Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 14 December 2004
39 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he made comments in July 2003 to a newspaper (details supplied) that there would be a dividend of almost 2,000 posts for the Irish language community as a result of the enactment of the Official Languages Act 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33313/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI refer the Deputy to Questions Nos. 188 and 189 of 25 November 2004 in which I outlined that full implementation of the Official Languages Act would require us to draw on the language competences of significant numbers of people across both the public and private sectors. I reiterate that I did not at any time indicate that an additional 2,000 jobs would be created in the public sector as a consequence of the legislation. The service has a staff complement of approximately 280,121 people. Within this, a complement of 2,000 people with a competence in Irish would represent less than 1% of the public service. It may be anticipated that further employment would be created in training, translating etc. outside the public service.
Does the Minister agree that the prediction of the creation of almost 2,000 jobs for the Irish language community arising from the enactment of the Official Languages Act 2003 amounts to little? The Minister gave an exclusive interview to an Irish language daily newspaper printed in Belfast and read by the Irish language community. In the course of that interview he knowingly presented a false and grossly inflated prediction of the jobs to be created for the Irish language community, thereby strengthening support for the Official Languages Act in that community. He considered he was quite safe to make this outlandish prediction as no one outside the Irish language community would be aware of it and he would not be called to account for it.
I seriously and vigorously dispute what the Deputy said on a number of grounds. The interview was given in July 2003 after the legislation had been passed. I do not understand how I can be accused of garnering support for legislation which had already been enacted. I was asked a reasonable question to which I gave a reasonable answer. A total of 280,000 public servants work in the State. The Official Languages Act must mean something. Either it will bring about an improved service or it will not. It appears reasonable to me to predict that 2,000 people with a competence in Irish will be required to provide services following the enactment of the Official Languages Act. As I said, that would amount to only 1% of the public service which would be required to provide an Irish language service across the service.
I made the point in the interview that those people with bilingual ability would have an advantage when it would come to such jobs. Why should they not? Doctors have an advantage when it comes to jobs in medicine and lawyers have an advantage when it comes to jobs in law. Why would somebody who is bilingual not have an advantage in this respect, just as those who are trilingual have the edge when it comes to jobs in the European Union? Nobody complains about that. They say that is reasonable because, as we live in a multilingual society, one would need to have three languages to get a job there. Somebody like me who only speaks Irish and English would not be able to get a job in the European Union. The same principle applies here.
That is not the way the interview reads. The Minister stated in the interview that 1,000 jobs would be created within the Gaeltachtaí and almost the same number outside it. That statement was clear and unequivocal. The article was headed: "Ó Cuív's dividend: language Act to create 2,000 jobs." Either that is correct or it is incorrect. Is the Minister prepared to refute that statement which he allegedly gave to Lá?
I do not and cannot write newspaper headlines and cannot therefore take responsibility for them. What I said to Lá and am clear on is exactly what I said to the Deputy. Jobs in the public service that did not previously have a bilingual requirement will have one. A number of those will be in Gaeltacht areas. That is a fact.
Are there to be 1,000 jobs in Gaeltacht areas?
The newspaper got that mixed up. It is easy to explain the 1,000 jobs in the Gaeltacht. All Members have done interviews. I am quoted and misquoted in newspapers every day. In the past week it was alleged that I said things about rights of way that I never said. The reference to 1,000 jobs was a separate issue. I stick by what I said which was that Údarás na Gaeltachta could create 1,000 language-based jobs in the Gaeltacht that have nothing to do with the Official Languages Act. They are two separate issues. Such jobs would be in the areas of cultural tourism, translation which would relate to the Official Languages Act, third level education and so on. We had broken it down in rough form in the various earnálacha. That reference to 1,000 jobs did not relate to the Official Languages Act. That was the newspaper's mistake.
As Members are aware, when one does an interview like that, there is always a certain press aim and, at times, misunderstandings. The two issues were separate. That is the case. I hope that clarifies the issue for the Deputy.
I find it difficult to follow the Minister's logic. He is quoted in the article as saying a dividend of almost 2,000 jobs for the Irish language community would be one of the main results that would come from the enactment of the Official Languages Act. Does the Minister now refute that statement? Why has he made no attempt in the intervening year and a half to set the record straight?
I do not correct inaccuracies in every newspaper article because if I did, I would be writing to newspapers virtually every day. I sometimes do and sometimes do not. It depends on a number of circumstances.
I do not believe there will be 2,000 extra jobs in the public service but I believe that extra jobs will be created. If one wishes, one can put a figure of 2,000 on it. That is a reasonable figure which is about 1% of the public service. More people in the public service will be required to be bilingual than is the case at present if the Act is to have any effect. In other words, it would be reasonable that an extra 1% of the public service would need to be bilingual. One must distinguish an extra 2,000 jobs in the public service and an extra 2,000 jobs where there would be a requirement for bilingualism, which is what I said to Lá.
The third issue is separate. I spoke to Lá about this but it obviously got mixed up. I predicted and continue to predict that if Údarás na Gaeltachta pursues a policy of maximising the employment possible from language in the Gaeltachtaí, 1,000 jobs could be created, separate from but including the Official Languages Act, from many sources, including cultural tourism, third level education etc. It would be similar to setting a target to create 400 or 500 jobs in fish farming or any other industry. It is a reasonable target to set ourselves as it is quite achievable.
That is rubbish.
