Irish language: Enda Kenny's main point is unanswerable

Compulsory Irish is a simple slogan that acts as a red rag to a bull in Irish language circles, and Enda Kenny's speech in Cork last weekend suggesting the removal of Irish as a subject of compulsory study at Leaving Certificate level has stirred up a predictable debate – one that is shrouded in ambiguity, misconceptions and rhetorical pretence.

Education minister Mary Hanafin said that "Enda Kenny's decision to abandon Leaving Cert Irish is another example of the cheap auction politics typical of Fine Gael," and the Irish language movement was similarly hostile.

The first point, of course, is that there is no such thing as compulsory Irish. Being able to speak Irish is not necessary to access employment, education, or professional occupations, while English is most certainly compulsory for all of these as any child of the Gaeltacht could tell you.

If an Irish speaker phones up a government department, local authority or semi-state company and speaks Irish, invariably he will be told that the switchboard operator doesn't speak the language. Even the democratic right to use Irish in dealings with the state is effectively denied.

Contrast this with Wales. Under the Welsh Language Act, switchboard operators must have sufficient Welsh to tell a caller to hold on while they are transferred to a department that can deal with them.

Of course, the Official Languages Act is in the process of changing that, and public bodies will have to get their act together in relation to the democratic rights of Irish speakers – but this means that a basic knowledge of Irish will have to be widespread.

The main point that Enda Kenny is making is, however, unanswerable. Despite the average pupil having over 1,500 hours of tuition in Irish spread over 14 years, the vast majority of students leave our schools completely unable to hold a simple conversation, or even spell Irish names correctly. This is a sorry commentary on the Department of Education and on teachers.

It can, of course, be done, as the Gaelscoileanna movement has shown. Thousands of children from predominantly English-speaking homes learn to speak fluent Irish within a couple of years in such schools – just as Gaeltacht children easily learn English at primary level.

These schools are voluntary, (not for the pupils, of course, but for the parents who want their children to have the language). They are the most successful part of the language revival.

But in the big majority of cases these schools are set up against departmental, clerical and often union opposition. It is made as hard as possible to set one up, and demand for places far outstrips supply. But demand is high because parents understand that it is the only way that their children will learn to speak the language.

Kenny, whose own commitment to Irish is genuine and open, argues that it is the voluntary nature of the project that makes it so successful. "Compulsion," he says, "as the political engine to revive the Irish language, has failed."

He points out that only three out of ten students attempt honours Irish at the Leaving, and that thousands, who are required to attend classes, don't then bother to turn up for the exam. He argues that it would be more sensible to let those children out and leave the classes to those who want them.

The incentives to take Irish, he argues, should come not from departmental requirements but from outside. Society at large needs to have a demand for Irish that makes it of practical value to study it. And the emphasis he most rightly says should be on a curriculum that teaches children how to speak the language naturally and at least on a basic level.

The problem is that he doesn't spell out what these outside incentives should be or how they should operate. In fact, through the Official Languages Act and the newly realised official working language status of Irish in the European Union there are new opportunities for using Irish in practical, employment oriented life.

Surely, it is these incentives that should be built on, rather than merely take a negative step by reducing the significance of Irish at this time in the education system?

Reform of the curriculum is vital, but even more central must be a requirement that those who teach Irish should be able to speak it. I never went to school in Ireland, and I learned Irish in England; but my experience, anecdotal and limited as it is, is that the majority of Irish teachers in English-language schools, both primary and secondary, could not hold a conversation in Irish with me. As Private Eye would say, shurely something wrong there!

The issue is not compulsion, but what sort of education will make Irish children complete. At the very least, Irish is an important part of what we are, and no child's education is complete without it. As to "compulsion", Irish is not the only required subject of study. Students must also take English and maths, but does anyone argue that compulsory Maths is responsible for our poor results in the subject? Do we hear the plaintive cry "Free maths from compulsion and let our children love their sums"?

What is certain is that an open, rational debate is needed. I think that Enda Kenny's answer stresses the wrong point, but it is a fact that the present system is a failure and no amount of Government guff can alter that.

We do need a comprehensive review of how we teach Irish and why. We need to know why the system is failing at the present time. We need to understand why we want Irish to be central in our lives, and how to make it so.

The Irish language movement need not agree with every line of Kenny's speech, but it is a debate that they must engage in.

Is Eagraí Polaitíochta de chuid RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta é Eoin Ó Murchú. Tá sé ag scríobh anseo ar bhonn pearsanta