Mr. Conor Murphy:

I will be brief because I am conscious of the time. The idea of Acht na Gaeilge and that legislation for people's rights has to wait for those who are opposed to those rights to be comfortable with the idea of legislating for them is really putting the cart before the horse. People's rights have to be legislated for because other people oppose those rights. While I very much appreciate the work which is being done in Unionist communities in particular and by gaelgeoirí across the North to open up the language and ensure people feel more comfortable, the reality is that there is a requirement for rights-based legislation for it. It cannot wait until everybody is completely comfortable because if everybody was completely content and happy with the language, there would be no need for rights-based legislation to protect it and those who want to speak it.

There is a requirement to press ahead with it. It was part of the St. Andrews Agreement. The British Government fudged the issue. We put it very clearly to it that if it did not legislate for it in Westminster and kicked it back to the Assembly, it would not happen. It messed about with it on the basis that it had no political will to pursue it in Westminster. It needs to go back there because as has been said, it was part of a sovereign agreement between two Governments which was an extension of the Good Friday Agreement. It would be useful for this committee to raise this issue with the Taoiseach given that it is now an outstanding matter of the St. Andrews Agreement which developed the Good Friday Agreement.

The issue of SEUPB funding was raised. I read the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the criticism of the Equality Commission and the way it has dealt with Irish language issues. I find myself in agreement with the Comptroller and Auditor General's criticism of the Equality Commission in its approach to this. There is an opportunity for this committee to raise with the SEUPB the approach of EU funding in regard to Irish language projects.

The broadcasting fund and the plans being developed under the North-South Ministerial Council, as advised by Foras na Gaeilge, are issues which this committee could raise and perhaps receive a presentation from the people in involved in the NSMS. In terms of the St. Andrews Agreement, I am aware the broadcasting fund was very much on the agenda but I agree that a position might not arise. We do not want the broadcasting fund and the contribution of the British Government to be the subject of crisis negotiation. It should be something committed to and followed through on. Those are three areas which it would be quite useful for the committee to pick up on, namely, EU funding, the broadcasting fund and the approach of the NSMC to the Irish language. The outstanding issue of Acht na Gaeilge is one for the Taoiseach to raise with the British Government.