Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.

An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.

(Seo alt ónár bhfoireann Gaeltachta. Is féidir an bunleagan as Gaeilge a léamh anseo)

A PROPOSAL BY one of the State’s earliest commissions to move most of the Gaeltacht population to better land was rejected by the then Free State Government back in 1926, the author of a major new work on the report of the 1926 Gaeltacht Commission has said.

Dr John Walsh, Associate Professor of Irish at the University of Galway and author of a forthcoming book on the report - Ar Lámh Shábhála: Coimisiún na Gaeltachta 1926 – was speaking to The Journal, reflecting on the lessons to be learned from what happened to that Commission’s report.

The Gaeltacht Commission was established in 1925, the first commission of its kind set up in the State’s early years – a reflection of the interest in the Irish language held by those central to governing the country at the time. In many cases, it was a passion for the language that had drawn them toward the revolutionary movement in the first place.

The final report, published in August 1926, contained more than eighty recommendations, of which, according to Professor Walsh, roughly 40% were implemented.

One of the rejected recommendations in the report was for a massive migration scheme, relocating people from the Gaeltacht to better land elsewhere.

The scheme envisaged by the Commission was so large that it would have taken up all the available land held by the State at the time – which would have meant there’d be nowhere left to relocate other people living in overcrowded areas outside the Gaeltacht.

There was never any chance of the Government accepting that, because it was too ambitious.

“But, as we know, the idea didn’t die out completely, because Fianna Fáil went on to establish the Gaeltacht at Ráth Cairn ten years later, albeit on a far smaller scale.”

He added that ministers found it difficult to defend schemes to support the Gaeltacht during speeches to the Dáil as it was being pointed out to them by other TDs that areas such as Dublin’s inner city were also experiencing deprivation.

The lesson from that episode was that recommendations need to be politically realistic.

Other recommendations succeeded, such as a grant paid to native speakers building houses in the Gaeltacht – a scheme that survived right up until the economic and banking crisis of around 2009/10.

According to Walsh, the Commission was very idealistic. “They were steeped in the thinking of the (Gaelic) Revival and cultural nationalism, all of that – and Risteárd Ó Maolchatha, the Commission’s chairman, belonged to a generation that believed deeply in those ideals.

The ideals were fine, the ideas were fine in themselves, but the Government, on the other hand, was very conservative.

He said that two of the eleven commissioners – all of them men – had supported one important recommendation that was rejected when it went before the Government. The two were a priest from Donegal, Fr Seán Ó Cuinneagáin, and the secretary general of the Department of Lands and Fisheries, Laurence Moriarty.

“Those two commissioners wanted a permanent organisation, or institute, or commission to be established for the Gaeltacht – one that would coordinate policy across the board, that would have its own budget, and that would have statutory powers.

“That was rejected. What happened in the end was that responsibility for the Gaeltacht was handed to the Department of Lands and Fisheries, but the problem with that was, of course, that the Department had no expertise in Gaeltacht affairs or in language matters, and they were marginalised within Government.

“It took until 1950 for the Department of the Gaeltacht to be established.”

Walsh said that this was “one of the biggest lessons to be learned from the report.”

If you want to implement a credible language policy backed by real powers, you have to establish the right structure – and I’d say that was the greatest missed opportunity in 1926.

The author said opposition from the Department of Finance – whose minister at the time, Ernest Blythe, was an Irish speaker from County Antrim – was the decisive factor behind the rejection.

“They didn’t want their own authority interfered with, as the most powerful department in Government, and they understood that if a body with power and, so to speak, backbone were operating in this area, it could create problems for them.”

The Department of the Gaeltacht – now part of the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht – was established in 1950, followed by Gaeltarra Éireann, the forerunner of Údarás na Gaeltachta, in the 1960s. The Údarás succeeded it in 1980. Since then, Foras na Gaeilge and An Coimisinéir Teanga [the Language Commissioner] have also been established.

Another successful scheme ensured that pupils in Gaeltacht schools received meals.

“There was, of course, huge poverty at the time, and pupils might have to walk a couple of miles to school every day.

“Under an Act introduced in 1930, a hot meal was made available to them every day throughout the Gaeltacht.

“The Minister spent time in the Dáil defending those schemes, because there were also major poverty problems in Dublin.”

The professor said that what was actually implemented showed how campaigns work.

You push hard for the strongest version of something, and then you end up getting something weaker in the end – but at least there’s been progress.

He said the Gaeltacht Commission’s report laid down a kind of template for policies that followed – such as the Commission for the Restoration of the Irish Language in the 1960s, Comhairle na Gaeilge in the 1970s, the Comprehensive Linguistic Study in 2007, and the 20-year strategy in place since 2010.

“There’s a pattern where some recommendations are adopted and others are thrown out.”

Walsh does not believe a body similar to the Gaeltacht Commission should be established again, since, in his view, there is now enough knowledge and understanding of where the challenges and problems lie.

He did, however, have one recommendation for the way forward. “We have a system that’s weak and lacking – the language-planning process – and rather than starting from scratch and going back to zero, I would say that system should be strengthened, with far more investment in it.”

He said what was needed was “more effective implementation of the structures we already have.”

We’re still talking about the juggernaut of English, the most powerful language in the world, which happens to be right next door to us.

“That presents us with the biggest challenge, perhaps bigger than any other language would.”

He referred to the frequency with which language-planning officers change roles and leave their posts. “They have no long-term job security,” he said. “There’s no career development for them either – there isn’t, say, a career ladder they could stay on and apply for promotion up to a higher level,” he said.

“Even though many of them are very dedicated, and the committees supporting them are very dedicated too.”

“There’s a lack of investment in the system, which means they’re trying to perform miracles on limited resources and limited support.

I don’t think the State would be willing to do that for many other areas, but it seems to be acceptable when it comes to the Gaeltacht.

He called for major development of language planning both inside and outside the Gaeltacht. He also pointed to the targets that had been missed under the Official Languages Act – the amending legislation passed in 2021 – saying there was a need for “more effective implementation.”

“If we had more effective implementation of the structures we already have, I think things would be better. But we’re talking about the ‘juggernaut of English,’ the most powerful language in the world, which happens to be right next door to us, and that’s our biggest challenge.”

He said we should keep learning from other cases, such as those of Wales and the Basque Country.

“They have plenty of challenges too, but I can see what’s happening on the ground there, and language policy is more central to the work of government [in those countries].

“It’s not as sidelined as it is here in Ireland, and they have more ambitious targets in both countries as well.”

Cló Iar-Chonnacht will publish Ar Lámh Shábhála: Coimisiún na Gaeltachta 1926 later this autumn.

Speaking during last year’s presidential election campaign, President Catherine Connolly said she would like to hold a symposium and a series of other events on the Gaeltacht Commission this year, the centenary of its establishment. No details have yet been announced regarding these events.

The Journal’s Gaeltacht initiative is supported by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme.

This article was originally written in the reporter’s native Irish and has been translated to English here. AI was used as part of the translation process before final edits.

* *

To embed this post, copy the code below on your site