Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am speaking specifically to amendments Nos. 5, 6, 16, 37, 39, 58, 59 and 62. The reason I list them at the start is to indicate that I am now bringing forward a further eight amendments on Report Stage in order to strengthen the provision relating to the Irish language in the Bill.

6 o’clock

I am sincere when I say that I enjoyed our Committee Stage discussion, particularly with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. We have made cross-party efforts to strengthen the provision, support and promotion of the Irish language in the Bill. It has been a good example of committee work. If I remember correctly, we may have agreed ten Government amendments and one of Deputy Ó Snodaigh's on this matter on Committee Stage. I am proposing a further eight now. Of all the various changes that have been made to the Bill through the various stages in the Dáil, the most substantial number by a long way have related to the Irish language.

I am tabling eight amendments in this group to strengthen further the Irish language provision in the Bill. These were all requested by Conradh na Gaeilge or agreed with the director of Irish in the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. To correct myself immediately, I actually made 12 amendments to strengthen the Irish language on Committee Stage, bringing to 20 the number of amendments that we have proposed on Committee and Report Stages.

The amendments in this group are to include up-to-date definitions and references relating to the Gaeltacht Act 2012, among other matters. I will address some of their details, starting with amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 16. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are proposed to be included in section 2, which is the interpretation part of the Bill. These are definitions to clarify the meaning of phrases and to provide that, where the phrases are used in the other amendments, the reference to Part 2 of the Gaeltacht Act 2012 does not have to be included. Amendment No. 16 to section 9, which relates to the functions of the Higher Education Authority, HEA, is at the suggestion of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media and provides a more up-to-date reference to the 2012 Act.

My amendments Nos. 37 and 39 are to include new provisions to strengthen requirements relating to the promotion of the Irish language in the planning for provision of higher education. If I remember correctly, we discussed on Committee Stage whether we could be more explicit about or beef up the role of promoting the Irish language when planning for the provision of higher education.

Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 62 amend two sections, namely, section 43 on the engagement with students and section 44, which is the national student engagement piece. These amendments specifically reference as a priority group representatives of students who are competent to speak the Irish language, which was sought on Committee Stage.

I do not do it to be negative towards the other amendments, but it would be useful for me to go through them and explain my rationale for proposing my eight amendments and not proposing to accept more. Amendments Nos. 2 and 29 relate to our debate on whether we should use the Irish or English phrase when referring to the law. I am satisfied and of the view that "An tÚdarás" is defined clearly in the Bill and that the Higher Education Authority is generally known as the HEA. I understand the Deputy's point, but I am satisfied with the naming of the Bill.

The reason I am not proposing to accept amendment No. 13 is not out of a policy difference, but because we made similar amendments on Committee Stage that achieved the same aim. Section 8(1)(b) already reads: "to support designated institutions of higher education in contributing to social, economic, cultural and environmental development and sustainability ... such support shall include the promotion and use by those institutions of the Irish language". We may have achieved what Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Conway-Walsh are seeking through amendment No. 13. I am satisfied that we addressed this matter together on Committee Stage.

Amendment No. 22 proposes the inclusion of a specific provision on gathering statistical information on the funding for, and numbers engaged in, study and research through the medium of Irish. I looked into this matter because I see what the Deputy is trying to do. Section 9(1)(u) provides an ability to do this because it relates to a general function to "collect statistical information and maintain an evidence base in order to provide high-quality evidence-based policy advice". Therefore, there is no requirement for the amendment.

Amendment No. 28 proposes a review after four years to examine the representation of the Irish-speaking community among the ministerial appointments on the board. This review would be published. We had an interesting debate on this matter on Committee Stage, but I am concerned about the setting of particular quotas of members of the HEA board who must be proficient in the Irish language. I outlined my rationale. The HEA is a competency-based board and there are a range of competencies on it. I have moved to ensure that those competencies include the promotion and use of the Irish language. This is something that has come through our discussions. When the Minister of the day is selecting members of the HEA board, the competency regarding the promotion and use of the Irish language is a qualifying and sought after competency.

I am not accepting amendment No. 35 because I have addressed its point in amendments Nos. 37 and 39.

Amendment No. 40 is too specific. I am of a similar view as regards amendment No. 130 on the strategic development plan of the National College of Art and Design, in that it may be overly specific and unnecessary.

My proposed amendments in this grouping address much of what Deputy Ó Snodaigh has raised. When read with the changes that we made on Committee Stage, we have done a good job together on strengthening the Irish language provision and promotion in the Bill.

See this speech in context