What happened in 2014? Coimisinéir Teanga before Oireachtas Public Service Oversight Committee. @ceartateanga

Translation of speaking notes of the Coimisinéir Teanga, Rónán Ó Domhnaill at the Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, 21 October 2015.

This is a translation. The original notes may be found on Gaeltacht21: Buaicphointí Oifige an Choimisinéara Teanga le linn 2014! This is the second time this year he has appeared before this committee and notes on his talk may be found also on that site: An Coimisinéir & Comhchoiste eile! (15 Jan 2015 in Irish). The report for 2014 (and for all the reports since the foundation of this office) may be found here on the Coimisinéir's website. The repost has an integrated English translation.

Chairman, I’d like to thank the Joint Committee for the invitation to discuss the Annual Report of the Office for the year 2014 along with the Special Report which was placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas earlier this year and relates to the Department of Education and Skills. Appointment of Coimisinéir Teanga by Uachtarán na hÉireann March 2014 The Annual Report was placed before the Minister for Gaeltacht Affairs in March of this year and the report was officially launched on May 14. The Oireachtas has placed three main obligations upon me as Language Commissioner; to operate as an ombudsman’s service; to operate as a compliance agency in regard to state services through Irish; and to provide advice in regard to language rights and obligations. As has been said often before my Office is a small office, one of the smallest in the state, with six civil servants who are tasked with a heavy and varied work-load work each year. Year’s Work My Office dealt with 709 complaints and requests for advice from the public in relation to language rights last year. This was a small increase on the year before. One third of the complaints my Office received related to services covered in language schemes, a quarter involved the use of official languages on signage and stationary and a tenth each related to difficulties people had using the Irish version of the name and address and receiving an answer in English to correspondence in Irish. Along with complaints about road signs, which fell last year, there is a definite trend that these are the areas that Irish speakers have most difficulty with when interacting with the State. Most of the complaints are dealt with through an informal complaints resolution process which the office operates. That said, in certain cases we are left with no choice but to proceed to a formal investigation when the informal process doesn’t yield a satisfactory outcome. During last year I initiated 7 official investigations on various matters. I also issued three investigative reports relating to the Railway Procurement Agency, Dublin Bus and the Health Services Executive. "...the Official Languages Act only applies to those public bodies named in the First Schedule of the Act. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has the authority to update the schedule and it is nine years since that last happened, in July 2006. Since then there has been a multitude of changes to organisations, functions and State services since the reform of the public service was initiated. This is a continuous problem that can be easily resolved and should have been done a long time ago." One matter that I should draw the Joint Committee’s attention to is the amount of complaints that the Office couldn’t investigate as the public bodies concerned didn’t come under the Act. In total there were 115 complaints of that order last year. 35% of those related to the Road Safety Authority and 15% to Irish Water. In these cases my Office depends on the good-will of the public bodies concerned to resolve the complaint or we may have to advise the public that we have no space in which to operate. This happens because the Official Languages Act only applies to those public bodies named in the First Schedule of the Act. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has the authority to update the schedule and it is nine years since that last happened, in July 2006. Since then there has been a multitude of changes to organisations, functions and State services since the reform of the public service was initiated. This is a continuous problem that can be easily resolved and should have been done a long time ago. The Annual Report outlines the monitoring program my Office implemented over the past year. It can be seen that we continued to examine the implementation of language schemes and recommendations made in investigation reports. Usually my Office also monitors a particular aspect of the direct provisions that are placed upon public bodies. Last year my Office examined the way in which local authorities undertook the fulfilment of their obligations in relation to recorded oral announcements on telephone systems, an obligation that is in place since July 2013 and hadn’t been examined to date. The main finding of the audit was that only 2 local authorities, out of the 32 who came under the scope of the audit, were in full compliance with their language obligations in this regard. Language Schemes "A quarter of the life-span of the (20 year) Strategy has passed now and there is no excuse for not identifying posts in a systematic and comprehensive way, as was promised." There has been a lot of debate about the system of language schemes over the past years. There is little left to say that hasn’t been said already I feel. I’m highly doubtful as regards this system as a comprehensive means for the delivery of state services for the Irish speaking public. There are elements of some schemes that are worthwhile but I believe that the system is a flawed one and that the Welsh example should be followed by evolving to a standards system. I acknowledge that more language schemes are being agreed than were agreed for some years. The Minister confirmed 21 schemes last year. But I question the worth of limited and conditional commitments in some schemes. There should be no place for this type of curtailment in statutory language schemes. It also worries me that posts where Irish is required are still not being recognised in the language schemes that are being agreed. It was first stated in the Twenty Year Strategy for the Irish Language that these posts would be identified in language schemes. A quarter of the life-span of the Strategy has passed now and there is no excuse for not identifying posts in a systematic and comprehensive way, as was promised. Court Case "I also welcome the learned judge’s response to the Revenue Commissioners’ contention that public bodies could identify ways to work around the legislation when he said 'I am not of the view that responsible public bodies would behave in such a manner'." Judge Colm Mac Eochaidh gave his judgement last year regarding an appeal by the Office of the Revenue Commissioners against a finding in an investigation by this Office. This was the first and only appeal against the findings made by An Coimisinéir Teanga in the over 100 investigations that my Office has initiated throughout the years. The Court decision against the appeal confirmed that my Office had the correct interpretation on that particular piece of the legislation. Such a legal precedent is of great assistance in clarifying legislation and I welcome it. I also welcome the learned judge’s response to the Revenue Commissioners’ contention that public bodies could identify ways to work around the legislation when he said “I am not of the view that responsible public bodies would behave in such a manner”. Official Languages Act (revised) The General Scheme of the Official Languages Bill (amendment) was published in April of last year. I made a presentation on this matter to the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht in May 2014. I said then that there was little in the proposed Bill to satisfy the requirements of the Irish speaking public. I also said that there seemed to be little attention paid in the published heads of bill to the proposals my Office made or indeed to the views submitted by the public. A requirement that state employees providing services in the Gaeltacht be fluent in Irish wasn’t included for example, or indeed that an alternative system to language schemes be put in place. I agree with the view expressed by the cross-party Joint Committee, which made 34 recommendations relating to 13 heads of bill, that the new Bill had to ensure that Irish be promoted rather than its impact be limited in certain areas. "The Office has received a substantial amount of complaints regarding Eircode and what upset people most was that their new post code was sent to them under a name and address which was in English when it isn’t common for them to ever use that. I am investigating the matter at present but I should say that I am restricted in what I can do in the absence of provision in the language legislation of the country to protect this right." As I’ve said before, apart from technical changes there are only two sections in the published heads of bill where I see a worthwhile objective, these are that public bodies be brought in under the Act automatically and that legislative protection be given to the use of the Irish version of one’s name and address. It was made clear to us recently how important it is that there be legislative protection regarding the use of one’s name and address after people received their new post codes at their addresses which were in English and in a name they didn’t recognise. The Office has received a substantial amount of complaints regarding Eircode and what upset people most was that their new post code was sent to them under a name and address which was in English when it isn’t common for them to ever use that. I am investigating the matter at present but I should say that I am restricted in what I can do in the absence of provision in the language legislation of the country to protect this right. Over four years have passed since the review of the Official Languages Act was announced in November 2011. I have no doubt about what’s required. The strengths and weaknesses with the present Act have been stated and restated. As Coimisinéir Teanga I want an Act which can be a strong support for the provision of State services through Irish that can help those that have the not unreasonable desire to conduct their business with the official institutions of the country through Irish. Measures, supports and resources are of course needed, not least being enough staff with Irish to ensure that. But we would be pulling the wool over our eyes were we to think that these measures alone are enough without a strengthened Act to back them up. Special Report Whilst launching my Annual Report in May this year I also submitted a special report to the Houses of the Oireachtas under section 26(5) of the Act. I have the authority to do this when I come to the conclusion that a public body hasn’t satisfactorily implemented recommendations made in an Investigation Report. "...arrangements must be put in place that ensure beyond any question or doubt that teachers in Gaeltacht schools and indeed in all-Irish schools have fluent Irish." This particular report relates to the Department of Education and Skills and its failure, in my opinion, to put satisfactory arrangements in place to ensure that only teachers with fluent Irish be appointed to Gaeltacht schools. Having conducted an investigation following a complaint from Scoil na Rinne on the matter it was clear that preference was being given to panel rights that contradicted or ignored language obligations on the Department under the Education Act 1998. I would like to put on the record that I welcome the process which the Department of Education and Skills launched for Policy Proposals for Education Provision in Gaeltacht Areas earlier this year. There is reference in that document to the matter that resulted in the original complaint, that is the redeployment of teachers and it states that the effectiveness of the arrangements in place will be reviewed continuously. I believe that more than that is required and that arrangements must be put in place that ensure beyond any question or doubt that teachers in Gaeltacht schools and indeed in all-Irish schools have fluent Irish. Having considered the implementation of the recommendations I came to the opinion that the Department hadn’t done enough to ensure that that would be the case. On that basis I forwarded the report to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I hope this statement gives an overview to the Joint Committee on the highlights of the Office over the past year and I welcome any questions.

We are trained to be so!

Appointment of new Education Minister reminds us of historic address at founding of Sinn Féin.

Jan O'Sullivan,
Education Minister

Our Taoiseach in his wisdom has appointed a new Minister for Education who hopefully will have a better understanding of the heritage, not to say the psyche of the Irish nation. That she realises that she presides over a Department which fifty odd years did the bulk of its business through a language that today is understood by 1.5% of its officials. (2010 Report of Commissioner Teanga)

I recently came across a piece from the eminent surgeon Oliver St John Gogarty when he addressed the founding meeting of Sinn Féin. He made a fierce attack on the education system under the British in November 1905. He was echoing President Douglas Hyde twelve years earlier and impressed Arthur Griffith so much that he quoted extensively from the address in his paper, The United Irishman.

"Money was taken from the Irish people by forced taxation to supply the needs of Irish education. How was this Irish money used to educate Ireland? The language of Ireland was suppressed, the history of Ireland was ignored and mis-stated, the attention of Ireland was turned to a foreign country, the character and tradition of which was the direct contrary of the character of the Irish tradition. The focus of national life was set in London.

Oliver St John Gogarty

"Who was responsible for this? Ourselves! Yes, without either ignorance or apathy so preposterous and absurd a proposition as that a foreign nation could or should rightly educate another would not be tolerated for a moment. England dare not educate us as Irishmen: She would be raising up judges to denounce her and condemn. She taught us for her own purpose and we had taste of the result - narrowness in the primary schools, grinding in the Intermediate, and the final stages of education left unprovided with a university or any means of training either efficient or adequate for national life, with the result that we were dependent on England, for we were trained to be so."

Is the situation any better one hundred and ten years later? "The government (Dept of Education) taught us for her own purpose and we had taste of the result - narrowness in the primary schools, grinding in the Intermediate, and the final stages of education left unprovided ... leaving us with a dependance on English and English values, for we were trained to be so."  In other words we are trained and expected to acquiesce to the unspoken but clearly understood mantra “Speak Irish among yourselves, but don’t speak it to us!”.

Today we have a former Taoiseach positing that we would have been better off had we accepted the John Redmond compromise. When we have a present Taoiseach who considers Irish and the Gaeltachta as a museum exhibit - lumped as a tail-end to the lowly department of Arts & Heritage. Or to quote a contemporary speaker, "we merely have a sub-section which deals with the Irish language and Gaeltacht issues – a sub-section of a department which is large and diverse... And that sub-section is located far from the centre of power...it is at the bottom of the internal power chain within its own department; and that parent department is at the bottom of the power chain to which all the Government Departments belong, which means that it is difficult for it to have any significant impact on policy formulation or on the implementation of the policies of those other departments which have a central role in the implementation of the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish language...” (Five of the years of the 20 Year Strategy have already expired!)

The Taoiseach

If we had a government serious about the language there are many many things they could do without costing the taxpayer a cent. Our Taoiseach could speak it voluntarily in the Dáil and not merely because the leader of Sinn Féin uses it to ask a question. He could treat the people of the Gaeltacht (and the Islands) as real people and not as exhibits. He could decide that all state bodies and initiatives had names in Irish from their conception (How many people know what "The Gathering" was called in Irish?). He could employ people who are competent to deal with people in the National Language instead of forcing the use of English. He could have teachers trained correctly instead of the half hearted way the language is handled now.

Taoiseach, we use English with the State because you have not trained your bureaucracy (which should be our bureaucracy) to do anything else. And they they say there is no demand. "Language rights are permanent rights; they are not concessions or privileges granted at times of prosperity." (Seán Ó Cuirreáin).

Can any of us point to a politician who believes that?

Do we believe it ourselves?

Twenty first century assessment - no time for group think!

"...nobody trusts people to investigate themselves. It’s just not the way things are done any more.” Minister Leo Varadkar
"...little value or importance can be attached in reality to self-assessment." Retiring Coimisinéir Teanga, Seán Ó Cuirreáin

In his final address to the Oireachtas as Coimisinéir Teanga on 23rd of January 2014, Seán Ó Cuirreáin made the following point when discussing the states the 20 year strategy on Irish (2010-2030) published in December 2010.

Self assessment!

Dr Leo Varadker: "..nobody trusts
people to investigate themselves!"

"Is the Strategy being implemented? I don’t know. And with all due respect to you as a subcommittee, I believe that you don’t know either as there is no independent audit or review being conducted on the implementation of the Strategy.
It is self-assessment only and from the experience of my Office in auditing the language schemes of State bodies over the past 10 years, little value or importance can be attached in reality to self-assessment.
In any area of life, it is difficult to depend on any review by stakeholders with vested interests, but, on the other hand, research based evidence is of immense value. We have also learned a valuable lesson over the years – that there is a basis for the phrase “what gets measured gets done!”
Unless audits and independent assessments are carried out I don’t believe anyone can give any guarantees as to implementation."

Not the modern way!
Glancing through some old newspapers, prior to recycling, I came across this statement, which, although it is dealing with another matter, makes the same point with perhaps stronger emphasis. In talking about the matter of the quashing of traffic penalty points discussed earlier this year, Fine Gael Minister for Transport, Dr Leo Varadkar, criticised the handling of the affair.

A report in the Irish Times, (4th February 2014) states, "While the matter was the subject of investigations within the Garda, Mr (sic) Varadkar suggested that internal inquiries lack credibility." He is quoted directly as saying “It’s just the 21st century Ireland that we live in – nobody trusts people to investigate themselves. It’s just not the way things are done any more.”

One hopes that his forward thinking penetrates into the deepest recesses of the usually impenetrable bureaucracy that runs this country. A bureaucracy run by civil servants whose attitude to the language has moved up a notch or two from "passive inaction on their part ...to one of active undermining," to quote a retired former higher Civil Servant.

As Seán Ó Cuirreáin stated: "Groupthink has no place in matters as important as the survival of a language."

Floccinaucinihilipilification! The State attitude to the National Language & its speakers!

"The choice I had was to stand aside from my appointment as Coimisinéir Teanga on principle to draw attention to these matters or to continue in my role and, consequently, to participate in a pretence". (Seán Ó Cuirreáin)

This is a translation of the remarks made by Seán Ó Cuirreáin to the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language on Thursday 23rd January 2014.In light of what he is saying here is it not significent that no member of either Government party, Fine Gael or Labour, thought it worthwhile to attend?

We have taken our title from a letter which propitiously appeared in the Irish Times that morning (and reproduced in the box below right) with a new old word for "the action or habit of estimating as worthless!" The use of such a word to describe the States attitude to the National language and those who use it regardless of where they are is I think justified in light of words of the first Comisinéir Teanga before his resignation takes effect!

This translation has been edited lightly, breaking certain paragraphs to allow for ease of reading and puting in some headings which do not appear in the official translation.This is available in pdf format on the website of the Office of the Coimisinéir Teanga!

The text in its original language may be found here in html format! 
Irish language ‘being driven to margins of society!' (Irish Times, 24/1/2014)
‘Irish language policy risks being seen as a sham’ (Irish Examiner 24/1/2014)
Gross Insult to dedicated servant (Irish Examiner 28/1/2014)

<<
I would like to thank you for your invitation here today. When I addressed another joint committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas at the beginning of last month, I hadn’t expected to be back here today and it’s an honour and a privilege to have received your invitation. I announced here at the beginning of December that I had decided to stand aside from the position of Coimisinéir Teanga in a
month’s time, on 23rd February, when I will have completed 10 years in that capacity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those people who have contacted me in the meantime; I appreciate very much all of the messages of goodwill which I received locally, nationally and internationally.

A Letter in the Irish Times 23rd Jan 2014 Sir, – The longest word in the English language, writes Patsy McGarry (In a Word, Time Out, January 20th) is antidisestablishmentarianism, unrivalled. It has 28 letters. But it does not appear in my admittedly ancient Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1955). What does appear is the word that used to delight us as children: floccinaucinihilipilification. It has 29 letters. Dating from 1741, it means the action or habit of estimating as worthless. – Yours, etc, HILARY WAKEMAN, Skeagh, Schull, Co Cork.

Reasons for Resignation
Before I focus on the theme for discussion today – the 20-year Strategy for the Irish language – I would like to mention the main reason that I decided to resign as Coimisinéir Teanga. I had, in essence, come to the firm belief that in the two years which remained in my term of office, there would be little else that I could personally achieve in relation to language rights for Irish speakers and Gaeltacht communities.

Marginalisation of Irish
I believe that the language is continuously being edged aside, pushed towards the margins of society and that includes much of the public sector. I would not support the premise that the fault lies primarily with politicians but it appears to me, notwithstanding those within the State sector who support the language, that there are stronger and more widespread forces in place who have little or no concern for the future of our national language. 

Some progress has been made over the past 10 years since the introduction of the Official Languages Act – particularly in the use of Irish on public signage, in stationery and in publications. There is a greater awareness of language rights and our Office supports this. The neglect in promoting the language scheme element of the Act has resulted in severe restrictions on the progress which might have been made.

• I believe there is no possibility that the new system being introduced to increase the number of civil servants fluent in Irish will succeed.  A commitment that State service through Irish be provided in Gaeltacht areas without terms and conditions is not forthcoming  and consequently, the practice will persist where the State sector is effectively saying to Gaeltacht communities: “Speak Irish among yourselves, but don’t speak it to us!”.

• More than two years have elapsed since a review of the Official Languages Act began, yet at this stage, the very first step in amending the legislation – the publication of ‘heads of a bill’ has not been taken. A new deadline was announced last week for the publication of the amendments – before summer.

• A decision to merge the functions of my  Office with the Office of the Ombudsman was made without reference to me or to the then  Ombudsman, yet again more than two years later, no details are available publicly of the  proposed new arrangement or how it is thought it might work.  It was announced last week that the merger will happen by next September. 

• I believe that the Office was never given adequate resources to fully perform its statutory  obligations in a satisfactory manner. 

• For those who believe in language rights for Gaeltacht communities and for Irish speakers in general this is a time of great uncertainty. I have always held the opinion that the support required for the Irish language within this country’s public service should not and could not be viewed as an optional extra. Language rights are permanent rights; they are not concessions or privileges granted at
times of prosperity.

• If the State cannot provide assurances, when the language legislation is being amended, that it will ensure that it can communicate in Irish with Gaeltacht communities without terms and conditions and that it will have adequate staff in public administration with proficiency in Irish, then I believe that its policy will be viewed as a sham.

• The choice I had was to stand aside from my appointment as Coimisinéir Teanga on principle to draw attention to these matters or to continue in my role and, consequently, to participate in a pretence.  I am absolutely certain that I made the correct decision.  The process of appointing a new commissioner has now begun and I would like to extend my best wishes to whoever is appointed as my successor.

The Strategy (The 20 Year strategy for the Irish Language published 2009)
I understand that as a subcommittee you have a particular focus on the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish language and that you wish me to direct some of my comments today to that matter.

I played an active part in the preparation of the Strategy – I published recommendations on the subject and I met with the group of international experts established to advise on the drafting of the Strategy.

I stated – when launching Ard-Fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge in 2008 – that the implementation of the strategy could be amongst the most important actions for the future of the language since the foundation of the State.  I also gave a very clear warning at the time: “It is important that we do not forget that any strategy is worthless unless it is implemented.  The agreement and publication of the strategy must be a starting point on a new journey and not the destination.”

The following year, I stated that it was necessary to begin the implementation of the strategy effectively and without delay, and,  if that were not to happen, and if it were to be treated in the same manner as countless other commendable reports, then it would be preferable to discard it immediately to avoid further cynicism.  I stated at that time that actions in accordance with the commitments were required rather than empty promises.

So, is the Strategy being implemented?  I don’t know.  And with all due respect to you as a subcommittee, I believe that you don’t know either as there is no independent audit or review being conducted on the implementation of the Strategy.

It is self-assessment only and from the experience of my Office in auditing the language schemes of State bodies over the past 10 years, little value or importance can be attached in reality to self-assessment.

In any area of life, it is difficult to depend on any review by stakeholders with vested interests, but, on the other hand, research based evidence is of immense value. We have also learned a valuable lesson over the years – that there is a basis for the phrase “what gets measured gets done!” Unless audits and independent assessments are carried out I don’t believe anyone can give any guarantees as to implementation.

Expert opinion
But a person may have an opinion: here is an opinion from an expert. Seosamh Mac Donnacha from the National University of Ireland, Galway, was (with Conchúr Ó Giollagáin) one of the authors of “The Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht” - research work which prompted the Strategy.

Speaking at Tóstal na Gaeilge last year, he said that the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language no longer existed. “I am aware that we have a document which we call The 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010-2030. But a document and a Strategy are not one and the same. We do not have a live Strategy that is being implemented in a consistent systematic manner...” (trans.)

Dr John Walsh, another expert, had the following to say in this month’s edition of the magazine Comhar: “The 20-Year Strategy is now like a corpse and the Irish language is more marginalised than ever in the Civil Service.”(trans.)

“A dead document”
Seosamh Mac Donnacha described the Strategy as ‘a dead document’ and he also said that the Department of the Gaeltacht no longer exists – “we merely have a sub-section which deals with the Irish language and Gaeltacht issues – a sub-section of a department which is large and diverse... And that sub-section is located far from the centre of power (in Na Forbacha, Conamara); it is at the bottom of the internal power chain within its own department; and that parent department is at the bottom of the power chain to which all the Government Departments belong, which means that it is difficult for it to have any significant impact on policy formulation or on the implementation of the policies of those other departments which have a central role in the implementation of the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish language...” (trans.)

The core issue for him is that a sub-section which is operating in those circumstances could not protect or preserve what is left of the Gaeltacht, and that we are only fooling ourselves if we think it could.

It is a pessimistic assessment, but unfortunately, I am very aware that many in the Gaeltacht communities and Irish speakers in general share that view. The writer, Seosamh Mac Grianna, once said that the truth is "not just bitter but savage which is why it is avoided."

I firmly believe that if this debate is to succeed, it must be based on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I have no wish to be negative about this, but I believe that the starting point must always be based on reality rather than on a presumption based on unfounded hope. Groupthink has no place in matters as important as the survival of a language.

Based on census figures from 2002, it was argued in 2007 that the Irish language would survive no more than 15-20 years as the predominant community language in the strongest Gaeltacht areas that remained. Of course, it will survive as a language, and the last native Irish speaker has not yet been born. But that in no way equates to its survival as the predominant community language, handed down in an unbroken chain, from generation to generation. As someone who cares about the future of the language and the Gaeltacht and as a person who has spent the most of his life living in the Gaeltacht, it doesn’t appear to me that significant actions or worthwhile, practical steps have been taken on the ground to address the scale of the language emergency in the Gaeltacht since that very clear warning was given seven years ago.

Tick-Tock

"Economic planning would not be left to such local communities nor would they be given responsibility to decide locally on matters concern housing, roads or the environment.  But when it comes to the language, well, that’s another story!"

A new Gaeltacht Act has been enacted, although the welcome it received could hardly be said to have resounded through the hills and glens of the Gaeltacht. It changed the structure of the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta and, in conjunction with the Údarás and Foras na Gaeilge, placed liability for language planning on Gaeltacht communities who never sought that responsibility. Economic planning would not be left to such local communities nor would they be given responsibility to decide locally on matters concern housing, roads or the environment.  But when it comes to the language, well, that’s another story!

Certain areas have been chosen and more will be chosen to prepare language plans; they will be given two years to prepare the plans and seven years to implement them. Meanwhile tick-tock, Tempus fugit and if, as is said in Irish, “God’s mills grind slowly” it appears the wheels of the state turn more slowly still, particularly in the case of the language.

When I see the sorry state of the system put in place to develop language plans or language schemes in State bodies because of ineffective implementation, it is unfortunately very difficult for me to have any confidence in the new language planning system envisaged in the Gaeltacht Act.

Indeed, I very much doubt if those who are officially responsible for directing the implementation of the Strategy and the language planning initiative, truly believe, in their heart of hearts, that there is any realistic hope that these policies will in fact succeed or bear fruit. And, certainly, if those charged with that responsibility don’t believe in it, then surely there is little reason for anybody else to have any faith in it either: no social legislation can be effectively implemented unless the public in general has confidence in it and supports it.

The Act and the Strategy
With regard to the Irish language in the State sector, I recently read an article by a retired senior civil servant who said, in his opinion, that there was “growing evidence that there is a strategy afoot to do away with what’s left of Irish in the public life of the county.” Seán Mag Leannáin spent 15 years as a principal officer in the civil service until he retired in December 2009. He said:

“The civil service establishment...are almost 100 per cent united in their view of Irish as an irritating thorn in the administration. The mandarins know there isn’t political consensus on the issue and they calculate that even to open a public debate on Irish would be to accord it a status it doesn’t deserve – far better to ignore it as if it didn’t exist and to starve the Official Languages Act of the resources to implement it. Let the whole thing wither on the vine...”

"It reminds me of a phrase used by our President Michael D Higgins, speaking at the biennial Tóstal na Gaeilge conference in Galway in 2010, when he referred to those 'for whom Irish was not half dead enough.'”

Furthermore he had this to say; “When the Official Languages Act was passed over 10 years ago the top civil servants adopted a minimalist, wait-and-see approach. They knew that without their active support the new legislation was never going to have much effect. But what started as passive inaction on their part now seems to have moved up a notch or two to one of active undermining.

It reminds me of a phrase used by our President Michael D Higgins, speaking at the biennial Tóstal na Gaeilge conference in Galway in 2010, when he referred to those “for whom Irish was not half dead enough.”

What an interesting perspective from a courageous man who was at the centre of the state sector.

A commitment was made in the Strategy that a system would be put in place whereby the number of staff in the public service who could conduct their business in Irish would be increased. I have already referred to this new system that is to be put in place on a pilot basis. Perhaps it is simply enough to say that research carried out on our behalf found that, based on official figures from the Department of Education and Skills, it would take this new system, if implemented fully and positively, about 28 years to double the percentage of administrative staff in that department with fluency in Irish, from 1.5% to 3%.

It was further promised on page 45 of the Strategy that language schemes would, in future, specify positions within State bodies where ability in Irish would be required. The Strategy was published in December 2010 – more than three years ago. A total of 26 new language schemes have been confirmed over those past three years but, to date, not even one position in one language scheme has been specified as one where ability in Irish was required!

"10 of these (16) officers who have responsibility for the language coordination in Government departments don’t actually have Irish themselves."

I should also point out that Government departments have nominated Irish language officers or other officials responsible for language affairs to implement the Official Languages Act and to liaise with my Office. These are all talented people who diligently carry out their responsibilities, nonetheless only six out of the 16 officers in question actually have Irish; in other words, 10 of these officers who have responsibility for the language coordination in Government departments don’t actually have Irish themselves.

A series of plans and policies were announced to reform and modernise the public sector last week; as far as I am aware, the words ‘language’ ‘Irish’ or ‘Gaeltacht’  were not mentioned once in these documents.

Education
The Strategy for the Irish language places great emphasis on the place of Irish in the education system and I welcome the decision of the Department of Education and Skills to review the provision of education in the Gaeltacht.


 Two cases
However, I am particularly concerned about this issue in the light of that Department’s attitude as reflected in two education related investigations carried out by my Office recently.

1. In one case, a Gaeltacht primary school complained to me that it had been directed by the Department of Education to appoint a teacher from a panel of surplus teachers although neither the teachers themselves, nor the school authority in question, believed that any of the available teachers had sufficient Irish to teach in a Gaeltacht school.

The following is a random sample of emails sent by the teachers on the panel to the school authorities:

• “...With respect to you, your principal and your pupils, I feel that my standard of Irish would not reach the requirement needed for a Gaeltacht school and Gaeltacht life in general...
• “... To tell the truth, I am rather worried because you are a Gaelscoil and there are native speakers attending the school.”(trans).
• “I am sorry....I do not have sufficient Irish to work in the Gaeltacht.”(trans).
• “Unfortunately I don’t think I would be the best person for the job and I’m sure there’s someone on the panel with more experience in Gaelscoileanna and fluency with Irish than I have.”

"Undoubtedly however, the root of our problem is that we have never made an adequate connection between the learning of Irish and its subsequent use. The State requires students to learn the languages but often the same State denies or obstructs the use of Irish by those people in their dealings with the State."

In spite of that – and despite the fact that some of the pupils would have better Irish than the teachers themselves in this situation – the Department put forward legal and practical arguments to say that there was no need for special arrangements for the Gaeltacht and that every primary school teacher in the country was qualified to teach in a Gaeltacht school. However, I found, as a result of that investigation, that certain provisions of the Education Acts were breached in this case and I made recommendations in line with that finding.

2. In another case, the Department of Education and Skills again put forward legal and practical arguments as to why it was not obliged to provide the option of studying the subjects of the curriculum through Irish up to Leaving Certificate level to students in one of the strongest Gaeltacht regions remaining in Co. Donegal. The school in question has an Irish language stream up to Junior Certificate level but few students opt for this as they would have to change their language of learning from Irish to English for the two final and most important years, the years of the Leaving Certificate.  The investigation by my Office found that the refusal of the Department of Education to provide education through Irish to Gaeltacht students breached its own statutory obligations and in this case also I made recommendations to remedy the situation.

I suspect that you will, in light of this, understand my concern about the educational element of the Strategy.

Undoubtedly however, the root of our problem is that we have never made an adequate connection between the learning of Irish and its subsequent use. The State requires students to learn the languages but often the same State denies or obstructs the use of Irish by those people in their dealings with the State.  There is a disconnect and a failure of joined up thinking there.

Stakeholders
I have referred already to the absence of any independent monitoring of the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish language. Efforts are being made for some time now to have the Irish language and Gaeltacht communities recognised officially as stakeholders by affording them a role in directing  the implementation of the 20-Year Strategy. However, for whatever reason, the State sector has  refused to concede to that proposal. I find this difficult to understand as I once again recall that social legislation cannot be effectively implemented without the confidence and support of the public in general.   

We do hear a lot of buzzwords about interdepartmental committees, bi-lateral talks and implementation plans, but do these amount to positive practical action?

This reminds me of the latest story brought to light by the journalist Breandán Delap from the files of the National Archive released under the 30 year rule. He discovered official documents concerning The Four Year Action Plan for the Irish Language, published in 1983, by the state organisation, Bord na Gaeilge. This was a substantial and significant document in which targets were identified in respect of every aspect of the State sector. However, when the political and civil service inputs had been taken into account all that remained of that ambitious plan were proposals to establish a framework of committees to make recommendations with regard to the use of Irish in public life.

This reminded the journalist of Séamus Mallon’s wry comment concerning the Good Friday Agreement as being “Sunningdale for slow learners.” Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. 
How unfortunate it would be if the same fate were to befall the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish language!

As I prepared to address you here today, I recalled statements made by two of our heroes who passed way in the last year, may they rest in peace – Nelson Mandela who said “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.”

And Seamus Heaney, who said “Not to learn Irish is to miss the opportunity of understanding what life in this country has meant and could mean in a better future.  It is to cut oneself off from ways of being at home. If we regard self-understanding, mutual understanding, imaginative enhancement, cultural diversity and a tolerant political atmosphere as desirable attainments, we should remember that knowledge of the Irish language is an essential element in their realisation.”

Choices!
We have two simple choices – to look back at Irish as our lost language or forward with it as a core part of our heritage and sovereignty.

But I would say to you with certainty here today in the Houses of the Oireachtas, that it is with heavy hearts that the people of the Gaeltacht and the Irish speaking community in general will approach the centenary of the 1916 Rising in two years time if our national language is to be merely a symbolic language, and rather than being an integral part of our culture and heritage, that it is pushed aside, marginalised and left in the in the halfpenny place in the life of this nation.

Thank you for your invitation to address you today.
>>

The last heartbreaking paragraph in its original language is in given below. It is indeed tragic that these are the words that the first Ombudsmanin Ireland, Europe and perhaps the world to resign on a matter of principle leaves us as a parting message to legislature!

Government undermines language act!

The Government has announced today that it intends to close the Office of the Language Commissioner (An Coimisinéir Teanga) as an independent statutory office, and to transfer its functions to the Office of the Ombudsman as part of its public sector reform plan.

See also: http://ansionnachfionn.com/2011/11/17/second-class-citizens-with-second-class-rights/ and Irish Rights Are Civil Rights! from the blog of Séamus Ó Sionnach.

Julian de Spáinn, General Secretary of Conradh na Gaeilge, says: "This announcement from the Government that it will close the Office of An Coimisinéir Teanga as an independent statutory office is by far the most retrogressive decision taken by any Government with regard to the promotion of the Irish language in many, many years. The folly of this decision is even greater compounded by the fact that the same Government only 14 days ago announced a public consultation as part of a review of the Official Languages Act which includes, as a central part of the review, the role and functions of the Office of An Coimisinéir Teanga. Is there any point in the public taking part in this consultation if the decisions have already been made?
"It should be made clear that since the appointment and reappointment lately of Seán Ó Cuirreáin as Coimisinéir Teanga, his office has made huge strides in monitoring compliance by public bodies with the provisions of the Official Languages Act, they have investigated breeches of the Act reported to them by the public, and they have provided extremely good advice to the public regarding their language rights under the Official Languages Act. The Irish language community believes and trusts in the independence of the Office, and this is now to be put in jeopardy by the Government."

Éamonn Mac Niallais, Spokesperson for Guth na Gaeltachta, says: "It is amazing that such a decision has been taken at the very beginning of the implementation of the Government's 20 Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010 - 2030. This decision makes absolutely no sense at all, and the Irish language community will now be very sceptical that this Government in any way serious about strategically planning for the Irish language community. What message does this give the Civil Service, a service Irish speakers have been trying to access their rights from for years now? What this is saying to them is that this independent office is not important and as such, that it is not important to implement the Languages Act. 
"There are no savings to be made. No-one will lose their jobs. If anything, there will be greater expense to the exchequer if they attempt to move the current staff to the Ombudsman's Office in Dublin. When An Bord Snip looked at this issue, even they recommended to leave the Office as it is. Therefore there are some questions to be asked. Who made this recommendation? What defence was made of the Language Commissioner's Office within the Department itself, considering there is no logic to the decision on the grounds of financial savings? How does the Government and the Civil Service view the rights of Irish speakers in Ireland?"

Conradh na Gaeilge and Guth na Gaeltachta are calling on the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, who both have a huge interest in the Irish language and community themselves, to reverse this decision and to support the good and effective independent work of the Office of An Coimisinéir Teanga.

The following statement issued from Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, the central steering council for the Irish language community.

Functions of the Language Commissioner to be merged with the Office of the Ombudsman
– Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge expresses its disappointment

Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge today expressed its disappointment with the Government’s decision to merge the functions of the Language Commissioner with the Office of the Ombudsman. 

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform announced today that the functions of the Language Commissioner are to be merged with the Office of the Ombudsman under a public sector reform programme as part of the measures to streamline the operation of independent State bodies or ‘quangoes’.

Seán Ó Cuirreáin was officially appointed Language Commissioner on the 23 Feabhra 2004 according to the provisions of the Official Languages Act 2003. 

While carrying out the functions of that office since then he has always displayed a wise, practical, measured and sensible attitude and approach.  The direct result of this can be clearly seen in the improvement in the level and standard of services through Irish provided to the public by the Public Bodies under the Act. 

During his keynote address at Tóstal na Gaeilge 2004, which he delivered shortly after his appointment, Mr. Ó Cuirreáin emphasised in particular the importance of the independence of the office of the Language Commissioner.

He indicated that it was his aim that the office of the Language Commissioner be a resource for the Irish language and Gaeltacht communities in relation to realizing their language rights under the Official Languages Act 2003.  This aim has been achieved and is being achieved on a daily basis in the fulfilment of his duties as Language Commissioner.  

Mr. Ó Cuirreáin was reappointed for a further period of 6 years on the 23 February 2010.

Speaking about the Government’s decision announced today, the Director of Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, Pádraig Mac Criostail said that “a review of the Official languages Act 2003 was announced very recently by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.  It makes little sense while that review process is ongoing to announce this decision in relation to the Office of the Language Commissioner which will greatly impair the independent operation of that office, not to mention the negative effect this decision may have on the overall implementation of the Official Languages Act 2003.  While the motivation behind this decision is undoubtedly the reduction in State costs, it is unclear what direct savings will be achieved as a result.”

Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge is seeking an urgent meeting with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to discuss the implications of this decision as well as other decisions that will impact the promotion of the Irish language.

Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge is the central steering council for the Irish language community. Its role is to act as a coordinating body for voluntary Irish language organisations.

Govt decisions on 20 year strategy for Irish

Minister of State for Gaeltacht Affairs announces Government decisions regarding the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010 - 2030

Leagan Gaeilge

Minister of State for Gaeltacht Affairs, Dinny McGinley T.D., announced today (3 June 2011) that final decisions have been taken by the Government regarding the new definition of the Gaeltacht and the implementation structures for the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language. These decisions were taken at a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday (31 May 2011).

The Minister of State said: "I am delighted that final decisions have been made by the Government regarding the implementation of the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language. As a result, officials in my Department, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, can proceed with drafting the Heads of the Gaeltacht Bill. I hope that the Bill will be published as soon as possible, depending on the Government's legislative schedule."

The new definition of the Gaeltacht will be based on the 20-Year Strategy and on the recommendations made in the Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht. The Minister of State said: "My Department, in conjunction with other State bodies, will work closely with Gaeltacht communities on the ground in order to assist them in developing and implementing language plans, which will incorporate all aspects of community life."
Regarding the implementation structures for the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language, the Minister of State said: "These Government decisions will ensure that existing structures will be used to deliver the Strategy and that the functions of the key stakeholders with responsibility for implementing the Strategy, both within and outside of the Gaeltacht, will be clearly defined." 

The Minister of State said: "As a result of these Government decisions, I believe that the future of Údarás na Gaeltachta is secure, that Údarás na Gaeltachta will retain its statutory functions and that Údarás na Gaeltachta and other enterprise agencies will cooperate to ensure investment in the Gaeltacht."

New definition of the Gaeltacht
• Provision will be made in the Gaeltacht Bill for a new statutory definition of the Gaeltacht, which will be based on linguistic criteria rather than on  geographical areas, as is currently the case. 

• Provision will be made under the legislation for a language planning process in order to prepare language plans at community level for each Gaeltacht area and for the Minister to approve and review those plans periodically.

• Statutory status will be given to a new type of 'network Gaeltacht' area outside the existing statutory Gaeltacht areas. These will be areas, predominantly in urban communities, that will have a basic critical mass of community and State support for the Irish language.

•  Gaeltacht Service Towns, i.e. towns which service Gaeltacht areas, will also be given statutory status.

Implementation structures under the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language
• The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht will retain primary responsibility for matters concerning the Irish language, both within and outside of the Gaeltacht.

•  Foras na Gaeilge will continue to fulfil its responsibilities on an all-island basis as an agency of the North South Language Implementation Body.

• The Department, in partnership with relevant State bodies, will be responsible for the implementation of the Strategy outside the Gaeltacht. The potential for Foras na Gaeilge to deliver certain elements of the Strategy, on an agreed basis, will be explored.

• Údarás na Gaeltachta will be responsible for the implementation of the Strategy within the Gaeltacht.

Údarás na Gaeltachta
• The status quo will be maintained regarding the current functions of Údarás na Gaeltachta, including its enterprise functions, subject to the following:
(c)    statutory provision to enable the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to direct Údarás na Gaeltachta to focus its limited resources towards specific enterprise sectors; and
(d)     the development of a mechanism to facilitate Údarás na Gaeltachta to cooperate with other enterprise agencies, particularly with regard to significant Gaeltacht projects with high potential. (Labelled c and d in the English Language document issued by the Department they are lablled a and b in the Irish version!)

• Provision will be made under the Gaeltacht Bill to significantly reduce the Board of Údarás na Gaeltachta and to end the requirement to hold elections.