Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 27 April 2004
97 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention as been drawn to concerns expressed by some heads of State agencies at a recent meeting of the chief executives of public bodies regarding the implementation of the Official Languages Act 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12068/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe meeting concerned consisted of a presentation by an official of my Department followed by a question and answer session. This is one of a series of presentations being made by officials of my Department to public bodies on the provisions of the Official Languages Act. I understand that participants at the meeting sought clarification on a number of factual issues in relation to the legislation, the timescale envisaged for its implementation and the supports available to them as public bodies from my Department and elsewhere in this process. I also understand that the Association of Chief Executives of State Agencies regrets that such a negative report of the briefing was carried in the press. In its view, the briefing was most informative in helping its members understand the requirements of the new legislation for their agencies.
While, as one would expect, questions were indeed raised about possible resource issues, I am told that the overall sense of the meeting was one of welcome by the chief executives for the measured, flexible and practical approach being taken by the Department to the implementation of the Act. I understand that the tone of the meeting was positive and it addressed on a down-to-earth and business-like basis practical arrangements and ideas for improving the delivery of our public services through Irish.
Does the Minister believe it is desirable that the chief executives of State agencies are not prepared to make public statements on the implementation of this Act on two bases as reported, first, that they are reluctant to criticise what they term the sacred cow and, second, they believe the Minister is not to be reasoned with? What initiative is the Minister prepared to take to make the chief executives come forward, without fear or favour, and say what they really think, and not have reports appearing in the press from people who are afraid to disclose their identity?
The answer to the Deputy's question is "No". A number of issues arise in this regard. My Department and I are simply implementing an Act of the Oireachtas passed by this House without division. The fundamentals involved here are not to do with me as a person but something on which the Oireachtas clearly decided.
The second issue is that if a chief executive believes he cannot raise issues in respect of this Act because he believes somebody else thinks it is a sacred cow, that is the chief executive's problem. I would say to that chief executive, "Why don't you try?". One chief executive wrote to me and I have written a very reasoned reply, but aside from that I do not believe, off the top of my head, that any other chief executive has written to me. Issues were raised, and these have been dealt with reasonably.
The officials of my Department, who have consistently met the public bodies explaining the issues involved and discussing the draft regulations, are very reasonable people who listen and take on board reasonable issues raised.
As regards myself, my door is always open. I am willing to engage but I can only do so within the confines of the legislation passed by this House. It is surprising that during the long debate that took place in the Oireachtas and over five years of public consultation, with all the accusations made against us to the effect that we were delaying matters, a chief executive did not make some representations during that entire process on the Official Languages Act.
There is a basic point in all this. There is something wrong when chief executives of State agencies who have concerns are only prepared to articulate those concerns under the protection of anonymity. We were all here when the Act was passed. However, there is a strong perception that the Minister tends to be unreasonable when it comes to criticising the sacred cow. Another chief executive made the point that, regarding resources and time, if everything produced must be translated, the result will be that one has less information coming from those bodies. With some of the smaller ones, that could be a real problem. Before it becomes such, the Minister should address the matter and find a way of assuring the smaller agencies that they will not be curtailed or limited in the amount of information that they wish to provide because they must produce translations.
I must accept that there was such a chief executive. It appears we are talking about one person out of 600 bodies, which means, by logical extension, that 599 are happy. That is not a bad majority. However, if the person has a difficulty, he or she should stand up and come forward to see if I am reasonable.
No one in this House could argue but that I was willing, sometimes perhaps to the point of boring Deputies, to go through points again and again on the various stages of the Bill as it was passing through the House. We also made a large number of amendments, and much of the early criticism to which I was subjected by the Opposition was that the Bill did not go far enough and that I was being too reasonable and not doing enough. I remember a great many amendments being tabled asking me to go much further. I had to explain patiently why that was not possible in practical terms. Regarding the resources of small bodies, I do not believe they have or will have a problem. The problem relates to mind set more than anything else. In most countries this would be considered the norm.
Second, as someone who worked in a small voluntary body which, because it was a Gaeltacht co-operative, inevitably had to do everything bilingually, I am more than aware of the realities. We had to produce everything bilingually. As the Deputy knows, the Act provides only for major policy documents and the annual report to be translated. Most bodies have already moved to the stage — and this has not yet been implemented — of producing their annual reports bilingually. Údarás na Gaeltachta has always had to do that. It has never received extra resources for doing such things, and I cannot understand, if it has been practical for a great many bodies to do that for the past 20 years, why it becomes absolutely impossible for some of the major agencies to do the minimum required to ensure that the status of Irish as the first official language is more than a token gesture and that we recognise that there are two official languages here. Those who use Irish are entitled to basic services through that language. As I said, the reality appears to be that one chief executive has raised an issue.
At least two are quoted in the article.
Two out of 600 is still good.
Those were the ones prepared to speak when they were guaranteed that their contributions would be confidential.
These are chief executives of State bodies. As such, they should show more respect for the office of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and for the Oireachtas. If they have a problem they wish to raise, the least that they could do is come forward through the normal channels. Each has a line, since every State body is responsible to some Department. If they feel they cannot come to me, surely they can go to their own Ministers and raise the issue with them. This is a cop-out on the part of certain chief executives who are too lazy to do the minimum to ensure that the rights of Irish speakers are preserved. If they have any guts, they would come out and say who they are and identify their problems, and I will deal with them reasonably.
