The status of Irish and the Official Languages Act

A chara, - I never cease to be amazed at the narrow focus of those who would have us believe that they are all for Irish - but…

A chara, - I never cease to be amazed at the narrow focus of those who would have us believe that they are all for Irish - but what about the cost? Thankfully we read some very positive reports on the great success of Gaelscoileanna. We read of some 50,000 taking Irish in this year's Leaving Certificate.

We read today (Agenda, June 20th) of some 27,000 (a questionable guesstimate) native speakers in the Gaeltacht - we are even told that it is part of what we are, but there it ends.

We seem unable to make the connection between investment in the learning of Irish and investment in affording people the opportunity to use Irish.

In your editorial (June 20th) you speak of "official and popular neglect - benign and wilful - and official incompetence" as being the reasons for the failure of Irish to flourish.

READ MORE

Yet when the State makes some effort to address this situation it is met with a wall of opposition from the same public bodies with whom you associate this neglect and incompetence.

Your reporter Liam Reid rightly points to Michael D Higgins's efforts to provide Irish language services to the public on a voluntary basis, but to no avail. It was for this reason that the Official Languages Act was necessary.

This Act, which was debated over 16 months, had the support of all the parties in the Dáil and Seanad. Are you really implying that they were not aware of the implications of their actions?

I for one sat through all these debates and I believe from what I heard that our public representatives honestly felt that it was about time the State served the linguistic needs of its entire people, Irish speakers included.

One can readily produce evidence of instances where public money might be better spent. Who in their right mind would produce 20 copies of an annual report no matter what the language?

Annual reports are expensive documents and as your reporter states, the Irish language version adds to that cost. Surely no one believed otherwise? Whether it is necessary to have 55 to 100 glossy pages in full colour is another matter. The main cost of any report is in the preparation.

Weeks, maybe months, are spent on draft after draft, but these costs are never pencilled in as being part of the real cost of the English version and it is in English that this work is done. By putting the blame for costs on the Irish language version, we are going for the soft option.

Translation is now a fact of modern life, regardless of what Aer Lingus thinks. (I suggest Aer Lingus seek the (bilingual) annual reports of KLM or SAS or Air France).

This has come about for various reasons, our membership of the EU being one and a second being the result of a government decision in 1973 ruling out the necessity to recruit staff for the public service who would be competent in Irish.

If entrepreneurial people set up small companies, many of them in the Gaeltacht, offering translation services then this is to be welcomed.

It shows Irish as part of a vibrant community and is in keeping with the EU decision of last week to grant Irish official and working status. The Irish language needs all the support it can get. Surely Meath County Council, for example, does not begrudge the people of Ráth Cairn and Baile Gib and all of their Irish-speaking customers a service in Irish which is already available to their English-speaking customers. This is a right already recognised by our Supreme Court. - Mise le meas,

PÁDRAIG Ó CEITHEARNAIGH Stiúrthóir, Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, Sráid Chill Dara BÁC 2.

A chara, - It is a real pity that the implications of the Official Languages Act 2003 are being portrayed in such a negative fashion across what is one of the most important national newspapers in the country.

Today's coverage (June 20th) underlines a basic misunderstanding of not only the importance of the Act to Irish-language communities and to the future of the language but also of the implications of implementing the Act. The Official Languages Act is a corner-stone for the promotion of the Irish language. The Irish language was afforded status as the first official language in the Constitution and as such the State has a responsibility to support it. According to the latest census figures, over 1.4 million people in this country have an ability in Irish.

This fact, coupled with the Gaelscoil phenomenon and the recent public support for the campaign to have Irish recognised as an official European language, clearly demonstrate continuing strong support for the language. The Official Languages Act is a particularly important piece of supportive legislation and Foras na Gaeilge congratulates An Taoiseach, the Government and particularly the Minister for Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs for its promotion and enactment.

Regarding the cost of implementing the Act, every State agency has a statutory duty to make best use of the resources made available to it, to fulfil its responsibilities in the best interests of the public, the Irish-speaking public included.

The cost of implementing the Act can be significantly reduced by making best use of staff already available in the civil service, by evaluating Irish language competency when recruiting and by making best use of bilingual design techniques when producing forms, reports, etc.

It would appear from today's negative coverage that there is an opinion amongst The Irish Times editorial team that although the Irish language is valuable the State should not afford it any extra protection.

SEOSAMH MAC DONNCHA, CEO, Foras na Gaeilge, Cearnóg Mhuirfean, BAC 2.

A chara, - The Official Languages Act is simply reinforcing a basic right of all in this country to use their national language as is provided in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

The narrow-minded approach by some to reject this because of cost simply vilifies Irish-speakers throughout Ireland. The argument made in your editorial today (June 20th) dealt with the Gaeltacht areas and the issue of cost. The editorial, however, missed the very point of the Act which legislates for the next generation of Irish-speaking citizens.

The majority of these shall live in the cities and towns of Ireland. The recent increase in Gaelscoileanna shows us that there will be an increased demand for practical services through Irish in the future.

If the Gaeltacht areas were lost it would be a shame but if the entire language were to diminish because we were afraid to foot the cost it would surely sound the death-knell for Irish cultural independence. - Is mise,

SEÁN Ó LÓGÁIN, Teach Lorcáin, Co Átha Cliath