Allister broadside attack on Irish Language Bill document
20 December 2006
MEP Jim Allister has sent a probing letter to Maria Eagle MP, Culture Minister, on the content of last week's consultation document on the proposed Irish Language Bill. In his letter, which is only a preliminary response, Mr Allister raises issues, including:
• how HMG was able to make a policy commitment to support a Bill without any equality proofing or financial proofing of the proposition, suggesting the subsequent alleged equality proofing is fraudulent and describing its conclusion that the Bill will "improve good relations" and "have only positive impacts", as "laughable". The MEP has made a FOI request for all documentation giving rise to the commitment made in the St Andrews Agreement.
• Why within the consultation document there is misinformation and deliberate inflating of the number of Irish speakers in NI.
• Whether policing would be included in what the document identifies as "the need for public bodies to ensure that they would have a sufficient number of Irish speaking staff to enable the provision of services in Irish" and "the need for fluency for frontline services". Why if policing is included, was this "hot potato" avoided in the document and what are the implications, including on employment qualifications, asks the MEP.
The full text of Mr Allister's letter is as follows:-
Ms Maria Eagle MP
Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure
Department of Culture Arts and Leisure
Interpoint Centre
20 – 24 York Street
BELFAST
BT15 1AQ
19 December 2006
Dear Minister
Re: Consultation paper on proposed Irish Language Legislation for Northern Ireland
I will in due course make a detailed response to this consultation document but at this stage there are a number of preliminary matters I wish to explore.
1. It is clear that the policy aim is to introduce an Irish Language Bill in accordance with the commitment made in the St Andrews Agreement. That commitment, of course, arises from an "agreement" between two Governments only and did not involve my Party, with whom the issue of an Irish Language Bill was not even discussed during St Andrews. However, the point I wish to clarify at this stage is to invite you to confirm that the Government made this commitment without any equality proofing or financial proofing of the proposition. Why was this done? To help me understand the issue I would be obliged to receive copies of all documentation giving rise to the commitment made in the St Andrews Agreement. Insofar as it is necessary, I make this request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
2. Why within this consultation document is there misinformation? At page 62 it proclaims that 10.35% of the population of Northern Ireland can speak Irish. According to figures elsewhere in the document this is patently incorrect and whereas it is claimed that this percentage may have "some knowledge" of Irish, the census figures confirm that a lesser number can actually speak Irish. Such is clear from Table 1 on page 72, so why is an inflated percentage given on pages 62 and 63? Is there an agenda to overstate the number of Irish speakers for the political purpose of promoting an Irish Language Bill? Will you now publicly correct this error and issue a corrigendum?
3. There is constant reference throughout the document to those with "some knowledge" of Irish but could you inform me of the number of Northern Ireland residents who speak Irish as their only or first language?
4. Having regard to the multiple existing measures identified throughout the document and particularly in Annex D to G and the work of Foras na Gaeilge, can you advise me whether or not you regard Northern Ireland as being currently compliant with the requirements of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. If it is asserted that there is currently non-compliance with the European Charter, then please identify each and every regard in which that is so.
5. It is claimed that an Equality Impact Assessment has been conducted. Frankly, I find the conclusion under this alleged assessment that the introduction of an Irish Language Bill has the potential "to improve good relations" and that it will "have only positive impacts", as laughable. Even at page 5 the consultation accepts that Nationalists/Republicans/Catholics see a political aspect to the Irish language and at pages 6 and 15 there is acceptance that political sensitivities arise and that for Unionists there is the issue of undermining the British identity, yet an Equality Impact Assessment is conducted which finds "only positive impacts" and potential to "improve good relations"! I now formally request disclosure of all documentation pertaining to the alleged Equality Impact Assessment.
6. At page 26 there is reference, in the context of implementing and enforcing language schemes, to the need for public bodies to ensure that they would have a sufficient number of Irish speaking staff to enable the provision of services in Irish and at page 30 there is reference to the need for fluency for frontline services. Would this include policing? If so, why is that not mentioned in the document and the implications, including employment qualifications, discussed and why is there no inclusion of that dimension in the shallow Financial Impact Assessment in Chapter 7?
7. We are constantly reminded by Government of public expenditure constraints yet this proposal seems to have won government commitment without any serious costing and what is proffered in Chapter 7 as "financial proofing" is utterly superficial, making no serious attempt to estimate likely resulting expenditure. If this Bill were to proceed then where does the money for its implementation exist within the present budget? Would its cost be met with new money from the Exchequer or would it have to be found from within the block grant?
8. At page 108 there is reference to projects relating to Irish-medium provision in the non-statutory educational sector having been in receipt of EU funding. Could I please have the details of this?
9. Finally, please clarify Government policy on the use of the name Londonderry. I had understood that in the recent judicial review the relevant Department expressed the view that the correct name was Londonderry, yet at pages 103 and 104 of this document I find Derry/Londonderry used - why is this?
As already indicated, I will make a more detailed response to this consultation paper in due course but I would be obliged if you could address these issues in the meantime.
Yours sincerely
James H Allister QC MEP
