Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)

[Gaeilge 5.00-5.18] I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on this important Bill, which should be longer. The Bill is disappointing and should be withdrawn and redrafted. Like other speakers I object to the fact that the Bill is being forced through the Dáil in the coming week which will not allow for sufficient debate. The basis of the Bill conflicts significantly with the recommendation of the comprehensive linguistic study. Many Gaeltacht and Irish language organisations and individuals oppose the Bill. Shortening the debate on the Bill is not helpful.

We are discussing the subject against a background of a considerable reduction in the use of the Irish language as a family and community language in Gaeltacht areas over a number of years. It is widely acknowledged that we are now at a critical stage regarding the language's continued existence. The comprehensive linguistic study to which I referred has shown that a continuous language shift towards English in the Gaeltacht has taken place and concluded that without urgent remedial action the Irish language may only have a lifespan of 15 to 20 years as a community and household language in Gaeltacht areas. That is a very serious situation for the Irish language and the country. It is obviously very important to get the Bill right and get the policies right in supporting the language and Gaeltacht areas. That is the nub of the difficulties that many people have with the Bill. It defines Gaeltachtaí in the very same terms as they have been defined since 1956 with very minor changes. Many commentators have referred to that. Donncha Ó hÉallaithe recently wrote:

Part of the problem is that the official boundaries, set up by government order in 1956, with a few additions since, do not reflect the current linguistic situation. More than half the population of the Gaeltacht is living in areas in which Irish is no longer used within the community to any significant extent... Analysis of data from Census 2006 shows that of the 95,000 people living within the official Gaeltacht, approximately 17,000 belonged to Category A areas [a reference to the categorisation under the linguistic study], 10,000 to Category B and 17,000 to Category C, leaving about 50,000 in Gaeltacht areas which did not meet the minimum criteria.

The nub of this Bill is the conflict between it and the linguistic study. The linguistic study basically said there should be three categories in Gaeltacht areas. It referred to category A, where more than 67% of the population are daily speakers of Irish, category B where 44% to 66% are daily Irish speakers and category C where less than 44% are daily Irish speakers. The reference to the categorisation is really a reference to where we put the main resources in the future. The suggestion from the study, various organisations and individuals is that the main resources should go primarily to the areas which are strong and have a vitality about the language, which is correct. I hope that as the Bill goes through the House, changes will be made to it. If it is not going to be withdrawn and redrafted, amendments should be made to it in this regard.

I welcome the suggestion in regard to Gaeltacht service towns - bhaile seirbhíse Gaeltachta. An Fál Carrach, An Clochán Liath, An Daingean and Dún Garbhán were listed in the linguistic study. I also welcome the proposal in regard to language networks and language planning. We need a comprehensive approach to the language and to Gaeltacht areas. Gaeltacht service towns and the language networks are welcome in regard to promoting the language in non-Gaeltacht areas.

Another feature of the Bill, which is contrary to the recommendations of the linguistic study and which has been widely referred to, is how Údarás na Gaeltachta is being dealt with. While there has been language retreat in the Gaeltacht areas over many years, there now appears to be a retreat from democracy as well. It is a retrograde step that direct elections will not happen in these areas. A directly elected Údarás na Gaeltachta will effectively be replaced by a majority of directors who will be appointed by the Minister. Electing other members from Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Kerry through county councils is all very well but it is not a direct election and it also creates difficulties for the others areas, including Cork, Waterford and Meath. In my area, the people of An Rinn and An Seana Phobal are very concerned that they will lose representation on Údarás na Gaeltachta as a result of the proposals in this Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill but the wrong option has been chosen. I would have hoped the recommendations of the linguistic study would have been pursued in this Bill. I hope the Minister will consider withdrawing and redrafting the Bill or, at the very least, significantly amending it during its passage through the House.

See this speech in context