

—the methods used; and

—the results.

1.3.1 At the beginning of this report the members of the Joint Committee wish to thank every individual and every organisation which helped them at every point in the course of the preparation of the survey and of this report. Particular thanks is due to every Member of both Houses who returned a reply, to Gearóid Ó Casaide Uasal in the Translation Branch and to the Clerk to the Joint Committee Seosamh Ó Riain Uasal and to his assistant Áine Ní Shomacháin Uasal.

2. THE BACKGROUND TO THE SURVEY

2.1.1 As has been mentioned previously the motivating factor for this survey was the desire of the members of the Joint Committee to gather information which would be useful to them in their work. They felt that this was the most effective way to get a worthwhile result.

2.2.1 The question could be asked about the type of information which the members required and it is to that subject that we turn attention now.

2.2.2 It was a priority of the members of the Joint Committee that the efforts to promote Irish within the Houses be continued. That was the aim of the members of the Joint Committee but were the other Members of both Houses prepared to play a part in that effort, were they even interested in Irish, had they worthwhile proposals in relation to its promotion? These are only some of the questions which were in the minds of the members when they decided to prepare the survey.

2.2.3 The members of the Joint Committee felt that it was a basic requirement that they would have as much information as possible regarding the competence in Irish of the Members of both Houses and the attitude which they held towards it. Accordingly, it was decided that it would be best to concentrate on that information which would be of most benefit.

2.3.1 In order to ensure that a survey, such as that which was intended, would not be at variance with the rules of the Houses the members consulted with An Ceann Comhairle and with Cathaoirleach an tSeanaid. Both of these indicated that they would not have any objection to it and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad had the following to say in her letter dated 4 November 1987:

“I welcome the survey which you propose to carry out in relation to the Irish Language.”

3. THE APPROACH TO THE SURVEY

3.1.1 Pressure on time is the biggest difficulty which any Member of both Houses encounters and the members of the Joint Committee had to pay considerable attention to that when the outline of the survey was being discussed. This part of the report deals with the difficulties which members encountered in the course of preparing the survey.

3.2.1 In view of the time constraints mentioned prior to this the members decided that the number of questions would have to be limited considerably and that questions would have to be kept straightforward and to the point. In addition to that, obviously, members were aware that a bilingual version would have to be used - another factor which would exacerbate the pressure on space.

3.2.2 Having considered all the obstacles the members decided that it would be expedient to concentrate on simplicity and rapidity in the questions. In those circumstances emphasis was laid on short questions which could be readily answered and which would only require a mark (“X” for example) as a reply in every case. In that manner the members were satisfied that the survey would not interfere unduly with the Members time and that a substantial level of response could be expected accordingly.

3.2.3 In view of the fact that there would be considerable diffculties in relation to space it was agreed that the most important issues would have to be concentrated on. Having considered this question carefully the members agreed that the most important subjects were:

(a)The competence in Irish of the Members of both Houses;

(b)The use of Irish;

(c)Constraints in relation to the use of Irish;

(d)The willingness of Members to learn and/or improve Irish;

(e)Methods to learn and/or improve Irish;

(f)Facilities for learning Irish; and

(g)Opinions of the Members in relation to the promotion of Irish.

3.2.4 The members considered that sufficient worthwhile information could be obtained through concentrating on the preceding questions and at the end of the day it was decided that the survey would contain ten (10) questions in total. A copy of the survey sheet is appended to this report as Appendix A.

4. THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

4.1.1 In this chapter of the report the members of the Joint Committee intend to describe the results achieved by the survey, to give a summary of the replies to each question and to comment on and analyse all the replies.

4.1.2 The members intend to examine the results of this survey in both Houses independently of each other as it is felt that that would give a more complete and accurate picture.

4.2.1 The first thing that must be said in connection with the survey in general, before the members proceed to the detailed examination of the results in both Houses, is that they were dissatisfied with the number of replies received. In the case of the Dáil only 49% of the Members sent replies and the position was worse in the Seanad — 43%.

4.2.2 The preceding figures are poor when one considers that the survey was issued on 10 December 1987 and that two reminders were issued subsequently on 20 January 1988 and on 8 March 1988. On the other hand these results are far more satisfactory than those achieved by the circular which the First Joint Committee distributed — see paragraph 1.2.1.

4.2.3 Despite the number of replies which the members received on this occasion they are satisfied that the information which has been collected is worthwhile as will be clear later in the report. It should be pointed out that the following percentages are based on the number of replies received: they are not amended to reflect the full membership of the Houses.

4.3.1 The survey conducted was confidential and the members are satisfied that that was better than one in which Members would have to identify themselves. The first question, accordingly, related to identity and was as follows:

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box).”

4.3.2 As mentioned previously 49% of Deputies and 43% of Senators replied.

4.4.1 The second question related to the competence in Irish of the Members of both Houses. It was laid out to obtain information regarding the competence of Members in the speaking, writing and reading of Irish as follows:

“2. Do chumas Gaeilge i do thuairim féin: your own view of your competence in Irish.

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box).”

4.4.2 The result was as follows:

(a) Dáil Éireann

(b) Seanad Éireann

4.4.4 In relation to the speaking of Irish it is clear that the position is not at all good. Of those who returned replies only 8% in the case of the Dáil and only 11% in the case of the Seanad are fluent in the language. It is accepted that these are principally native speakers and those percentages would be in keeping with — or perhaps slightly better — than the number of people in the country who have that standard of Irish.

There is a fairly substantial number of Members in both Houses — particularly in the Dáil — who are good at speaking Irish. That number is an excellent foundation upon which to build in the future.

A large number of Members of both Houses boast that they are fairly competent in speaking Irish. That is a hopeful sign to the members of the Joint Committee and it indicates that a substantial number of people have a limited standard in speaking the language. With encouragement and practice there is no reason why their competence could not be improved gradually.

The number of Members who are weak at speaking Irish is almost the same in both Houses and quite high at that. Included here are the people who have no Irish and those who are capable of using some phrases. The Parties and Authorities of the Houses must have as a priority the encouragement of these people as much as possible.

It is said that the life of a language is to speak it and based on the information which has been made available in this case a lot of work remains to be done yet if spoken Irish is to survive in the Houses of the Oireachtas. On the other side of the coin it is a helpful sign that competence in the speaking of Irish is fair — or better — amongst a high percentage of those who returned replies.

4.4.5 In so far as it relates to the writing of Irish the results are quite interesting — particularly when one considers the emphasis that there used to be — and which there is even still — in the schools on the writing of Irish.

The same percentage of Members who were fluent in Irish indicated in this case that they were excellent at writing the language. This enhances the view which has been expressed previously in relation to the number of people who are native Irish speakers.

In the case of the Dáil the percentage of those who are competent (good) at writing Irish is slightly lower than the percentage who are competent in speaking the language — the opposite is the case in the Seanad.

A lesser number of Members in both Houses are fair at writing Irish than at speaking the language. As pointed out previously this result is interesting in the context of schooling.

In relation to those who are weak at writing Irish the percentage in the Dáil is very high — 6% higher than the number of Members who are weak at speaking the language. This is a source of worry in view of the fact that one would expect Members to be in a position to prepare speeches and Parliamentary Questions on their own initiative. There is no difference in the number of Members who are weak at speaking or writing the language in the Seanad.

4.4.6 The members of the Joint Committee are pleased to note that a good number of the Members of both Houses — and in the Seanad in particular — have a very good grasp of the reading of Irish. In the case of both Houses there is a greater capacity in the reading of Irish than there is in the speaking and in the writing of the language. This indicates that a considerable number of Members have a comprehensive vocabulary.

In relation to the reading of Irish there is a large difference between the number of Members who are competent in that regard in comparison with the number who are good at speaking and writing the language. Obviously, the same pattern is discernable in the figures associated with those who are fair and weak at reading Irish in comparison with the other language skills. This is an indication, obviously, that Members have a good vocabulary which could be built on in the future and that is a great source of hope accordingly.

4.5.1 With question number three information was sought regarding the use of Irish. It was felt that the best approach to this was through the selection of various headings as follows, viz:

(a)Frequency;

(b)The type of work in which Irish is used; and

(c)The reasons why Irish is not used more frequently.

4.5.2 The following is the complete text of question number three, viz:

“3. An úsáideann tú Gaeilge in imeachtaí na dTithe? Do you use Irish in the proceedings of the Houses?

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box)

(a)Minicíocht: Frequency

(b)An saghas oibre ina n-úsáideann tú an Ghaeilge: type of work in which you use Irish.

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box).

(c)Mura n-úsáideann tú an Ghaeilge go rialta an bhfuil fáth ar leith leis sin: If you are not a regular user of Irish is there a particular reason for this?

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box).

4.5.3 In relation to 3 (a) the following was the result:

(a)Dáil Éireann

(b) Seanad Éireann

In so far as it relates to the use of Irish regularly it is a source of worry to the members that there is such a large difference between the results in both Houses. Of the Members who replied more than twice as many Senators as Deputies indicated that they used Irish on a regular basis. That level was quite high in the Seanad and it indicates good-will in relation to the language. Obviously, it is significant that 19% of the Senators who replied were satisfied to use Irish on a regular basis although it was indicated that only 11% of them were fluent in the language. That indicates that more than those Members who are fluent in the language are prepared to make the necessary effort. In the case of the Dáil the numbers who are fluent and who use the language on a regular basis are the same.

In relation to the other levels the Seanad is very stable but the position in the Dáil is far from satisfactory. Of those who replied 43% never use Irish. This figure is frightening and is no source of hope. It indicates, obviously, that efforts which are already in progress to promote Irish will have to be intensified substantially.

4.5.4 The following was the result with 3 (b):

(a)Dáil Éireann

(b)Seanad Éireann

The members were disappointed that only 10% of those Deputies who replied were putting down Parliamentary Questions in Irish. That is far too low in the view of the members but it shows the great necessity for backup services for Members to prepare these.

The position was better in relation to speeches in the Dáil and in the case of the Seanad the number of Members who use Irish in speeches was very satisfactory. Those results show that Members are willing to use some Irish and that is a good base upon which to build.

The results in relation to motions/resolutions were fairly satisfactory and no great fault could be found in relation to the figures on “other” usage.

Note must be taken of the figures associated with those who did not give any reply to this question. In the case of the Dáil the number is not as high as that which indicated that they never use Irish but the opposite is the case in the Seanad.

4.5.5 In the case of 3 (c) the following was the outcome:

(a) Dáil Éireann

(b) Seanad Éireann

The results in this case are very interesting in the view of the members and they are worth examining closely. The first thing which must be noticed is the large number of Members of both Houses who indicate that it is lack of competence which causes them not to use Irish more frequently. It is hard to accept that in the light of the number of those who were competent, in their own view, in speaking the language. It appears that Members are not confident in the competence which they have in the language and that they require regular practice. It is not accepted, certainly, that the position is as bad as is indicated in this case.

There is another interesting aspect to this result, obviously, and that relates to the lack of publicity. Complaints from Members of both Houses regarding the lack of publicity associated with proceedings in Irish in the Houses have been heard on a regular basis. The members themselves understand those difficulties but are matters as bad as they are made out to be? — based on the information given here it cannot be said that they are.

Members of both Houses have been accused frequently of not having an interest in Irish. The result in this case does not give any credence to that view and that will be even clearer later.

In this question Members were asked were there any other reasons why they did not use Irish. Plenty of information was given in that regard and the following points in particular were mentioned, viz:

(a)Lack of practice;

(b)Fear;

(c)Lack of suitable opportunities;

(d)Everything is in English already and it would be difficult to translate them to Irish;

(e)Lack of demand for Irish in the Constituencies;

(f)Intolerance of Irish speakers;

(g)Nobody else uses Irish; and

(h)The fear that it would appear that the use of Irish is only a ploy to obtain publicity.

Some of these points show an interesting approach in relation to Irish in so far as it is clear that good-will exists but that fear or shame is the principal cause of the lack of use made of the language. Note is taken of the fact that the intolerance of Irish speakers is upsetting certain Members. It is a pity that this is the case because there is no doubt but that that turns people against the language. This happened all too frequently previously and it should not be allowed to happen again.

4.6.1 It was important that the attitude of the Members of both Houses in relation to the difficulties associated with the use of Irish be obtained and it is to this issue that question number four (4) was directed, viz:

“4.Na constaicí is mó i do thuairim ó thaobh cur chun cinn na Gaeilge de i dTithe an Oireachtais: the greatest constraints as regards the promotion of Irish in the Houses of the Oireachtas in your view. (Cuir in ord ó 1 to 4: place in order 1 to 4).

4.6.2 The following result was achieved on this question, viz:

(a) Dáil Éireann

(b) Seanad Éireann

4.6.3 The results in both Houses are fairly even percentage-wise in relation to the lack of support services and to the lack of support from the Parties but under the other headings there are substantial differences. A considerable part of that difficulty is associated with the meaning taken from “other” and this will be examined in detail below.

4.6.4 In the case of the Dáil lack of support from the Parties came in first place with 28%. This result is interesting in so far as it indicates that Deputies feel that the Parties could do a lot more for the benefit of the Irish language and that they are not doing enough already. This is a significant result and it shows that there is a great need to implement the recommendations in relation to Irish within the Parties made by the members of the Joint Committee in the second report.

Under the heading “other”, at number two in the order of merit, 27% were dissatisfied and the following reasons were given for that reply, viz:

(a)Lack of competence;

(b)Lack of good-will amongst fluent speakers of the language to assist those who have only a little Irish;

(c)The amount of time it takes to do business through Irish as opposed to English;

(d)Lack of training facilities;

(e)The great need for places and times when Irish only would be in use;

(f)Many Deputies opposed to Irish;

(g)Deputies are more experienced in working through English;

(h)Lack of confidence in the amount of Irish which they have;

(i)There is no long-term development plan in relation to the use of Irish in the work of the Houses; and

(j)Appalling lack of interest by the media in business conducted through Irish.

The lack of support services in Irish was mentioned at number three at 21%. This was an open question and Members were asked to specify those items which were involved, in their view. The following replies were given, viz:

(a)The need to train the staff in Irish;

(b)Comprehensive facilities for Members to be available;

(c)Great need for leadership and initiative in relation to the language;

(d)Great difficulties because secretaries who are working for Members have not got Irish and they are not able to type in Irish; and

(e)The need for a service to provide Irish versions of documents in English quickly.

At number four in the order of merit with 12% is the lack of translation facilities. That percentage is very low in view of the importance attached to the subject — particularly in comparison with the Seanad (see below) — and it is felt that the following reasons are associated with that:

(a)There is a simultaneous translation system in the Dáil; and

(b)This subject was included under other headings.

4.6.5 In first place in the case of the Seanad was lack of translation facilities at 27%. This figure is comparatively high and the reason for it principally is that there is no simultaneous translation system available in the Seanad at the moment. The members of the Joint Committee understand that such a system will be installed in the Seanad in the course of the improvement works which are in progress and it is felt that that would help considerably to rectify the scenario presented by this result.

Lack of support from the Parties was high in the order of merit at number two with 25%. The same things which were mentioned in the case of the Dáil apply here also.

23% mentioned that it was the lack of support services in Irish which constrained them. In reply to the question about giving details the following issues were raised, viz:

(a)The lack of classes and educational videos;

(b)The unavailability of any training course;

(c)Great difficulties because secretaries have not got competence in Irish; and

(d)The lack of consultancy services regarding business through Irish.

At number four in the order of merit, with 15%, “other” is mentioned. The meaning which the Senators took from that was as follows:

(a)The lack of simple opportunities to use Irish;

(b)The great need for small groups to practise the language;

(c)Lack of encouragement;

(d)Lack of publicity for proceedings in Irish;

(e)Lack of competence amongst the Members;

(f)Lack of genuine effort amongst the Members;

(g)Lack of competence to conduct basic business through Irish; and

(h)Irish speakers who are over-zealously forcing the language on Members.

4.6.6 There is plenty of food for thought in the results on this question and perhaps the most interesting aspects are the views which Members themselves have expressed. Obviously, the members of the Joint Committee have faced up to the majority of those issues already but the others must be addressed without delay.

4.7.1 In the case of question number five information was sought regarding the willingness of Members to use more Irish in the future. The following is the text of the question, viz:

“5.An mbeifeá sásta iarracht a dhéanamh chun níos mó Gaeilge a úsáid amach anseo: would you be prepared to try to use more Irish in the future?

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box).

4.7.2 The following was the result of the question, viz:

(a)Dáil Éireann

(b)Seanad Éireann

4.7.3 This was a deliberately simple question designed to encourage Members to give a straight answer. In spite of that 8% of the Members of the Seanad avoided giving a straight answer to the question.

4.7.4 The percentage of Members who are prepared to make an effort to use more Irish is very satisfactory. It must be pointed out again that those figures are based on the number of people who replied but in spite of that they are still excellent and it endorses the attitude of the members of the Joint Committee that it is not any lack of good-will which is the reason for the very small usage of Irish in the work of the Houses.

There is another pointer here that leadership and encouragement in relation to the language are being sought by the Members of both Houses and that must come from the Political Parties. The will exists amongst the Members but structures are badly needed to provide the encouragement, the leadership and the opportunity for them to learn and practise Irish. Many recommendations have been made by the members of this Joint Committee and by the members of the First Joint Committee to that end but what has happened? Why are the Parties not implementing those recommendations conscientiously when the Members of both Houses are urgently seeking constructive action as has been proven here?

4.7.5 n addition to the results of question number two the replies in this case indicate that there are causes for optimism. Good-will has been proven and that is important as a first step. If good-will does not exist no one will be prepared to act but when it does exist a good base is available immediately upon which to build. It is unlikely that good-will will exist forever and the Parties and the Authorities of the Houses must act now.

4.8.1 With question number six specific information was sought from the Members of both Houses regarding the benefit associated with the use of more Irish in the work of the Houses. The following is the text of the question, viz:

“6.An fiú níos mó Gaeilge a úsáid in imeachtaí na dTithe: is it worth using more Irish in the proceedings of the Houses?

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box).

4.8.2 The following was the outcome to the question, viz:

(a)Dáil Éireann

(b)Seanad Éireann

4.8.3 In both Houses the results in this case were very satisfactory. Great sympathy towards the language was indicated and the view that there is no place for Irish in all aspects of the work of the Houses was dismissed. The result in this case supports the outcome in other questions regarding the good-will of the Members towards the promotion of the language.

4.8.4 Of the Deputies who replied 74% were of the view that it would be worthwhile or very worthwhile to use more Irish in the work of the Houses. This is an excellent sign and it indicates again the demand from Members for leadership in relation to the language. One aspect of the result in the Dáil which is a source of worry to the members of the Joint Committee is the fairly high percentage — 17% — of Deputies who deny that it is worthwhile to use more Irish in the work of the Houses. It is not clear what precisely is the cause of that but perhaps the following reasons are involved, viz:

(a)Lack of leadership in relation to the language from the Parties — see the answer to question 4;

(b)Lack of competence in the language — see the answer to question 3(c); or

(c)Any one of the reasons mentioned by Deputies in the answers to question 3(c).

The most important aspect of this result is that there is need for action very quickly if the good-will which exists at present is not to be diminished considerably.

4.8.5 The position in the Seanad is better than that in the Dáil in so far as a higher percentage of the Members who replied were of the view that it would be worthwhile or very worthwhile to use more Irish in the work of the Houses.

Obviously, it is significant that no Senator who replied was of the view that it would not be worthwhile to use more Irish. It is admitted that a fairly high percentage — 15% — had no view on this question (in comparison with 8% in the Dáil) but at least they were not negative in their attitude.

4.9.1 Question number seven was very important in the view of the members of the Joint Committee because it related to the willingness of Members of both Houses to learn Irish or improve their existing capability. The following text was used, viz:

“7.Ar mhaith leat an Ghaeilge a fhoghlaim nó an méid atá agat a fheabhsú: would you like to learn Irish or to improve on your present capability?

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box).

4.9.2 The following was the outcome of the question, viz:

(a)Dáil Éireann

(b) Seanad Éireann

4.9.3 The result in both Houses was very satisfactory and it indicates the respect which those Members who replied have for the language.

This result is another sign of the necessity for constructive support from the Parties and from the Authorities of the Houses for Members. It appears that good-will exists, that Members are willing to improve their Irish but where are the facilities to satisfy that demand or what steps are being taken to deal with it? As mentioned previously there is need for action now. Indeed, the members of the Joint Committee mentioned this previously in the second report, viz:

“The time for talking is long past and the time for action is upon us.”

But the necessary level is not apparent — yet at any rate. The position must improve or the excellent opportunity which is available at present could be lost. It would be a pity if that happened.

4.10.1 Question number eight continued on from question number seven in so far as emphasis was laid in it on the methods of teaching the language needed for Members of both Houses. It was taken for granted in advance that they would be willing to learn it and that was how the position turned out. The following is the text of the question, viz:

“8.Más mian leat an Ghaeilge a fhoghlaim nó a fheabhsú cad é an bealach is fearr a d’oirfeadh duit: if you wish to learn Irish or to improve it what method would suit you best?

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box).

4.10.2 The following results were achieved, viz:

(a)Dáil Éireann

(b)Seanad Éireann

4.10.3 In both Houses the majority of those who replied were of the view that it would be worthwhile to use a series of instructional tapes and books to learn or improve Irish. Many Members mentioned that it would suit them particularly to borrow instructional tapes to listen to them in their cars. As every Member of both Houses travels considerably much merit could accrue from such a scheme and it is easy to understand why there is such a great demand for this.

4.10.4 Although the demand for formal classes was not as large as that for instructional tapes it was still quite high with 31% of the Deputies and 38% of the Senators who replied looking for the facility. In many cases in which classes were mentioned Members had additional views in relation to them. The following in particular were mentioned, viz:

(a)Modern courses which would make use of up to date teaching facilities i.e. video tapes, etc. to be provided;

(b)There should be an emphasis on speaking the language;

(c)There should be small groups;

(d)The classes should be held during the recesses of the Houses;

(e)In addition to classes in Leinster House intensive residential courses should be held in the Gaeltacht from time to time; and

(f)In order to assist Members special revision courses should be organised from time to time.

Obviously these are very worthwhile views and the best thing about them is that they are coming from the Members of both Houses. The members of the Joint Committee will support the recommendations which have been made as much as is possible.

4.10.5 Under the heading “other” Deputies showed more imagination than Senators as regards ideas but at the same time the percentage who mentioned items, other than tapes or classes, was low at 15% (3% in the Seanad). In spite of that a lot of worthwhile ideas were mentioned, as will be clear from the following, viz:

(a)The use of Irish in small groups to discuss different matters;

(b)One hour per day to be devoted to work through Irish in both Houses;

(c)There should be a constant awareness, interest and effort by those who are fluent in the language;

(d)Social events in Irish to be organised on a regular basis;

(e)Copies of magazines in Irish to be made available to Members;

(f)More conversation in Irish with the staff of the Houses;

(g)That a continuous campaign be maintained to persuade Members and the staff of the Houses to use as much Irish as possible on a regular basis; and

(h)That Members should attend intensive Irish courses.

4.11.1 The members of the First Joint Committee on the Irish Language asked the Authorities of the Houses to provide a special room for Members of both Houses and that was done on a part-time basis. The members of this Joint Committee took up that question again and it is still being discussed. It occurred to the members that it would be more beneficial to get the views of the Members of both Houses on that subject before going too far with it and that is what happened in question number nine. That question was divided into two parts in order to get information regarding the outlook of the Members in relation to the room and the usage which would be made of it. The following is the text of the question:

“9.Maidir le seomra ar leith a sholáthar i dTeach Laighean ar mhaithe leis an nGaeilge: in relation to the provision of a special room in Leinster House for the benefit of Irish:

(Cuir sa bhosca cuí: place in appropriate box).

(a)An gceapann tú gurbh fhiú a leithéid: do you think that same would be worthwhile?

(b)Dá mbeadh a leithéid ann an mbainfeá úsáid as: if such was available would you use it?

4.11.2 The following are the results in the case of question 9(a):

(a)Dáil Éireann

(b) Seanad Éireann

4.11.3 The result in this case vindicates the recommendation which the members of both Joint Committees on the Irish Language made regarding a special room for the benefit of promoting Irish, since the preceding figures prove that there is a demand for same. There is a greater demand in the Seanad than in the Dáil and there is not the same enmity to the proposition in the Seanad. At 25% of those who replied, the percentage which is of the view that a special room is not worthwhile is fairly significant in the case of the Dáil — particularly in comparison with the Seanad (4%) — but this is not taken as a great sign of pessimism.

In view of the fact that it was not defined in the question what exactly was involved with the special room there was a fairly high percentage who had no opinion on the issue — particularly in the Seanad with 23%. One assumes that that is the reason why that large percentage exists and it is a pity that this is the case but, in view of the constraints on space, there was no alternative.

4.11.4 In the case of 9(b) the following was the result:

(a)Dáil Éireann

(b)Seanad Éireann

4.11.5 If it is the case that the results in question 9(a) show that there is some doubt — even if it is small — in Members’ minds regarding the benefit which would accrue from a special room for Irish it is clear from the results of question 9(b) that they would make use of it if such was available. The number of people who said that they would use the facility was greater than the number who were satisfied that such a facility would be of benefit. In the case of the Dáil there was a substantial decrease in the number who said that they would not use the room in comparison with the number who said that it was not worthwhile to have same. When both of those points are taken together they show again the goodwill of the Members and their willingness to learn the language. In the case of both Houses there was a significant decrease in the number of people who said that they had no opinion regarding the use of the room in comparison with those who had no opinion regarding the facility being in existence.

4.11.6 The results of this question are a source of encouragement to the members of the Joint Committee and they strengthen their outlook regarding a special room for the benefit of Irish — every kind of usage could be made of such a room. These results prove that there is a demand for same and that it should be provided on a full-time basis without delay.

4.12.1 Question number ten was quite open in so far as it was left to the Members themselves to express their own views in relation to the promotion of the Irish language. Surprisingly the same percentage of Members in both Houses — 23% — expressed views. The following is the text of the question:

“10.Má tá aon tuairimí agat faoin tslí ina bhféadfaí an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn sna Tithe tabhair sonraí anseo:

If you have any ideas regarding how Irish could be promoted in the Houses please specify.”

4.12.2 It must be stated that the numbers of views and their variety surprised the members of the Joint Committee and they are pleased to take this opportunity to thank all the Members now. The reason for that outlook will be obvious from the following.

4.12.3 It should be pointed out at the outset, in the case of the Dáil, that all the statements from the Members were not favourable towards Irish. In spite of that those that were not favourable were constructive and the members of the Joint Committee accept them in that spirit. It is worth mentioning that five times as many different views were received from Deputies than from Senators.

4.12.4 The following items relate to the Dáil:

(a)Part of the formal work should be in Irish on a regular basis;

(b)Special instructional courses, which would be appropriate for the work of the Houses, should be prepared and established for Members regularly on a residential basis. In addition to that it should be ensured that revision courses are organised regularly;

(c) It would be worthwhile for Members to use more Irish amongst themselves and with the staff;

(d)It would help Members considerably if bilingual versions of Ministers’ speeches were available because comparison could be made between the Irish and English versions and phrases learned;

(e)Pressure on time is a problem for many Members. Time is not available to enable them to prepare speeches, etc. in Irish and it is easier to do the work and get it typed in English at present;

(f)As an indication of earnestness the Parties should establish systems to ensure that scripts may be prepared in Irish and distributed;

(g)If Members are to use more Irish official assistance should be available to help them to prepare speeches, etc.: the majority of Members are able to read speeches in Irish but it is difficult for them to prepare these properly;

(h)The leaders of the Parties must give good example to Members. To show earnestness on this issue the leaders should come together and agree a campaign amongst themselves to use the Irish language on a more widespread basis in all of their activities;

(i)“Seachtain na Gaeilge” (Irish Week) should be established;

(j)An Irish night should be established in every restaurant in Leinster House once a week;

(k)It would be worthwhile for the Parties to take steps to bring together Members with various capabilities in Irish in appropriate groups to discuss their difficulties and to formulate methods to overcome those difficulties;

(i)Copies of Irish language magazines should be available to Members;

(m)There is an obligation on every Party to encourage Members to try to use as much Irish as they have every day;

(n)Opportunities must be created for Members who have not got much Irish to practise it;

(o)It would assist greatly in extending the use of Irish if Members could use the language on social occasions;

(p)If any language is worthwhile it will attain its own level of usage and it should not be promoted for the sake of that alone: if a language is worthwhile it will be used;

(q)As the majority of the people of Ireland are apathetic to Irish why should the Members be worried about it?;

(r)The competence of Members — and Ministers in particular — must be improved considerably; and

(s)First class Irish should not be expected always. Bad English is heard frequently and nobody corrects it but if bad Irish is used Irish-speakers are far too quick to correct it. This puts people against the language.

4.12.5 Senators had the following recommendations:

(a)Specific days should be set aside on a regular basis as “Lá na Gaeilge” (Irish Day);

(b)Irish classes should be held on a weekly basis;

(c)A meeting room should be available to Members to practise Irish;

(d)A progressive programme should be prepared to encourage Members to use phrases and sentences in Irish; and

(e)The Taoiseach and Ministers should have a substantial paragraph in Irish in every speech and the same information should not be given in that part of the speech which is being delivered in English.

4.13.1 It must be mentioned that comprehensive recommendations have been made in the second report from the Joint Committee in relation to the promotion of Irish in the Houses of the Oireachtas and within the Political Parties. If these recommendations were implemented conscientiously and positively it would enhance greatly the standing of the Irish language throughout the political system in general. In the view of the members of the Joint Committee progress in these areas will not be made until the basic recommendations which have been set out have been implemented.

4.13.2 The survey which has been completed in this case proves that the Members of both Houses are favourable to the language but that;

(a)The lack of leadership from the Parties;

(b)The lack of competence; and

(c)The lack of support facilities

is a source of annoyance to them. In order to rectify those difficulties the Parties must play their part. It is not evident that they have done that so far or that they are over-inclined to tackle it. It is futile for this Joint Committee to undertake research, analyse difficulties and prepare recommendations to resolve them if those are not heeded and implemented.

4.13.3 The members of the Joint Committee do not propose to provide a comprehensive list of recommendations in this report since that has been done already — see Appendix D attached. They propose only to say the following:

(a)The Political Parties and the Authorities of the Houses must show earnestness in relation to the Irish language by implementing — on a phased basis if necessary — the practical recommendations which have been made already;

(b)The leaders of the Parties must give continuous good example to the Members of both Houses in relation to Irish;

(c)Members who are competent in Irish have an obligation to give every assistance to those who are not fluent in the language;

(d)Instructional facilities must be provided as a matter of urgency to enable Members to improve their Irish; and

(e)Necessary support services must be provided for Members to enable them to use more Irish in their activities.

5. EPILOGUE

5.1.1 Having completed this survey the members of the Joint Committee are satisfied that it was worthwhile to undertake it. A lot of useful information has been obtained in relation to the attitude of the Members of both Houses regarding the Irish language and that will be useful in the future.

5.2.1 This survey indicates that there are causes for optimism and for pessimism in relation to Irish in the Houses of the Oireachtas in the future. The most significant aspect which has been shown amongst the Members who replied, is the good-will that exists towards the language. However, that must be compared with the fact that 51% of Deputies and 57% of Senators did not reply at all. Does that indicate that they are apathetic to the language? Perhaps, we do not know. In addition to that large number, the lack of competence in the language which was displayed amongst the Members who replied is a source of worry: that is no great sign for optimism either.

5.2.2 In the view of the members of the Joint Committee a watershed has now been reached in relation to the promotion of Irish in the Houses of the Oireachtas and within the Political Parties. The members of the Joint Committee have done as much work as they possibly can in so far as they have made comprehensive recommendations and that proof exists — if this was needed — that there is a need for action now if the Irish language is to survive within the political system. The members of the Joint Committee can do no more: that is a question for other organisations i.e. the Authorities of the Houses and the Political Parties. The efforts of those organisations in relation to the language will be judged in years to come in accordance with their actions.

SENATOR TOM FITZGERALD,

Chairman

20 July, 1988.

AGUISÍN A

FOIRM AN tSUIRBHÉ