Ms Caroline Phelan:

It is probably above our pay grade to be making these decisions. In reality, I do not think that we could disagree with the Deputy that, rather than having a tokenistic bilingual city or Gaeltacht, we should make some gesture that is going to strengthen it. Not everything should happen legislatively in respect of incentives or obligations because the idea of doing things by rote and making people legally obliged to do something that is personal is not necessarily the way forward. There has to be a balance where there is a willingness there also. There are many modern versions of this. We saw yesterday in Baile Átha Cliath with Conradh na Gaeilge how it said it was reflecting what was happening with Gaillimh le Gaeilge where there are means and ways in which it can be done in a modern manner that makes it attractive. With the university, in particular, there are very significant opportunities.

There is an increase in the number of Gaelscoileanna which is, to some degree, an open door. How does one perpetuate this outside of the school environment and normalise it in a greater way which can be done either by legislation or incentivisation with grants, as the Deputy has said, or consensually. That is a mixture of the three approaches to some degree. The point in respect of the Gaeltacht is that many of the boundaries are there because of the extension of the city out to that area. Do these need to reviewed? Each of the Gaeltachtaí were put into categories of A, B and C, as the Deputy is aware, and there was a resolution with regard to policy attributed to that. Galway is in category C because of the 2% to 3% who speak Irish daily. In other words, one size does not fit all. I agree that probably a mixture of all three approaches is required: coercion, incentivisation and a certain consensual aspect. Those three together might remedy and lead to a better situation in respect of the whole Gaeltacht area. The justification for the Gaeltacht, I believe, was relative to the percentage of people who spoke Irish daily and used it as a primary language in a social context. We should do something when it is right to do it. I cannot answer that question as it is one for the committee to deliberate upon. If we are reflecting 2% to 3%, are we being legitimate in saying the entire city is a Gaeltacht? It is not that it lacks foundation, but it is an approach based upon more realism.

On the designation of an area, if one refines this and if there is a higher percentage than that 2% in a certain location, perhaps it is justified to give that area a certain status. I am not a linguist or an expert in this area, so I can only give an opinion and it is limited in respect of the land use. If the committee believes that would be successful, some work should then be done on it beforehand to go into the finer grain of what that 2% is. Is it those who are predominantly in that location?

We must also bear in mind it is an unserviced area with restrictions in regard to development, so the potential for a population there would also be quite limited. It might perhaps be better to go to a higher density area in some ways. Looking at the household profile, are these people also in the early stages of family life? These are the things that must be borne in mind. Is it worthy to do something where one is investing in the future which will be a higher population and a justification on that basis. That is a study in itself.

I have no personal thinking or position on land use. If the legislation is there, we will comply with it and it is not that we have an inherent objection, or any such thing, to it.