Robinson is moving the DUP towards becoming a moderate party

Following my last announcement that I would be resting from blogging for a while, a story by the BBC has just caught my eye.  Now it goes without saying that I can not resist reading the political rune sticks.

It is reported that Peter Robinson is now committing his party to the integration of Northern Ireland schools with a particular proposal to cut off the funding of schools which are run by Churches.  The idea that this will be extremely difficult to achieve in practice, particularly with EU Law as it stands and the fact that the Catholic Church will fight to oppose the proposal is not the main point.  The point is that the DUP is now championing anti-segregation.

Segregation by reason of religion, in schools, has been identified as one of the pillars which re-enforces social and political sectarianism.  Peter Robinson’s party depends upon the sectarian system for its existence.  That makes it all the more refreshing that Peter Robinson has made this statement.

Two months ago, Robinson unveiled his party’s own proposals to tackle sectarian violence.  At the time that the announcement was made, I suspected that the proposal was carried by the DUP as part of the price for the Alliance Party accepting the nomination for the Justice Ministry.

Two weeks ago, on the Politics Show, Peter Robinson indicated (for the first time I heard him say it) that the DUP was “unionist centre-right.”

I sense that all of these events are connected to a DUP medium term strategy to move its party away from Protestantism to a position where it conducts its politics solely on the left-right political spectrum.

I dare say that some of those reading this post will find the idea of the DUP becoming a moderate party rather difficult to swallow.  I don’t.  It is entirely logical and consistent with a will to survive long term.  By moving itself further into moderate terrain, the DUP is positioning itself to consume as much UUP support as possible.  At some point in the future, it will reach the same line that currently cuts between the liberal and traditional wing of the UUP.

With the destruction of the UUP now imminent, that line is becoming an increasingly wide river.  The DUP will find it very hard to cross with its current generation of politicians.  It now seems likely that this line will soon become a new front line for political dogfights with a Conservative Party, boosted in size by disaffected ex-UUP supporters.

If that scenario represents the near future of Unionist politics, it is not necessarily a good thing for the Conservative Party.  Just because they will be somewhat larger, it will not necessarily mean that they will be electorally successful.  They will need the support of Nationalist Conservatives just to be able to compete for the ultimate prize of becoming the pan-Northern Ireland centre-right party. 

This is a medium and long term war which the Conservative Party must aim to win.  If they do not build the party quickly enough, they will lose it.    Unfortunately, when it comes to political strategics in relation to Northern Ireland, the party has been found wanting because heart still gets the better of head.   At some point in the future, the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland will ‘cotton on’ to the fact that it too will have to change and become something that the DUP never can be, in order to survive.   I just hope that when that does happen, it wont be too late.

the debate on the proposed Irish Language Act – comments

 Part I    Part II   Part III   Part IV  Part V

At last, I have finished researching and writing on this topic.  The last blog is bigger than all the previous four put together. 

This is already a substantial political issue in Northern Ireland.  It is set to become get much bigger.   It is also a complex one, as you will find out when you have finished reading.

You may be interested to know that I ended up being surprised by the conclusion that I reached.

If you manage to stay awake and finally digest what I have written, I would be delighted to receive your comments.  I have disallowed comments on post V.  Please place your comments on that post or any of the previous four here.

Finally, I have now put together the 5 posts into one document and edited it to make  it into a single document.  It also includes pagination, an index and a table of contents.  It has been made into a PDF document.  I can not make a pdf available for download.  If you would like a copy, please send an email to me at smajor at seymourmajor dot com and put in the subject line “Irish Language debate”

The debate on the proposed Irish Language Act – part V

Part I    Part II   Part III   Part IV  

In my four previous posts, I have set out the history of the Irish Language and the status quo today in terms of speaking, learning and heritage.  Since the previous post, I have received updated information.  I would like to thank very much those of you who have supplied me with that information.

I said in my previous post that the last Northern Irish speaker of Irish died in 1983.  He was actually the last recorded adult monoglott Irish speaker.  I have since been told that there was a later Northern Irish monoglott Irish speaker who died in 1986. I also omitted to mention two communities in Belfast in the Shaw’s Road and the Falls Road which have set up mini-Gaeltacht areas.  It is also worth acknowledging that there are now a number of Irish medium schools.  All the indications are that the learning of the Irish Language is on the increase.   

The proposed Irish Language Act is not a straight forward debate.  The arguments both for and against include issues relating to Culture, Identity, Legal, Constitutional, educational, promotional, sectarian and financial.  One could also subdivide the arguments under those headings.  I have weighed all of those arguments very carefully in accordance with the following guiding principles.  

Guiding principles  

The overriding principle upon which I approach the issues and find a solution to them is that Northern Ireland’s best interests are paramount. I appreciate that not everybody will necessarily have the same view about what Northern Ireland’s best interests should be.  

My view of Northern Ireland’s best interest in relation to the Irish Language is guided by two main principles.   

The first is that that we need to bring sectarianism to an end and thereby move Northern Ireland towards harmony.  Conversely, we must not do anything which would lead to or aggravate sectarian division.   

The second principle is that primacy should be given to the the Belfast Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement.  The importance of these two agreements can never be understated.  Together, they are the negotiated blueprint for long term peace and an acceptable political constitution.  If there is to be any departure from any strand of those two agreements, there have to be extremely compelling reasons for doing so.  I have also decided that if there is a conflict between the first and the second principle, the first principle should take precedence over the second.  

Behind those principles, there is a vision.  The Irish Language is clearly a part of Northern Ireland’s cultural and historical heritage.  Provided that a way forward can be found for the Irish Language which is acceptable to both communities, it has the potential to develop into a symbol of a unified Northern Ireland identity.   

The St. Andrews Agreement  

The St. Andrews agreement is the appropriate starting point, since it does seem to be the main reason for the debate.    

I have already set out the relevant provisions in the Belfast Agreement which relate to the promotion of the Language.  The St. Andrews Agreement was, at the very least, an agreement to give legislative effect to the Belfast Agreement.  It may even have been more than that.    

It is worth repeating the relevant wording of the St. Andrews agreement.   

“The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language.”  

Has the Government delivered on this part of the Agreement with the introduction of the new section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act?  Once again, it is worth repeating section 28D   

“(1) The Executive Committee shall adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language. 

(2) The Executive Committee shall adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to enhance and develop the Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture.   

(3) The Executive Committee— 

(a) must keep under review each of the strategies; and

(b) may from time to time adopt a new strategy or revise a strategy.”  

Diane Dodds of the DUP has made references to a proposed Irish Language Act in very hostile terms.  In reference to the SDLP draft bill, she said at the beginning of February 2009, “We’ve binned the Irish Language Act.”  Very recently, she said this of Sinn Fein 

“Remember their promised Irish Language Act? The Direct Rule regime was prepared to grant it. Indeed they were out to public consultation on the issue and were poised to impose a rigid Irish language regime upon us.”

Enacting section 28D after the conclusion of St. Andrews would have been a very odd thing to do if there was to be a another piece of legislation to follow.  This suggests that something stronger than section 28D was in the offing.  Diane Dodd’s remarks are very near to confirmation that section 28D was a watered down compromise which appeared after the DUP rejected the original proposals.  

Assuming that stronger legislation for the Irish Language had been offered by the Government, what was it likely to have been?   

The St.Andrew’s agreement says “reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland.”  It is worth providing a summary of those experiences.  

The Irish language and the Republic of Ireland Constitutional experience  

When the Irish Free State began in 1922, the Irish constitution made Irish and English equal official languages.  In 1938, Irish became the first official language.  Notwithstanding this status, there are still restrictions on the use of Irish in the Courts and Tribunals.  The reason for this is that the right to natural justice is a higher constitutional principle.  

The principle of natural justice is now underpinned by the European convention on Human Rights.  In particular, Article 6(1) provides the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.  Article 6(3) provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.   

A litigant (party to proceedings) is entitled to use his native language or the Irish Language (if not his native language) when presenting his side of the case to a Court or Tribunal but may not require another party to do so.  A party is not entitled to demand that the entire proceedings are in Irish.  A judge may have the benefit of an interpreter (including an Irish interpreter) to assist with his understanding of the evidence.  Advocacy, questioning and cross-examination may be carried out in Irish.  A defendant in a criminal trial can not insist that a jury has an understanding in Irish.   

No party to any proceedings can insist on a legal notice being translated unless this would lead to a breach of natural justice. Either official language can be used for a notice unless there is a separate statutory provision to the contrary.  Section 8 of the Official Languages Act 2003 entitles a Defendant to demand a summons or pleading in either official language.  A person can chose to give evidence in either official language.   

Article 25.4.4 of the Irish Constitution provides that all Acts of the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) have to be translated into Irish but this does not apply to secondary legislation, which would include Court rules.  Case Law has determined that the State is obliged to translate Rules of the Superior Courts into Irish within a reasonable period after their adoption.  The same also applied to the District Court Rules.   

The Status of Irish as a first (rather than an equal) language has some legal implications.  It has also been held that Article 8 obliged the State to provide an Irish translation of official documentation where a person wishes to conduct business in Irish. Forms for use in the Companies Registry have to have an Irish translation.  However, a statute requiring road vehicle registration plates to have English was held not unconstitutional when a defendant was convicted for having Irish-only plates.  

It is undecided whether the State is obliged to translate all official documents for any transaction whether a person requires it or not.  There is no legislation which provides that there should be exclusive use of Irish or English for any official purpose of the State.    

Article 8 also hits the education sector.  A Minister may refuse to fund primary schools without the adequate teaching of Irish.  The provision of Irish is a necessary element of State funded education.   

It seems that having Irish as a first language in a Country which is predominantly English-speaking has put a legal strain on official business functionality.  In 1996, the Report of the Constitutional Review Group rejected the primacy given to Irish by Article 8 as “unrealistic, given that English is the language currently spoken as their vernacular by 98% of the population of the State.”   

The Group recommended that English and Irish are the two official languages but also recommended a protection provision for Irish that “the State shall take special care to nurture the language and increase its use.”  The recommendation has been ignored and there seems to be no national desire to change the position.   

Wales and the Welsh Language  

Before the Romans came to Britain and possibly until the invasion (of what later became England) by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, nearly all of Britain spoke in one of the Brythonic Celtic languages.  Wales was only partially occupied by the Romans and never by the Anglo-Saxons.  For these reasons, Wales has retained its ancient language (albeit evolved from what it was) to this day.   

In 1282, King Edward I of England completed the conquest of Wales.  From that point onwards, Wales became a part of the English Kingdom.  There was no separate legal system in Wales until devolution in 1998.  The de facto official language of state was whatever went on in England.  Originally, the official language was Norman French until that language became obsolete by the reign of King Henry V.  In the reign of Henry VIII, by section XX of the Laws of Wales Act 1535, only English could be spoken in the Welsh Courts despite the fact that hardly anybody in Wales spoke English.  

The Welsh language never became extinct. It had been heading in that direction.  21% of the Welsh population speak the Welsh language today.   

Statutory recognition for the Welsh language began in 1942 with the Welsh Courts Act.  This gave the right to use Welsh in courts providing that the Welsh speaker was under a disadvantage in having to speak English. This right was very narrowly defined by subsequent case law and with the declining monoglott Welsh population was heading for obsolescence. The Welsh Language Act 1967 overturned these decisions.  It made clear the right of any party or witness to use Welsh.  It also gave rise to the concept of ‘equal validity’ between the Welsh and English languages except that in a case of conflict between Welsh and English text, English prevailed.   

The Welsh Language Act 1993  sets up a language board answerable to the Welsh Secretary of State (now devolved to the Welsh Executive).  The Wales Act 1998 gave power to do anything the Welsh want to do to support the Welsh Language.  It has been compulsory to learn Welsh in schools since 2000.   There is not an “equal” status as an official language in the Welsh Assembly or Welsh Parliamentary proceedings.   

Many of the Welsh are very passionate about their language and its relationship to their identity.  It was interesting to see how one Newspaper reporter/blogger suffered the wrath of the language defenders when he suggested scrapping the 1993 Act and was accused of “bigotry” by many commenters.   

There is a campaign for a new Welsh Language Act to make Welsh an equal language completely.  It has now been running for about four years.  As the implications of the proposals sink in, resistance from businesses is on the increase as cost implications to private businesses are carry weight in the arguments.  It is not clear how many in Wales would support a new language act.  

Northern Ireland’s state of readiness for Irish in the Courts and as an official language  

Although Wales and the Republic of Ireland allow a person to use the Irish or Welsh language in Court proceedings, it is very unlikely that the version of the Irish Language Act contemplated by the UK Government would have included an immediate right to use Irish in a Court in Northern Ireland court because of the practical difficulties.   

Before such a right could be implemented, there would need to be a training programme so that a sufficient number of lawyers and judges would achieve a high level of fluency in the language.  I emphasize “high level” here because anything short of that could lead to a miscarriage of justice, even with an interpreter.  When I say “sufficient number” I mean I high percentage as there are in Wales and the Republic of Ireland.    

Since it is not possible to force existing Northern Irish lawyers to learn Irish, let alone expect them to do so quickly, there would need a long-term plan to bring Irish into legal education and training.  Should we decide that we want Irish in the Northern Ireland Courts in the future, there would need to be an announcement made that a qualification in Irish will be compulsory for entry into the Legal Profession in (say) 10 years from now so that school students contemplating a legal career can chose to do GCSE and ‘A’ level Irish or equivalent in anticipation of that.  At some point in the future (perhaps 25 years time), this would yield enough fluent-speaking lawyers of sufficient experience to facilitate the right to be heard in Irish. 

Although it is possible to have a right to be heard in another language in the courts without that language being an official language, it is not possible to have an official language without an individual being able to use that language in the Courts as of right.  The case law in the Republic of Ireland makes that clear. It would also have been strange if the UK Government’s proposed Irish Language Act would “leapfrog” the Welsh to make Irish an equal language in Northern Ireland.   

Given all the circumstances, I can not see that the Government would have proposed to introduce an Irish Language Act similar to the Irish or Welsh one.  What then is the likely view taken by the Government for an Irish Language based upon the Irish and Welsh experience?   

Fortunately, we have a very big clue.  Just over a year before the St. Andrews Agreement was reached, the Scottish Parliament passed its first Language Act.  

Scotland and the Scots Gaelic Language    

Scotland is historically different to Ireland and Wales in the sense that it was never completely ruled by the Normans or the English.  There would have been a time when Scots Gaelic was the official language under the ancient Scottish Kings such as Kenneth McAlpin.    

Influences such as the Church and the close connection between Scots and Norman nobility led to English becoming the official Scottish language long before King James VI of Scotland ascended the throne of England in 1603 (see e.g. the Royal Mines Act 1424).   

Scots Gaelic is one of the daughter languages of Old Irish. There are reportedly no Monoglott speakers left except in the remote Outer Hebrides.  Like all other Celtic Languages, it was declining.  As with other Celtic languages including Welsh, Cornish, Irish and Manx, there is a revivalist movement.    

Until recently, there was no legislation in relation to Scots Gaelic. Following devolution in 1998, the Scottish Parliament passed the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act  in 2005.   

The 2005 Act establishes a National Gaelic language board which 

(a)   has functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language

(b)   is required to prepare a national Gaelic language plan

(c)   requires certain public authorities to prepare and publish Gaelic language plans in connection with the exercise of their functions and to maintain and implement such plans

(d)   issues guidance in relation to Gaelic education.   

I have no doubt that the Scots looked at the Welsh and Irish position before bringing in the legislation.  They recognised the practical difficulties of a fully-blown language Act as in the Republic of Ireland but the Act also contemplates a constitutional upgrading of the Language once there are a sufficient number of speakers.   

The other interesting observation about the Scottish legislation is that it was so substantially contemporaneous in time with the St. Andrews Agreement.  I have little doubt that if there was going to be an Irish Language Act at the time of St. Andrews, it would have been modelled on the Scottish legislation.   

Similarities and Differences between the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act and section 28D   

The first similarity that jumps out of the page is that in the Scottish case, a plan is required to be prepared.  In the Northern Irish Case, a strategy is required.  It is also fair to say that the existing structure in Northern Ireland has the capability (in theory) to deliver as much promotion for the Irish Language as the 2005 Act does for Scots Gaelic.    

There are, however, differences which in my opinion make the dynamics of promotion very different.  In the Scottish Case, a board has been set up to deal with the planning.  It also includes public authorities.  In Northern Ireland, it is the function of the Executive to make the Strategy.  That is about as detailed as it gets.  The big weakness of section 28 is that there is a de facto veto on progress because of its vagueness.  For example the strategy might be no more than making Irish available for all Adults to learn at all of Northern Ireland’s Further Education colleges.  That would be an almost useless initiative because most of the FE Colleges provide that facility already.   

With an Assembly in charge of promotion, you are putting politicians in charge and you are more likely to have conflict.  There is also something particularly attractive about having a board.  They are more likely to have specialist expertise than the executive or an executive committee.   

We await the emergence of a strategy.  The right noises have so far been made on the website of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure but note the last sentence   

“A Strategy for Indigenous or Regional Minority Languages will be presented to the Executive in due course”   

I am therefore going to make my first provisional declaration of opinion here.  It is that if an Irish Language Act is justified, then the part of it which deals with promotion of the Irish Language should be modelled upon the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 and that section 28D is inadequate.   

At this point in this post, I have not expressed a view about the aspirational part of the Scottish Act.  It still remains a question as to whether there should be expressed in a new language act a desire for equal status for the language in the future and/or a future desire to have Irish in the Courts.  Although it will take a long time before equal status of the language can be achieved, some sort of way forward needs to be found for long term aspiration, since this will affect the shorter term decisions on strategy and planning.   

There are still other arguments to address.  Before I get on to these, we need to consider whether promotion of the Irish Language is everything we need to do to honour the Belfast and St. Andrews agreements or should there be more?  In the investigation of that, we look at the arguments in favour of making Irish an official language.  These include promotion, constitutional rights and identity.   

Is there any relationship between promotion of the Language and giving the Irish Language any degree of official status?   

The learning of Irish has been growing in Northern Ireland in the last generation without any form of constitutional recognition.  In a sense, some constitutional recognition has already been given by section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act with possibly more effective provisions on promotion to come.  The question I am really asking is “does promotion of the Language require any form of status as an official language or the right to a trial in Irish to promote it?”    

Just from a common sense point of view, it is difficult to see how officiation of the Language would not promote it in some way given the number of employees and lawyers who would be required to have involvement with the language.   

Sir David Crystal O.B.E. who was born in Northern Ireland is a part time lecturer in linguistics at Bangor University (North Wales).  In his book “Language Death” (2000: Cambridge University Press) he postulates that an endangered language will progress if its speakers:

1. increase their prestige within the dominant community
2. increase their wealth
3. increase their legitimate power in the eyes of the dominant community
4. have a strong presence in the education system
5. can write down the language
6. can make use of electronic technology

Item 1 (increasing prestige) suggests that the Language might benefit by giving it official status.  I hasten to add here that I have not obtained a copy of the book.  The above list is an internet summary.  I leave that potential point “in the air” without conclusion as it would need the input expert opinion.  

Constitutional Rights and Identity

In my last post, I referred to the part of the Belfast Agreement which links cultural rights to Equality.  It is worth setting out once again, Article 1(d) under the heading of the Belfast Agreement “Constitutional Issues”. This reads as follows:   

 “1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British–Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo–Irish Agreement, they will:  ….

……..(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities; …..”

I now come to a question which is at the heart of this debate.  Where exactly does the Irish language sit in terms of identity?   

Note particularly the words “both communities.”  Those words are a very clear reference to Catholic and Protestant.  Article 1(d) represents the so-called “Equality” argument.  If the Identity of the Irish Language belongs purely to the Catholic Community, then the argument is straight forward.  It would mean that in applying Article 1(v), the UK Government is obliged, within the spirit and meaning of the Belfast Agreement, to impose a long-term aspiration to give Irish equal status in an Irish Language Act.   

Some people would indeed argue that the language is only for Catholics.  They could point to statistics which indicate a ratio of about 15: 1 people who are Catholics who have learned and/or are speaking the Irish Language. 

With the greatest respect to the proponents of that argument, justifying equal status through Article 1(v) is a sectarian argument.  For one thing, Irish speaking is still a pastime of a minority of Catholics. It is also a fact that a significant number of Protestants have either learned it or want to learn it.  Furthermore, the educational system does not yet provide a fair enough opportunity for Protestant children to learn the Irish language.  

There is a further argument on interpretation which is against the notion that the Irish Language is purely a Catholic identity.  In the section of the Belfast agreement which deals with promotion of the language under the heading “Economic social and cultural issues” (see below), there is a reference to “the Irish Language Community.”  That is not a community defined on sectarian lines.   

I maintain that there is an opportunity for the Irish Language to be adopted as a cross-community identity going forward. Accordingly, I reject Article 1(v) as justification for equal status of the Irish Language.  I hasten to add that this does not mean that Irish should be shut out forever on the question of equality of status.  My view is that if there is going to be a decision about equal status in the future, it must flow from a united cross-community desire to incorporate the language as a part of an evolving Northern Irish identity.    

I accept that this strand of the issue has the potential to become a “chicken and egg” dispute.  In other words by leaving out the aspiration, there would never be a chance of equal status for the Irish Language because there is no planning leading towards it.  My answer to that problem is in two parts.  

Firstly, for this plan to work, the Protestant community needs time and space in order that enough people from that community are ready to take an informed view on the long term official status of Irish.  It needs time for enough people from that community to have the opportunity to learn the language and to develop enthusiasm for it.  It needs space for those people to fully appreciate the Irish Language heritage without politicians making people think that it is in their interests to resist it.   

Secondly, the inspiration for planning for the development of the language and a new Irish Language Act can still be consistent with future equal status if a correct form of wording is used in the statement in the pre-amble in an Irish Language Act.  It would be a form of words which makes it clear that the door is not shut on a future decision to make the Irish Language official but still leaving the decision on whether that should become policy to the future. 

Effectively it is saying that Northern Ireland should be brought to a position where it will be better informed to make a more positive decision on the official status of the language in the future.  I have provided here an example of how the wording of a pre-amble might be written.  The Scottish 2005 Act pre-amble says this:

“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language”

An Irish Language Act pre-amble for Northern Ireland might read like this:  

“An Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to promoting the Irish Language such that in the future, an informed decision can be taken as to whether it should become a National objective of the Northern Ireland people to elevate the status of the Irish language to become an official language of Northern Ireland commanding equal respect to the English language”  

Nobody knows for sure what the attitude towards the Irish Language will be in the future.  What is important is that both communities go forward on this journey together and reach decisions which are in the best interests of the whole of Northern Ireland.  

Having set out my proposal on aspiration, this has to be balanced with a promotion and education package which is strong enough to take Northern Ireland to the desired future mature position.  

Education and Further Legislative provisions for the promotion of the Language?

Article 4 of the part of the Belfast agreement under the heading “Economic social and Cultural Issues,” states as follows   

4. In the context of active consideration currently being given to the UK signing the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the British Government will in particular in relation to the Irish language, where appropriate and where people so desire it:

• take resolute action to promote the language;
• facilitate and encourage the use of the language in speech and writing in public and private life where there is appropriate demand;
• seek to remove, where possible, restrictions which would discourage or work against the maintenance or development of the language;
• make provision for liaising with the Irish language community, representing their views to public authorities and investigating complaints;
• place a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate Irish medium education in line with current provision for integrated education;
• explore urgently with the relevant British authorities, and in co-operation with the Irish broadcasting authorities, the scope for achieving more widespread availability of Teilifís na Gaeilige in Northern Ireland;
• seek more effective ways to encourage and provide financial support for Irish language film and television production in Northern Ireland; and
• encourage the parties to secure agreement that this commitment will be sustained by a new Assembly in a way which takes account of the desires and sensitivities of the community.

These guidelines should always be part of any checklist when planning a strategy for the promotion of the Irish Language.  Is there anything in that list which is likely to lose out without being incorporated into a New Irish Language Act?   

There may well be.  I think that on any review, before any new Irish Language Bill is put before Parliament or the Assembly, there should be a review of all the bullet points to see if any legislation is needed to give effect to them.  The Part dealing with Irish Medium Schools is already covered by Article 89 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998   

It is important that as soon as is reasonably practicable, Irish is made available for learning at all primary schools, secondary schools and further Education Colleges (so that Adults can learn Irish) across Northern Ireland.  As a minimum requirement and certainly acting in the spirit of the first bullet point, I would recommend that new legislation requiring any Board conducting an Irish Language Plan or strategy makes those objectives a primary aim in the plan.  Apart from the legal profession and any professional who would be vital to making the constitution workable for the Irish Language, learning Irish should never be compulsory in the Education system.  Indeed, making it compulsory would, at this juncture, be failing the obligations in the final above-mentioned bullet point “…which takes account of the desires and sensitivities of the community”   

If Irish were ever to become an equal language in the future, there would need to be a plan to include education, training and qualifications for the legal professions of Northern Ireland.  Before any plan is hatched or imposed on the Legal Profession, there should firstly be consultation with the Northern Ireland Law Society and the Northern Ireland Bar Council along with a feasibility study is made about how the Legal Professions would introduce Irish into the legal system, should it become the will of the Northern Ireland people to give Irish official status in the future.  Such a feasibility study is not just important for planning.  Its findings would be crucial to future informed decisions.   

The SDLP draft Irish Language Bill

 In January 2009, the SDLP presented its proposed Irish Language Bill, which was summarily rejected out of hand.  The proposals in the act can be summarized as follows 

(1) to make Irish an official language carrying equal status with English

(2) The right to use Irish in debates in the Assembly.

(3) to enable a party, witness or other person to present their case or give evidence in the official language of their choice to a court, tribunal or other decision-making body

(4) providing all civil servants and local government employees with the right to use either official language as a language of work

(5) Providing a pro-active requirement of public bodies to promote the Irish Language as a language of work

(6) A right for all employees of whatever business to speak either of the official languages in the course of their employment

(7) The right of all parents to have Irish taught to their children at any preschool, primary and post-primary school

(8) The right of all parents for their children to receive Irish-medium preschool, primary and post-primary school education (subject to availability of numbers of children requiring it in a particular area)

(9) Appointment of an official languages commissioner

Item (1), we have already discussed.  

Item (2) is not practicable and never will be.  All it can ever achieve is inconvenience.  As I have pointed out, it is hardly used in the Republic of Ireland where Irish is the first Language.  Without being rude, what has this got to do with promotion of the language?  How can it be justified when an MLA speaking in Irish to expect an MLA who does not to understand him/her?  

Our starting point for the business of Stormont is that all MLAs understand English. Judging from the Irish experience, we are never going to be in a situation where even half the politicians speak Irish.  English is the universally appropriate medium for getting the business of Stormont delivered.  Some tokenism might be acceptable.  For example, in order to appreciate the heritage aspect of Irish, salutations and greetings, which are in use already such as “Go raibh maith agat” are acceptable.  

Item (3) we have already discussed.

Item (5) of the proposals depends on item (4) while items (4) and (6) depend upon item (1).  In other words, items (4) to (6) can not apply as the bill is drafted without the Irish Language being official.   

Another problem with items (4), (5) and (6) is that they could be seen as anti-competitive in the commercial world.    

Like MLAs, civil servants are there to serve the public.  There are many important ongoing matters in public administration and they do not need to be hampered or interfered with just because somebody wants to communicate in Irish.  We need to be sensible here.  We are, at the very least, going to remain a predominantly English-Speaking and at best bilingual society.  Where business has to be transacted, efficient and unhampered communication is of vital importance.  As with Assembly business, I see in these proposals potential impairment of business without any real benefit to the Irish speaking world.  Once again, heritage can be acknowledged with some tokenism as it is on headed notepaper sometimes or where sometimes official government guidelines are published in two languages.  That already happens in the department of Education on websites.  I see no harm in that so long as it does not interfere with the efficient flow of government business.   

I also want to make it clear that a Board set up for putting forward a language development plan would have plenty of ideas flowing to plan a promotion of the Irish language.  They would consider everything from the erection of road signs to the publication of Government information.  In the early years of promotion, I imagine that teaching would be given priority.  A Board would be able to decide upon the most efficient way of promoting the language, having regard to funding available.  As I have said previously, they would look at the entire checklist provided in the Belfast Agreement.   

Item (7), I have already discussed and recommended in my own way under the Education heading.  The Irish medium school proposal (item (8)) will not work for the present because it requires a certain number of Irish – speaking teachers.  It is perhaps a proposal which could be looked at again in the future when, hopefully, the promotion of the Irish Language will not be such a contentious matter.  That can be monitored by a proposed board.  

Given that I object to the SDLP proposal almost in its entirety, it follows that I would also object to the appointment of an Irish Language Commissioner (item 9).  

Other Criticisms of a proposed Irish Language Act

I said in my previous post that Edwin Poots criticized a proposed Irish Language Act as being too costly and too divisive.  One could argue that a DUP politician can never advanced a credible point of view given their pre-determined bias against promotion of the Irish Language.  However, similar criticisms have been made by Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party.  Given the non-sectarian nature of his viewpoint, it deserves respect. He said this

“We are working to find common ground in the Assembly to deliver this. However, the draft legislation tabled by the SDLP is divisive and counter-productive.”

Dr. Farry is right.  The SDLP draft bill is overbearing and unacceptable.  In its present form, it is certainly divisive and counter-productive. 

I have left the argument about cost until last for one very good reason.  It is all very well using cost as an argument.  It also has far more potency during a recession.  However, we can’t have a sensible argument about cost unless we discuss the cost of doing nothing.  

Northern Ireland may now just about have peace.  It certainly does not yet have harmony.  It has a long way to go before we achieve that.  There is no doubt that the cost of sectarianism is very high.  Sectarianism and segregation are part of a systematic loop in which they are both the product and cause of each other.  The Alliance Party says costs of segregation are £1 billion per annum.  I can’t comment on the costings but would agree that they are high.  Let us just say that indirectly, moving the Irish Language out of sectarianism and into a unified symbol for Northern Ireland will save money.  I also happen to believe, going back to the Belfast Agreement that there is an implied term, under Article 4 of Educational Aspects (set out above) that there should be a reasonable flow of funding from the state to promote the Irish Language.  I can not specify here what “reasonable” means in terms of cash.  Costing would be for somebody more expertly qualified to give an opinion on than me.   

Conclusion and recommendations

 (1)   The St. Andrews Agreement contemplated an Irish Language Act which was more substantial than the legislation that eventually emerged (a new section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998). 

(2)  Section 28D is flawed.  It only requires the Executive to make, adopt and review a strategy for promotion of the Irish Language.  It lacks “teeth.”  It is only as strong as the most obstructive member of the Executive and could result in a very minimal promotion of the Irish Language.

(3)  The experiences of Wales and the Republic of Ireland indicate that Northern Ireland is not in any position to take implementation of an Irish Language Act along the lines of either the Irish Republic or Wales.  Northern Ireland is in a much more similar position to Scotland. 

(4)   The proposed Irish Language Act being put forward by the SDLP is divisive and liable to lead to further sectarian division.  

(5)   In principle, the Irish Language should be nurtured so that it has the best chance to flourish within the Protestant community and eventually become a unifying rather than dividing (sectarian) symbol

(6)  If the Irish Language can be transformed into a non-divisive and Unifying symbol for Northern Ireland, the costs of implementing promotion proposals under (8) below will actually save money indirectly in the longer run.

(7)   To take no further action legislatively would be as divisive as the SDLP proposal.

(8)   An Irish Language Act is recommended which would

(a)   Be similar to the Scottish Act of 2005 in the sense of appointing a Board to devise a plan and strategy for promotion of the Irish Language.  The Board would be required to consider the terms stated in the Belfast Agreement.

(b)   Not have the same stated aspiration in the pre-amble of the Scottish Act (i.e. having a view to giving the language official status in the future).  Instead, a pre-amble would be less committed.  (See above under “Constitutional rights and Identity”)

(c)   Place an obligation to facilitate the teaching of Irish in all Northern Ireland schools without it being made compulsory.

The debate on the proposed Irish Language Act – Part IV

Previous posts on this subject

Part I;    Part II;    Part III

Since 1983, when Irish became extinct as an every-day speaking language in Northern Ireland, all further history relating to the Language is more or less purely political.  Before I mention the modern political history, it is worth being reminded that politicization of the Irish Language by Nationalists is nothing new.  The founder of the Gaelic League, Douglas Hyde did not want it to be politicized, yet by 1915, it was under the control of the IRB.  Hyde, himself a Protestant, resigned in protest.

There was a time, further back, when the language had no association with sectarianism whatsoever.  There are even records of members of the Orange Order embracing the Irish Language.  Writing on Indymedia Ireland, Andrew Flood says:

“Yet as late as the 1880′s things were not so straightforward. The Orange Order was still very much a self identified Irish cultural-political organisation. When on 12 July 1867 a 30,000 strong parade Orange Order parade from Newtownards to Bangor took place the Belfast Newsletter reported that they marched “without interruption save the cead mille failtes’ of hosts of sympathisers.” (3) This use of the Irish language by loyalists was to fade as the Irish nationalists sought to solidify the nationalist political agenda through a cultural revival which laid claim to the Irish language. The unionist Ulster Convention of 1892 would be the last time the slogan “Erin-go-Bragh”(4) would be on display”

From 1921 until 1972, the Ulster Unionist Government was hostile to the Irish Language.  Street signs were only allowed to be written in English.  There was no broadcasting in Irish. Broadcasting of Irish programmes by the BBC did not begin until the 1980s.   

In 1998, the Belfast Agreement was negotiated.  Within the provisions of that agreement, there was a commitment to promote the Irish Language.  I have quoted the relevant text of that agreement (see below under the heading “The Belfast Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement”).  There are various strands to the promotional package.  In particular, the Government is obliged to provide funding for TV production and to facilitate the opportunity to learn Irish in all of the schools.  Another criterion is that the sensitivities of the community are to be taken into account.   

Further to the 1998 agreement, a cross-border body, known as Foras na Gaeilge was set up for the purpose of promoting the language across the island of Ireland.  The UK Government has also follwed international initiatives in support of the promotion of the Language. 

In 2001, the United Kingdom entered into the European Charter for regional or minority languages.  The UK ratified the charter in respect of Irish and other Celtic languages of the UK. 

In 2005, Irish was recognised by the European Union as a working language.   

In 2006, the St. Andrews Agreement was negotiated.  Under the terms of that agreement, the UK Government agreed to introduce further legislation to promote the Irish Language and Ulster Scots.  The precise wording of the relevant part of the St. Andrews Agreement contained in annex B is as follws

“The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language.”

Legislation was indeed introduced which purported to deliver on the Government’s promise.  It was not called an “Irish Language Act.” as such.  It came in the form of a new section 28D introduced by way of amendment to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.  The new section 28D provides that the Executive shall adopt and keep under review a strategy to enhance and protect the development of the Irish Language as well as the development of the Ulster Scots Language, heritage and culture.  I have again set out the full text of section 28D (see below under the heading “The Belfast Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement” ). 

Almost as soon as the ink was dry on the new legislation, Nationalists started to press for more.  The Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams argued that a new Irish Language Act was needed to protect speaker’s rights.  The then DUP Culture Minister, Mr. Edwin Poots rejected these overtures arguing that such legislation would be too costly and also very divisive.    

The Minister presently charged with responsibility to oversee the promotion of Irish is the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, Mr. Gregory Campbell.  So far, Mr. Campbell has publicly appeared hostile to the Irish language but there is no suggestion yet that he is not implementing what was agreed at St. Andrews.  On the other hand, it is not clear what strategy, if any, has been implemented to promote Irish.  Some news about what has been going on at the department can be found here.  

In January 2009, the SDLP introduced an Irish Language Bill.  The Bill was rejected by the DUP.  In the next and concluding post, I have made commentary on the provisions of this Bill.   

The Legacy of the Irish Language for Northern Ireland

After all the history that I have stated in this and the previous two posts, it may be stating the obvious to say that the Irish Language is part of Northern Ireland’s cultural heritage.  However, there is far more than just history.  Names of people, places and Irish literature are part of it too.  So also is the way English is spoken by Irish people.  Many idioms that are used by the Irish when speaking English originated from the way Irish was spoken.  Many Northern Ireland people have Scots names.  Those with Scots ancestry may like to reflect that the Scots Gaelic language is very similar to Irish and that Scots are descended from the Irish who invaded northern Britain 1500 years ago.  In fact, Old Irish is the ancestor of both Scots Gaelic and modern Irish.   

At this point, I will indulge in a little bit of fun.  The name “McGuiness” and variations of it such as Maginnis mean ‘son of Angus.’  The name ‘Angus’ means “one choice.”  Very similar to “ourselves alone” but perhaps also the reason why there was only one Unionist party in Fermanagh S.T. before 2001!  Here’s one which will amuse Basil.  The name “Crae” of the surname “McCrae” means Grace or prosperity.  This one will amuse Basil even more.  The name “Ruane” means “of the red!”   

Irish speaking and learning in Northern Ireland today  

Educationally, Irish is presently only taught in some of the Catholic Schools.  Some Further Education Colleges facilitate the teaching of Irish for Adults.  The last census was taken in 2001.  It revealed that 167,487 people (10.4% of the population) had some knowledge of Irish.  This figure is bound to have risen since then (perhaps to about 14%).    

Attitudes towards Irish in Northern Ireland   

In 1999, surveys by Northern Ireland Life and times were carried out to discover attitudes in towards the compulsory teaching of Irish Language and culture in schools and bi-lingual road signs.   

In December 2006, the Government announced that it would be consulting Northern Irish people about whether the Irish Language should be recognised as an official language in Northern Ireland.  The 2007 NILT survey did not include any questionnaire on the Irish Language and fresh surveys on attitudes remain to be seen.   

The Belfast Agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement  

In this section are quoted the full text of the relevant parts of the original documents. 

The parts of the agreement relating to the Irish language, including those parts of the agreement used as an argument to justify an Irish Language Act are as follows:  

“Constitutional issues

 “1.  The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British–Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo–Irish Agreement, they will:  …….

……..(v) affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities; …..”

N.B. Article 1(v) is repeated further down the document in the agreement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland Governments. 

“Economic Social and Cultural issues 

1. All participants recognize the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland.

2. In the context of active consideration currently being given to the UK signing the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the British Government will in particular in relation to the Irish language, where appropriate and where people so desire it:

• take resolute action to promote the language;
• facilitate and encourage the use of the language in speech and writing in public and private life where there is appropriate demand;
• seek to remove, where possible, restrictions which would discourage or work against the maintenance or development of the language;
• make provision for liaising with the Irish language community, representing their views to public authorities and investigating complaints;
• place a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate Irish medium education in line with current provision for integrated education;
• explore urgently with the relevant British authorities, and in cooperation with the Irish broadcasting authorities, the scope for achieving more widespread availability of Teilifis na Gaeilige in Northern Ireland;
• seek more effective ways to encourage and provide financial support for Irish language film and television production in Northern Ireland; and
• encourage the parties to secure agreement that this commitment will be sustained by a new Assembly in a way which takes account of the desires and sensitivities of the community.

The legislation following the St. Andrews Agreement is as follows.  A new section 28D is inserted into the Northern Ireland Act1998 which reads as follows:

After section 28C of the 1998 Act insert—

“28D Strategies relating to Irish language and Ulster Scots language etc 

(1) The Executive Committee shall adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language. 

(2) The Executive Committee shall adopt a strategy setting out how it proposes to enhance and develop the Ulster Scots language, heritage and culture. 

(3) The Executive Committee— 

(a) must keep under review each of the strategies; and

(b) may from time to time adopt a new strategy or revise a strategy.”

Finally

I am once again at the end of a very long post.  I dont like making them too long.   My next and certainly final post on this topic will set out the arguments in favour and against having an Irish Language Act and will include my own conclusion.  At this point, having completely finished the background to this debate, I invite anybody who believes there is something relevant in the background which is not included in these four posts, please write in with your comments.  I will publish the final post on this topic in two weeks time.

The debate on the proposed Irish Language Act – Part III

In my previous post, I outlined the history of the Irish language up to the end of the 19^th Century.

 As can be seen from the results of census reports in the following table, Irish was heading for extinction.

Year	Irish only	Bi lingual	Total Irish	Non Irish	Total population
1851	319,602	1,204,684	1,524,286	5,028,186	8,076,758
1861	163,275	942,261	1,105,536	4,693,028	6,904,100
1871	103,562	714,313	817,875	4,324,502	5,960,252
1881	64,167	885,765	949,932	4,224,904	6,124,768
1891	38,121	642,053	680,174	4,024,576	5,384,924
1901	20,953	620,189	641,142	3,815,858	5,098,142

In 1871, one civil servant observed 

“The disappearance of this ancient member of the Celtic family of tongues from living speech may be somewhat delayed or somewhat accelerated by circumstances beyond calculation or conjecture but there can be no error in the belief that within relatively a few years (sic) Irish will have taken its place among the languages that have ceased to exist…”  [The Death of the Irish Language (Hindley 1990)]

The 1926 survey, which applied only to the Irish Free State, indicates that the “Irish only” speakers was 12,460 and the number of Irish speakers was 543,511 out of a total free state population of 2,974,553.  Within the latter figure, the Gaelic League’s efforts appear to have impacted on improved figures for the Eastern Counties.   

Some of those who joined the Gaelic League after its formation in 1893 were also members of the Republican movement, including Eamon de Valera and Patrick Pearse.  From that association, Republicans held out a vision that Irish would once again be spoken right across Ireland. That vision was never to be realised but it did result in a sustained official policy to promote the language which continues in the Republic of Ireland to this day.    

In 1938, the Irish Language was given official status as the first language.  It retains that status today under Article 8.1 of the Irish Constitution.  English is the second official language.  Although the status of Irish as the first language seems to have been fully enforced in its written form (all legislation, for example, is written in Irish and English), the speaking of it officially in the business of Government has only been retained for ceremonial purposes and some official speeches.    

By 1981, the number of Irish speakers in the Republic of Ireland had apparently risen to 31%.  Hindley has criticised the methodology of the survey.  He observes that in the questionairre, people are being asked if they are “Irish speaking or not” and no investigation as to the level of skill of those claiming to speak Irish.    The 2006 census indicates that 1,656,790 people (41.9% of the ROI population) regard themselves as competent Irish speakers.  Of these, 538,283 (32.5%) speak Irish on a daily basis (taking into account both native speakers and those inside the education system), 97,089 (5.9%) weekly, 581,574 (35.1%) less often, and 412,846 (24.9%) never. 26,998 (1.6%) respondents did not state how often they spoke Irish [Source: Wikepedia].  Many Irish speakers keep in touch with the language through broadcasts in Irish.  There are TV and Radio stations devoted entirely to broadcasting in Irish.  Up to 24% of the Irish population listen to these broadcasts.

The number of native Irish speakers declined still further after partition.  Today, the number of Monoglot (Irish only) is now confined to some elderly people and children under 3.  Within the 1956 borders of the so-called Irish speaking (gaeltacht) areas, those parts where the Irish language is still alive has shrunk.  The gaeltacht areas owed their earlier survival to the fact that they are rural and remote from the infection of English speaking.  It was suggested that any kind of economic activity which betters the lives of people living in these areas also has the effect of diluting native Irish speaking.  In recent years, however, the decline of the Gaeltacht seems to have been arrested.  In the latest census indicates that the Gaeltacht areas are holding up with perhaps the numbers of people speaking Irish most of the time increasing.  According to the 2006 Census, the number of people in the Gaeltacht regions is 91,862.  Of those, 70.8% aged three and over speak Irish and approximately 60% speak Irish on a daily basis.  It seems that people living within the Gaeltacht are practically all bi-lingual but are very aware of the need to continue speaking Irish in order to keep the language alive.  The language is also a vital part of the economy of these regions since thousands of students spend their time in camps there learning to speak Irish.

Irish as a compulsory subject in Education has provoked negative reaction to the language by many Irish people.  This may be, in some part, as a result of the way it has been taught.  To some, it has become a symbol of elitism. Others are resentful where it is a compulsory qualification.  There are many Irish who actually hate the language while others, particularly in the business community have treated it with contempt or prejudice.  As Andrew Carnie writing his thesis “A Case Study in Language Revival Failure” (1995) observes,  

“For many “outward-looking” Irish speakers, Irish is viewed as a “useless” language. Very few people both inside and outside of Ireland speak it; international commerce and trade are much more likely to be conducted in English.”

 Irish in Northern Ireland

“Before partition, Irish speakers accounted for 2.3% of the population of the six ocunties (Antrim o.4%, Down 0.3%, Derry 1.8%, Armagh 2.4%, Fermanagh 0.8%, Tyrone 3.9%).  Even Belfast had a 0.4% Irish speaking population” .  There was little or no revivalism of Irish in Northern Ireland.  Here, it is no longer a living language.  The last native Irish speaker, a man from Antrim, died in 1983.    

Irish was never a compulsory subject to be taught in schools across Northern Ireland.  It is now taught in many of the Catholic schools.  Irish has it ever been an official language in Northern Ireland, yet there is pressure from Sinn Fein and the SDLP to make it one.   

The next and final part on this series of posts will discuss the legacy of the Irish Language, the political drive to promote Irish and to include it as an official language in Northern Ireland.  The author’s conclusion will also appear in that post.

The other anniversary

Today, there are two anniversaries.  The big one, which I have already alluded to in an earlier post two days ago is the 30th Anniversary of Mrs. Thatcher becoming Prime Minister.  

A rather lesser known anniversary is that the current Stormont Executive in which the DUP and Sinn Fein respectively hold the First and Deputy first Ministries, is now two years old.  

Plenty has happened in those two years.  It began with Revd.Ian Paisley becoming the First Minister at the twilight of his career.  Going into partnership with Sinn Fein prompted much anger amongst many of the DUP’s own supporters.  This has caused a schism within the DUP.  Their MEP, Jim Allister, resigned from the DUP, formed his own party and took with him a very substantial chunk of their support.  We do not yet know how much of the DUP is left.  There have been no opinion polls and the only yardstick we have had is the Dromore Council by-election.  

Ian Paisley retired to make way for Peter Robinson.  Straight away, there was difficulty as Sinn Fein boycotted executive meetings in response to apparent failure to devolve policing and justice.  This was a battle of nerves which the DUP eventually won.  Having accepted that they all faced electoral fallout if they did not get back to Government, they reached a deal on devolution of Police and Justice last November.  The DUP now control the timing of devolution of Police and Justice.   

The months of Executive inactivity meant that the Executive had to act quickly on certain matters.  They almost tripped over themselves as they brought in the Financial Assistance Bill described by some politicians as “emergency powers” legislation to enable certain welfare payments including winter fuel poverty allowances to be paid.  In the middle of the debate on the Bill, Mark Durkan fell foul of Parliamentary standards.   

At about the same time, it was near “crunch time” on academic selection.  With no yielding from the Unionists, no legislation could be brought forth to end it.  The Education Minister, Catriona Ruane faced with two assembly motions to put temporary tests in place chose to leave matters at an impasse.  This has forced Grammar Schools to “do their own thing.”  In effect, the system remains without a centrally organized transfer test exam and no orderly system for the administration of admissions.   

With the impact of the recession increasing, it was inevitable that the pre-agreed financing of the Programme for Government might need to be revised.  Pressure has come to bear on Nigel Dodds, the Minister for Finance to reach agreement through the executive for changes to the finance package. UUP politicians have made reference to a 1 billion “black hole” which so far, Dodds has denied. On the other hand, there has been recent acknowledgement by the DUP that there will have to be cuts in public spending.  This issue is set to develop further.    

The most colourful of Northern Ireland’s politicians is the DUP’s Sammy Wilson.  Who ever would have thought that the Minister for the Environment would turn out to be a denier that climate change was man made?  Who would have thought that he would have interfered with Government advertising campaigns to help people save energy? Rumour is growing around Stormont that Sammy Wilson will be removed after the June 4^th election.  If that is true, it will take away some of the fun for journalists and bloggers like me.  To be honest though, it would be the right decision.    

Other ministries have had a relatively quiet time, or have they?  Margaret Ritchie, the   Minister has been in the spotlight recently for having her decision to withdraw funding for Farset, which was quashed by the Courts.  Michele Gildernew, the Agriculture Minister, gave a demonstration of how ideology affected decision-making in her department.  She also  became embroiled in controversy over the handing out of grants under the Rural Development Programme for Northern Ireland (2007-13)   

Dissident Republican terrorism brought about the murder of a police officer and two soldiers.  The First Minister and Deputy First Minister had the opportunity to display solidarity.  Martin McGuiness, in particular, sailed as far as anybody from his party could go on criticizing the dissidents with his now famous quote: “they are traitors to the Island of Ireland.”   

Overall, it has been an interesting two years.  We have seen the parties bash each other like never before.  The opposition have scored some hits, most notably over double jobbing and expenses whilst the DUP and Sinn Fein have scored a massive own-goal over bullying and their war with the media.   

Of course, the defects in power sharing are there for all to see.  There is no such thing as collective cabinet responsibility and there is resultantly much more negativity in decision making.  The impasse on educational issues is a classic example of that. 

The next two years of the Executive are likely to be just as interesting as the first two.   In the Belfast Telegraph today, the Challenges facing the Executive have been identified in the areas of Devolution of Policing and Justice,  Education,  Irish Language,  National Stadium Funding,  the Review of Public Administration and Parades.  These are all contentious issues, yet somehow I feel that cuts in public spending will be at the centre of contention.   

As the recession continues to bite, one is left wondering how vulnerable to negative voter opinion the UUP and the SDLP are as occupiers of the 3 most high-spending ministries.  Will they be politically vulnerable to high-profile spending cuts?  Will the DUP be tempted to try and abuse its position as the controller of Finance Ministry?  We shall see.

CUs should step up attacks against Sinn Fein’s ideology to better inform NI voters

The reputation of Catriona Ruane as a the Northern Ireland Minister for Education is now so low that it would be hard to land a political blow at her which would bring it down further. 

Many attacks upon her inside and outside the Assembly have hit the mark time and again.  The politician who has landed more successful blows upon her than anybody is “knife-twister-in-chief” is Basil McCrea of the UUP.  Basil McCrea has the complete measure of Ruane, her party and their ideological encounters with running the education ministry.  

Catriona Ruane - ruined reputation

Whether or not Ruane is incompetent as a minister depends on which way she is regarded.  If pragmatism is a crucial element of ministerial decision making, then she clearly is.  However, let us not be fooled into thinking that if any other MLA from Sinn Fein had been appointed as Education Minister, that they would have acted differently.  Education is one area of government, unlike any other, where politicians are regularly required to make decisions that run along ideological fault lines.

The 11 plus/academic selection fiasco would not have been handled differently by a different Sinn Fein minister.  A different Sinn Fein minister would not even have settled for a further two or three years of the 11 plus, as was proposed and voted upon.  In fact, it is almost certain that all of the key administrative decisions apparently taken by Ruane were also taken with the Sinn Fein leadership.  Furthermore, the nature of Sinn Fein’s political belief system does not lend itself to pragmatism when it faces a conflict with its own ideology.

In his latest criticism during an assembly debate on underachievement he said:

 “Sinn Féin has no notion about education because its members did not bother to understand the facts. They come out with some standard Marxist line about equality as if that is the answer to everything. Equality does not work in this context because, although all children are valued equally, they are not all equal”  

I often speak to people within the Catholic Community about the problems of education.  Plenty of them know about Ruane and agree that she is a bad minister.  In her own constituency, her personal vote may be vulnerable.  However, I get the clear impression that the damage to Sinn Fein is still relatively slight. There is still very little appreciation among ordinary people that Ruane’s conduct as a minister is driven by left wing ideology. 

Basil McCrea MLA "Knife-twister-in-chief"

Part of the reason for this is a lack of comment about ideology in Northern Ireland’s media.  Both the UUP and the Conservatives need to find more and better ways of highlighting Sinn Fein’s ideology.   

With the SDLP continuing to support academic selection, they will never find a better political issue to act as a catalyst to break sectarian politics. 

Labour reeling under the weight of scandal

Over the weekend, Education Secretary Ed Balls, made it a hat-trick of cabinet ministers who are facing embarassing allegations following an accusation that he “ran” Damien McBride, the man at the centre of  “e-mailgate.”  Mr. Balls denies the allegations.

From Left - Ed Balls, Lord Myners and Jacqui Smith

Meanwhile, an investigation into Jacqui Smith’s housing expenses continues while the House of Commons select committee investigates Lord Myner’s role in the decision to award Sir Fred Goodwin a pension of £700,000 a year.   George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, has already called upon Lord Myners to resign.  All three ministers or none of them could end up being forced to resign from their ministries.

The weight of scandal has damaged Gordon Brown in the estimation of the electorate.   The latest opinion poll conducted by Marketing Sciences for the Sunday Telegraph puts the conservatives in a lead of 17% with Labour now on 26% – its lowest poll rating since 1935.   UK Polling report, which monitors all polls suggests that the average lead of the conservatives is 13% which on a uniform swing would given them an overall majority in the House of Commons of 62.

Given that we will have to wait up to a year for a general election, how will that affect the way that the Country is governed in the meantime?  The Government has no scope for political gimmics in the forthcoming budget.   With no hope of power after the election and a collective feeling of scandalization by recent events, it is easy to imagine a sense of paralysis running right through the Labour administration.   Writing the the Telegraph in an article entitled  “Labour’s Watergate has left dignity and Trust in the gutter” Matthew d’Ancona concludes by saying “you can’t really govern when you are the object of ridicule” 

As soon as the European elections are over, election speculation will begin to mount.  I expect it to reach fever pitch by the time of the conference season.  If he considers the National Interest to be paramount, Gordon Brown would be doing the country a service by calling a general election at that time.

The debate on the proposed Irish Language Act – Part II

In my introductory post on this topic, I highlighted the fact that the Irish Language had become a “political football” to such an extent that it had been sectarianized.  

As a consequence, sensible, mature and informed debate has been found wanting for some considerable time.  Although politics is a crucially important element of the debate in the final analysis, it is necessary to begin it by stripping it away and examining the heritage of the Irish Language from the point of view of science and history. 

Like all spoken languages, Irish evolved over thousands of years from a time when humans were able to have a conversation.  There is a divergence of opinion within the scientific community as to when Humans were able to talk, as we do today.  These estimates range from half a million years to 50,000 years.  A very recent discovery of a talking gene in humans suggests this might have been 200,000 years ago.  However long our species has been talking, it is clear that many languages that nobody has heard of would have evolved and become extinct.  Some of those languages would have been the ancestors of Irish.   

There are many factors which drive the evolution of languages.  Climate, customs, trade, commerce, invention, adaption, culture-mixing, migration, invasion and colonization have all contributed to the language development mix.   

Irish is one of the Celtic languages.  Celtic languages belong to the family of Indo-European languages. It is not certain when the first Celtic language evolved but it is generally accepted that there was one Celtic language which was the ancestor of all Celtic Languages known as Proto Celtic.  Because of its closeness to the Italic languages, some linguists have suggested that there was previously a common Celtic-Italic language and that Italic and Celtic separated in the regions in which they were to flourish between 1300 and 800 BC.  Celtic languages are now only spoken in parts of the British Isles and Brittany.  At one time they extended in a broad swath from south-western Iberia, through Gaul and the Alpine region, into the Middle Danube and central Asia Minor.  

Celtic Languages are divided into two groups – Continental and Insular.  The continental group of languages became extinct during the time of the Roman Empire.  The Insular group includes the languages spoken in the British Isles and Brittany.  The Insular Celtic languages are divided into two groups – “P” Celtic (Gallo Brithonic) and “Q” Celtic (Goidelic), which includes Irish.  The conventional view is that “Q” Celtic was the older form and adopted by the Atlantic communities but was then overtaken in Britain by the more recently evolved “P” Celtic, which was the basis of the Gaulish language.  “P” Celtic was then re-introduced to Brittany by invaders from South Western Britain in the 5^th Century.  “Q” Celtic was re-introduced in the Isle of Man and Scotland by invaders from Ireland in about the 5^th Century.  Some historians have suggested that these invasions were orchestrated by the High King, Niall of the nine hostages. Ironically, Scotland’s name derives from the ancient Celtic word for the Irish, which was “Scoti”.  

By the 4^th Century AD, the first written Irish appears in the form of Ogham Script found on ancient stones.  St. Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland in about 430 AD and with it the written use of the Roman alphabet.  Some written Irish appears in the margins of Latin religious manuscripts from 600 AD.  The earliest known surviving Irish Manuscript known as the Lebor na hUidre dates to the 12^th century. 

Danish invasion and part colonization of Ireland took place between 795 and 1013 but apart from the naming of some of Ireland’s towns and cities (e.g. Limerick), the Danish influence on the development of the Irish language is said to be slight.  The influence on the Irish Language by the later Anglo Normans was more considerable.  Incorporated into the language are Anglo-Norman loan words as well as people names.  Some may be surprised to learn that names such as Sean, Sinead, and Seamus are originated as Norman names.  

In 1169, the Normans under Strongbow came to Ireland at the invitation of the King of Leinster, Dermot MacMurchada.  This led to the annexation of most of Ireland by the Angevin Emperor, King Henry II of England. The colonization of Ireland which followed was slow and reached its first peak at about the end of the 13th Century.  However, the only part of Ireland which had been properly colonised was an area around Dublin where English was commonly spoken.  This area, known as the Lordship of Ireland, gradually shrunk as the English military resources were stretched during the 100-year war with France.  In the early 1400s, a ditch and ramparts were constructed around boundary of the Lordship which became known as ‘the Pale’. 

In 1350, the Official Language of the Court in Ireland was changed from Norman French to English.  In 1366, by the Statutes of Kilkenny, Irish Settlers were forbidden to use Irish customs or speak the Irish language.  This Statute was largely unsuccessful, even within the Pale itself.  Outside the Pale, Irish remained the dominant speaking langage.  

In 1609, the Plantation of protestant Anglo-Scots settlers began in Ulster.  These settlers are the ancestors of almost all persons from Northern Ireland that have a protestant background.  These settlers and their descendants retained English as their first language. 

The Irish language eventually declined as the first speaking language in most other parts of Ireland.  By 1800, most of the Irish population spoke English as their first language.  Perhaps the main contributing factor was that English had become the established common language of trade and commerce and the dominant written language.  Irish speaking declined much faster in the East of Ireland than in the West.  

In 1831, the National Schools were founded in Ireland.  Until1871, these schools were required to teach English and prohibited from teaching Irish (on the basis that Irish was considered to be a “backward” language).  It has been suggested that this factor and the Irish Famine (1847-50) further accelerated the decline of Irish speaking in Ireland.  

Despite the decline of Irish and the Government’s early prohibition of its teaching at schools, there was no little sectarian symbolism associated with the Irish Language.  Queen Elizabeth I of England encouraged the speaking of Irish within the Pale to promote the protestant religion.  The first Bible in Irish and the Anglican book of common prayer were translated by William Bedell, Church of Ireland Bishop of Kilmore in the 17th century.  There is some evidence that by using the Irish Language, Protestant ministers successfully converted some of the Catholic native Irish. Furthermore, the first attempts to save the Irish Language were made by the Protestants.  In 1893, the Gaelic League was founded by Douglas Hyde for the specific purpose of preserving the Irish Language. Hyde later became President of the Irish Free State

In Part III we continue the history of the Irish Language into the 20th century and look at Irish as a functional language in the Republic of Ireland.   

The role of the Churches in combating sectarianism?

Eamon McCann has written an interesting piece in the Belfast Telegraph concerning attempts long ago to promote mixed religious schools for Northern Ireland. His article has also been discussed on Slugger O’Toole.  

I do not propose to discuss whether the 7th Marquess of Londonderry was ahead of his time.   My interest, as I have said repeadedly on this blog, is the debate on sectarianism and the means by which Northern Ireland Society can move beyond it.  

Eamon McCann makes the following point in relation to segregation along religious lines.

“the divide in education isn’t the cause of sectarianism. But it reflects and is an important mechanism for perpetuating sectarianism.”

The Eames-Bradley report makes the following point in relation to segregated schools

“Specifically the arguments about the ethos or quality of education provided in the faith based sectors have to be balanced against the reality that reconciliation may never be achieved if our children continue to attend separated schools”

We could be waiting a very long time before we see any joint faith or secular schools, let alone enjoy the positive effects of them.  Furthermore, there are canon law arguments against them within Catholicisim. 

There are other plans and initiatives that the Churches can make. Eames-Bradley makes the following observations about the relationship between sectarianism and religion.

By definition and nature sectarianism involves religion and the destructive patterns of relating that arise from a negative mixing of religious belief and politics. When religion is used to draw boundaries, whether communal or territorial, and to reinforce patterns of inequality and social conflict, then prejudice and discrimination are given divine sanction, even if such behaviour contradicts the professed belief of its adherents.

The Christian churches carry a particular historical responsibility, for they not only gave the language which both shaped and fuelled division, but often gave sanction to those who exploited theological disputes and differences for political and territorial gain. Catholic and Protestant became the identifying labels of the political and national allegiances of each side of the divide.

Too often the violence and bitterness of communal strife was allowed to increase the suspicion and gulf between the two Christian traditions. There was a failure by the institutional church bodies to make a sustained united impact during the conflict. Often it was the actions and initiatives of individual congregations, organisations and church people that made a significant difference.

Yet some of the churches have recognised and addressed the religious dimension from the earliest days of the conflict. In their public statements some have accepted responsibility for nurturing attitudes which have contributed to the strength of sectarianism in the wider community. Indeed significant initiatives have taken place in recent years to identify and challenge sectarianism in their life and practice.

Any move by the churches to acknowledge and respect the integrity of each other’s tradition does make a significant impact on the context in which wider society can address the legacy of sectarianism. There is a strong Christian tradition in Northern Ireland.  Therefore Christian churches have a particular responsibility to take a leading role within communities for addressing the destructive presence of ongoing sectarianism.

The Group recommends that the Legacy Commission, proposed in Chapter 7, should take the lead in ensuring that sectarianism continues to be addressed, including through setting the direction for that debate and by highlighting the contribution that all sectors of society can make to address the problem.

The Legacy Commission could be some time coming up with solutions or initiatives which the churches can take in order to help address sectarianism. Should the churches wait to be told what they should do?

There are actually plenty of initiatives that churches could take without having to be told what to do.  It does not take very much imagination or organisation to promote inter-denominational parish activity.  Why wait for the legacy commission?

Eames-Bradley mentions “significant initiatives” [taken by churches].  I would be interested to know what they are and where they are happening.  If you are a cleric, minister or priest reading this post, you are invited to comment on this blog.  In particular, if you have any particular experiences of ecumenical activity relating to both Protestant and Catholic church membership (it does not have to be about anywhere in Northern Ireland), your comments would be especially welcome.