Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree with the thinking behind the change in the 2006 Act given the problems that would otherwise be created in recruiting across the whole spectrum of college activity. The goal of protecting Irish by way of that sort of provision has not been successfully reached and I can see why the changes were made. The changes were made in the context of the absolute obligation on the college more broadly to create an environment in which it was the lead proponent of the development of the Irish language as a university. It was being given a unique responsibility and the President had an obligation to execute it. The college had to put strategies and policies in place and it was subject not only to internal monitoring but to monitoring by outside agencies, as the Deputy said himself. I understand the record of the college is very strong in meeting that external scrutiny.

The question to which we are driven back is whether we should show our disapproval, as Deputy Ó Cuív said, of the college authority in making a decision, which was its decision to make under the legislation, that it should not insist on Irish when looking for a President. It is important to bear in mind that, in its wisdom, the Oireachtas decided in 1997 and again in 2006 that this should be a decision of the board of the college itself. Bearing in mind its absolute responsibility to promote successfully the Irish language, it was within the board's discretion to make a decision on whether the interests of the college were best served by making this a requirement. In its exercise of the authority the Oireachtas gave it, the college decided it should not apply the rule. It made a selection which gave the college a broad field of competition. As Deputy Ó Cuív has recognised, the college succeeded in selecting someone with very strong Irish and a very strong tradition in the language. Had the college excluded people who, like myself, had Irish and a strong interest in the language but not the opportunity to be fluent at the time the competition was opened, it would have narrowed the field.

It is the college that should make the judgment, not the Dáil, the Members of which are not engaged on a daily basis in executing the policy responsibilities the board is given. The Dáil was right to give the board that responsibility and it made its decision with its eyes open. Many of the members of the board cannot be questioned in their commitment to the Irish language, but they made this decision. Deputy Ó Cuív is asking us to remove that decision-making power from the board that has been charged with this responsibility and to take it back onto ourselves. That is not right. The board of the college must make a decision in the context of its broader responsibilities, which include providing a quality education for the entire region. I am aware of the quality of the education the college delivers because it has been a critical element of the success of enterprise agencies in developing the medical technology sector in the region and the strong IT performance of Galway city and its environs. Many other really strong creative sectors have been delivered on foot of the good educational work of the National University of Ireland, Galway, Ollscoil na Gaillimhe. We have entrusted a board to take on a responsibility and it has executed it well. Had the board chosen a President who did not at the time of his or her appointment have fluent Irish, that would not have reduced by one iota the obligation we have set for the college to promote the Irish language in the very many ways it does. The college has a strategy, scéim na Gaeilge and a special academic unit. It has made a huge commitment to the language and we are asking it to do more in this sphere to help us to deliver our policy for the Gaeltacht. We should continue with the present policy.

I can see the argument articulated by Sinn Féin's Deputy Peader Tóibín. He would like a total immersion university through the medium of Irish. That is not the public policy in place at present. We expect NUIG to meet its responsibility to the Irish language as well as its other responsibilities. While there is an internal consistency in what the Deputy says, I dispute Deputy Ó Cuív's assertion that by opposing his Bill we are reneging on the principle of the immersion policy we are seeking to build for the Gaeltacht. I do not accept that. In the Gaeltacht, we are trying to ensure that native Irish speakers have the language teaching and quality of education that allow them to protect and grow their communities. I was in Ráth Chairn in Deputy Tóibín's constituency today where it was inspirational to see the commitment among the parents, teachers and children to the school they were delivering. That is a different matter from the assertion that we should insist on a total immersion programme for a university with wider responsibilities to the region of which Galway is a part. While that is a debate for another day, I do not consider that it could be easily done. We are struggling enough to deliver what we are doing. We will have to create innovative mechanisms, such as e-hubs, to ensure we get the quality teaching across the range of second-level programmes we need to deliver a genuine Irish language immersion education in secondary schools. It is not possible to go beyond that and hope one will get a broadly based university across the diversity of programmes without being able to tap into wider non-Irish speaking skills that make up a major part of a successful university in today's reality. One needs access to non-Irish staff, never mind what languages they speak.

One needs to have a mix of languages and culture. Indeed, NUIG has been very strong in itself developing the internationalisation of its staff and student base. It would not have been able to do that under the old legislative dispensation. I do not dispute for one moment the commitment of either Deputy Ó Cuív or Deputy Tóibín in this area. Stepping back, however, to look at my own responsibilities and the way we seek to ensure we empower leaders to perform the tasks we set them, it would be wrong for the Oireachtas to rap the knuckles of a board which is very committed to the purpose we have given it, and to delivering that effectively, and say it cannot operate the discretion the legislators who were here in 1997 and 2006 gave them.

It would be a step backwards and would not do something for the greater promotion of the Irish language. It would simply narrow the choice the college would have in selecting its president and would not enhance the policies which the Deputies want it to fulfil in the other spheres.

I cannot support the Deputy's proposal, though I support much of what he said. I agree that many of our Irish teachers are not of the standard we need in order to deliver a spoken language which inspires a love for it in young people and, as Deputy Tóibín said, we need to do much better in this regard. I am committed to doing so and the Gaeltacht policy is a success, with 80% of primary schools and 96% of secondary schools stepping up to the plate and committing to putting in place a plan for their schools to drive forward the language, a bit like at NUIG. That plan will be embedded in schools and we will support them with extra teaching resources, extra training, support with planning and innovative hubs.

I thank the Deputies for putting this forward. It is a worthwhile debate because we need to think through what we want to achieve with our Irish language policy. In my period in this job - however long I have - I want to lift the commitment in the Department and across the whole system to teach a Irish in a way that is more alive and which inspires love and commitment. We are doing that with our reform of the junior cycle and of the primary curriculum, where there is a shift from an emphasis on a memory-based exam to one on projects in which young people can get involved. There will be a focus on the spoken language and there are many worthwhile policies which will, I hope, ensure Irish becomes stronger but I do not think the Deputy's proposal is among such policies so I cannot support it.

See this speech in context