Foras na Gaeilge and Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg: yoked but not yet shackled

Abstract

This essay compares the manner in which the principal language agencies in Ireland and Wales face the challenge of promoting their respective national indigenous languages. The comparison brings into sharp relief the differing political contexts and operational constraints which influence both the scope and effectiveness of both organisations. It is argued that whereas the chief barrier to the greater success of Foras na Gaelige is its requirement to navigate between various levels of bureaucracy at both the Irish and UK/Northern Ireland levels of government, the chief obstacle to the full realisation of the work of the Welsh Language Board is its ambiguous position and uncertain future within the Welsh administrative system. Quite radical proposals are offered by which some of these difficulties could be overcome, should the political commitment of the respective governments be strengthened in favour of implementing a more robust bilingual policy for both Irish and Welsh.

Keywords:

• language policy and planning
• government agencies
• democracy and citizenship
• human rights

Acknowledgements

Confidential interviews were conducted with a range of officials holding appointments within the Irish and British civil service, various Ministries and Departments of State, together with other significant actors whose remit relates to official language matters. I am also grateful to the following individuals for their criticism of the original draft of this essay: Jeremy Evas, Gwyn Jones, Ferdie Mac an Fhailigh, Janet Muller, Connach Ó Giollagáin, Dónall Ó Riagáin and John Walsh.

Notes

 1. Some might argue that this is not the primary role of Language Boards, only the most mature and ambitious.

 2. The talk was given on 26 March 2007 at Cardiff University.

 3. It should be made clear that, although I am a member of the WLB, I am writing in my personal capacity as an academic.

 4. The Language Commissioner, Seán Ó Cuirreáin, was previously deputy director of RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta.

 5. (‘Language Planning and Socio-economic Development’, 6) observes that the Republic of Ireland no longer has a State Board to promote Irish. It is difficult to imagine the Irish government being willing to do this in any other area of national policy. For instance, the establishment of another cross-border body, InterTradeIreland, did not lead to the abolition of any of the Republic of Ireland's public bodies with responsibility for business or trade (see British–Irish Agreement Act 1999).

 6. See http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1956/en/act/pub/0021/sec0003.html#zza21y1956s3.

 7. Currently, some 9% of the Agency's grants are spent on ‘language’-related work.

 8. A number of previously existing bodies and sections of Irish government departments were subsumed into Foras na Gaeilge on its establishment, chiefly Bord na Gaeilge, the State Board for promoting the Irish language established by The Bord na Gaeilge Act 1978 in the South, An Gúm and An Coiste Téarmaíochta, respectively the Irish language publication and the terminological branches of the Department of Education and Science in Ireland. (‘Language Planning and Socio-economic Development’, 8) has observed that in agreeing to Foras the Irish state effectively ceded its sovereign responsibility for promoting Irish to a structure which is linked to the British state and to an unstable peace process in Northern Ireland (for a further discussion, see Ó Murchú, Ag dul ó chion?). (An alternative view is that North–South co-operation enables economies of scale and better co-ordination.)

 9. I should acknowledge that I was involved in preparing the Language and Equality aspects of the Good Friday Agreement and in the post-Agreement training of civil servants and others undertaken by DCAL in the Transition Programme.

10. People working in the sector would perceive them as being effective in relation to educational issues even though COGG is under-resourced. (Of course, COGG does not have a statutory role in relation to education in Northern Ireland.)

11. On 19 December 2005 the Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office, announced the extension of the term of appointment of the following members of Foras: Maighréad Uí Mháirtín (Chairperson of Foras Na Gaeilge/Joint Chairperson of An Foras Teanga), Liam Corey, Anne Craig, Gordon McCoy, Aodán MacPóilin, Gearóid MacSiacais, Treasa Ní Ailpín, Caitríona Ní Cheallaigh, Mairéad Nic Sheagháin, Maolsheachlainn Ó Caollaí, Leachlainn Ó Catháin, Pádraig Ó Duibhir, Gearóid Ó hEara, Diarmuid Ó Murchú, and Bríd Uí Néill. Their term of office came to an end in 2007 and in January 2008 a new Board was appointed. The members are political appointees nominated by the political parties in a mechanism that reflects D'Honnt, i.e. the number of nominees per party being based upon electoral strength. This issue of appointment of Board members has been subject to ongoing criticism and, as we shall see, is quite different from the WLB structure.

12. I am grateful to Seosamh Mac Donncha, then Chief Executive of Foras, for granting me several interviews during 2004–05 and for arranging full and unfettered access to his core staff to discuss many issues during October 2005. I am equally grateful to the current Chief Executive, Ferdie Mac an Fhailigh, for his similar kindness.

13. Ultimately, the role of Foras has been developed as a result of the need to make political progress in Northern Ireland, rather than being primarily the result of good language planning.

14. This role overlaps with COGG's area of responsibility.

15. The funding of youth organisations currently lies primarily with the Republic's Department of Education and Science – again an overlap not taken into account in the legislation.

16. How this demand is measured and how Foras actually outlines its own strategy for doing this is problematic, especially as no specific timescale for achieving this aim is given.

17. It would be interesting to know what level of public debate this Strategic Plan engendered, and for the medium term what precise role Foras will play in the implementation of the current government's twenty-year Strategic Plan which is being prepared under the auspices of Fiontar, DCU.

18. DCRGA, ‘2003 Turascáil Bhliantúil’, 2004, 35.

19. In 2004, a report by Trinity College Dublin and Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge, the umbrella body for the voluntary sector (and funded by Foras na Gaeilge), found that Foras was ‘competing’ with the voluntary bodies rather than supporting them and that there was considerable confusion about what its precise role was (O'Donoghue, ‘Consistence and Persistence’, 2004). (O'Donoghue's analysis of the comments describes the perceived uncertainty as the inherent fuzziness in the relationship between the state and voluntary sectors. This relationship allows the voluntary sector complete autonomy – if it so desires it (1, 36)). Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge criticised Foras na Gaeilge for its ‘unsatisfactory and unprofessional approach’. The Chief Executive, Ardrúnaí, of Conradh na Gaeilge, resigned in protest as it was not awarded all of the funding it sought, including salary increases, saying that she had ‘no confidence’ in Foras na Gaeilge. For further details see , ‘Language Planning and Socio-economic Development’.

20. The minister has since remarked on more than one occasion that had he known then what he knows now he would not have allowed for interests of the Irish language to have been put under joint management.

21. It has also been suggested that the Department of Foreign Affairs’ civil servants, who drafted the legislation, had a benign view of the effectiveness of Foras predecessor Bord na Gaeilge. Had the legislation been prepared by senior civil servants from the DCRGA a different set of responsibilities might have ensued.

22. For a comprehensive overview of the current situation and future trends in Irish-medium education, see Harris, Irish in Primary Schools.

23. Maighréad Uí Mháirtín explained:

Having worked extensively with teachers throughout the education sector we, in Foras na Gaeilge, were acutely aware of the need to recognize efforts being made by teachers to encourage the spoken language with their pupils. In addition to this we wanted to highlight the techniques and approaches being used by these teachers so that they could be shared with other teachers around the country. The examples here today of teachers who've completely changed pupils attitudes towards the spoken language and escalated their competency are highly impressive. Nominated by their principals, the primary school candidates were assessed by a panel selected by Foras na Gaeilge. The successful candidates received €3000 (£2000 sterling) which was divided as follows: €1250/£850 sterling to the school for Irish-language resources, €1000/£700 sterling towards the teacher's own professional development, and €750/£450 sterling.

24. Dr Ó Mianáin, of the University of Ulster, has worked as a translator for the CCEA (Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment) and as an editor and manager with An tÁisaonad, St. Mary's University, Belfast. He was a member of the editorial team of the Collins Gem Irish Dictionary and the Collins Pocket Irish Dictionary and has been a member of An Coiste Téarmaíochta (The Terminology Committee) for eight years.

25. Phase 2A, to be completed by July 2010, involves a rolling process whereby batches will be released so as to allow work to commence on Phase 2B, the translation phase, in parallel with the development of the Frameworks. LexMC is a company led by Sue Atkins, Adam Kilgarriff and Michael Rundell, and was previously responsible for the delivery of Phase 1 of the Dictionary Project.

26. This involves further enhancements to the tagging application which handles the Irish texts in the Corpus, so as to aid recognition and classification of words, more subtle delineation between the parts of speech and the handling of texts written under the old spelling system. The principal investigator is Elaine Uí Dhonnchadha of the Centre for Language and Communication Studies (CLCS) at Trinity College Dublin, who worked on Phase 1 of the Dictionary Project, whilst at the Linguistics Institute of Ireland (ITÉ).

27. This represents an increase of 7.3% on the 2007 allocation.

28. Elements of the scheme are similar to the Mentrau Iaith initiative in Wales; for details see Campbell, ‘Menter Cwm Gwendraeth’; Williams, Language Revitalization.

29. In 2007 the company had an income of €617, 0000 and prize money of €150,000. It has a current staff of seven and new branches are being formed. A claim made by the organisation is that ‘it provides the only language planning system operating in Ireland’ (see www.glornagael.ie).

30. They have done some very good work in the past; for example, they played a key role in the development of the Irish-medium school and play group movement in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

31. The branch was formed in September 2006; see [email protected]

32. These funding announcements were the parting decisions of the last Board, whose membership terminated in December 2007. Speaking after the meeting, Ferdie Mac an Fhailigh said ‘I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Board for all of the work they have done over the past eight years. Many of our current Board members have been with us from day one and all have played a pivotal role in developing the organization.’

33. Core funding for 2008 was as follows: Altram €296,840; An Comhlachas Náisiúnta Dramaíochta €247,000; An tÁisaonad €561,984; Comhaltas Uladh agus An tUltach €169,853; Comhar na Múinteoirí Gaeilge €234,220; Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge €864,636; Comhluadar €291,543; Conradh na Gaeilge, Feasta & Seachtain na Gaeilge €577,799; Cumann na bhFiann €522,967; Forbairt Feirste €177,894; Forbairt Naionraí Teo €1,215,784; Gael Linn €883,336; Gaelscoileanna Teo €510,200; Glór na nGael €608,645; Iontaobhas Ultach €367,303; Oireachtas na Gaeilge €531,963; POBAL €267,835; Raidió Fáilte €133,913; Raidió na Life €219,136. Total €8,682,851.Funds distributed under Scéim POBAL Gaeilge 2008–10 were as follows: An Clár as Gaeilge €250,435; An Droichead Teo €296,121; Coiste Dúiche Mhaigh Eo €192,813; Coiste Forbartha Charn Tóchair €288,110; Conradh na Gaeilge, Cr. Ch. Luimnigh €237,178; Cumann Cultúrtha Mhic Reachtain €359,419; Cumann Gaelach Chnoc na Rós €168,888; Cumann Gaelach Leath Chathail €163,121; Gael-Fhorbairt na Gaillimhe €209,172; Gaelphobal an tSratha Báin €178,768; Glór Cheatharlach €183,351; Glór Gaeilge Locha Riach €216,100; Glór na Móna €156,229; Ionad Uíbh Eachach €156,560; Muintir Chrónáin Na Macallaí, Loch Garman €151,453; POBAL an Chaistil €172,707. Total €3,600,302.

34. Of course, this relates only to the South – a further illustration of the realities of an ‘all-island’ body.

35. He told the Irish-language daily Lá in November 2005 that it was wrong that children had to spend thirteen years learning Irish. Adding that: ‘Using modern teaching methods I am sure that you can teach a child any language within 6 months. Instead of that children are being taught Irish for 13 years and they are still learning essays by heart for their Leaving Cert exams.’ Reported on RTE news 16 November 2005. http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1116/irish.html

36. DCRGA, 2003 Turascáil Bhliantúil, 2004: vii.

37. Údarás na Gaeltachta, Tuarascáil Bhliantúil/Annual Report 2003, 24.

38. Kenny argued that ‘Compulsion is a blunt tool. Forcing students to learn Irish is not working and is actually driving many young people away from a real engagement with this beautiful language.’ Daily Ireland's editorial criticised the Fine Gael leader in the following manner:

The Official Languages Act, full recognition for An Ghaeilge as an official working language of the EU, robust planning policies in the Gaeltacht to protect the language and the creation of an all-Ireland body to promote Irish under the Good Friday Agreement are just some of the remarkable steps Irish has enjoyed in recent years. The Fine Gael proposal would be the first backward step in a remarkable renaissance of the Irish language over the past decade. Daily Ireland, 16 November 2005. ‘Editorial’. http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/11/16/ahern-rejects-fg-stance-on-teaching-of-irish/trackback/

39. The fact that Part V of the Údarás Act (http://www.acts.ie/zza5y1979.5.html) allows for the election of members of the Board to come from the Gaeltacht regions means that different parties put forward their own viewpoints. This has caused more tension of late, especially given Enda Kenny's position at the last election.

40. Williams, ‘Language Planning and Regional Development; Hindley, ‘Defining the Gaeltacht’; Ó Cinnéide, Mac Donnacha, and Ní Chonghaile Polasaithe agus Cleachtias. (‘Language Planning and Socio-economic Development’, 6) has indicated this is a contentious issue. The linguistic demand appeared to be met by Article 8(1) of the Údarás na Gaeltachta Act (1979), entitled ‘Functions of An tÚdarás’; the second sub-section of Article 8 states that Údarás ‘shall carry on, control and manage (either directly or, in any particular case, through a body corporate controlled by an tÚdarás) the industries and productive schemes of employment carried on, controlled or managed, directly or indirectly, by Gaeltarra Éireann’ (Article 8(2)). Walsh also observes that this ordering of ‘functions’ gave the impression that promoting Irish was one of the organisation's objectives, and there is a perception that this is the case (see, for instance, Ó Cinnéide, Mac Donnacha, and Ní Chonghaile, Polasaithe agus Cleachtias Eagraíochtaí Eagsúla, 148). However, two Attorneys-General have advised the DCRGA in recent years that Article 8(1) is not in fact a ‘function’, but simply a preamble to the organisation's industrial functions, implying that Údarás does not have any function in relation to Irish. This is an astonishing development and one which Walsh questions astutely by asserting that

it is reasonable to expect that ‘the preservation and extension of the use of the Irish language as the principal medium of communication in the Gaeltacht’ would be of paramount importance to Údarás na Gaeltachta. After all, if it were not for the Irish language, there would have been no need for organisations such as Údarás na Gaeltachta (or indeed, the DCRGA) in the first place. (, ‘Language Planning and Socio-economic Development’, 6)

41. Údarás na Gaeltachta. Strategy Development Plan, 2005, 3–4, translation.

42. I am one of six specialists charged with delivering such a plan to the Irish government, under the ambit of FIONTAR, Dublin City University. This paper was presented in Cardiff in March 2007 and delivered to the journal issue editors before the first meeting of the Fiontar consultative group in 2008.

43. This timeline was constructed by POBAL at my suggestion and prompting to help outsiders understand the vicissitudes of the Irish language in the North. I am grateful to Dr Janet Muller for her ready co-operation.

44. This despite the overwhelming support for the legislation in the consultation(s), which in turn raises questions about the nature of representative, let alone deliberative, democracy in this context.

45. A speculative comment for future discussion and remedial action is that it appears that the most successful areas are those in which it neither interacts with the state(s) nor with the community/voluntary sector.

46. As illustration at a very practical level, that of seeking permission to recruit new staff up to its agreed complement of sixty-five posts, Foras has to gain the support of both sponsoring Departments and of both Finance Departments as well as the NSMC. As of March 2008 the business plan for 2008 and the Corporate Plan 2008–10 had not yet been approved by the NSMC.

47. The Annual Report of An Coimisinéir Teanga was released on 8 April 2008 and focuses on significant breaches of legislation within the state's administration, the Commissioner's response to over six hundred new complaints in 2007 and the inadequacies of staff training within the state sector to implement bilingual service delivery.

48. Such political wrangling is not confined to the two bodies; some of the older quangos in Ireland such as the Regional Health Boards suffered from the same affliction.

49. Government of Ireland, National Development Plan, 2007, 112, 186, 243. (‘Language Planning and Socio-economic Development’; 2006) has written about the failure to mention Irish in the previous plan (1999–2005). He argues that this was a significant issue which revealed how marginal Irish was to government thinking on major national policy documents.

50. The issue of the separation of powers is interesting in this regard. It could be reasoned that the quasi-legislative nature of Údarás, with its seven elected Board members, could perhaps cause Foras to worry that any intervention would lead to a separation of powers conflict.

51. A specific concern is the perceived antagonism shown towards the language from the Minister for Culture. An underlying factor in this concern is the overall DUP approach to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and cross-border mechanisms. One may ask what that impact is likely to have on Foras's current approach to its advisory role.

52. At the National Eisteddfod in 1995, then Shadow Welsh Secretary Ron Davies said Welsh public life was suffering from ‘a democratic deficit’. He argued that the only solution was to create a devolved National Assembly for Wales and to hold ‘a bonfire of the quangos’. The first three quangos to be integrated were the Welsh Development Agency, ELWa and the Wales Tourist Board. On 30 November 2004 First Minister Rhodri Morgan announced that the Welsh Language Board, the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales (ACCAC) and Health Professions Wales would have their duties and staff transferred to the Assembly Government.

53. Williams, ‘Deddfwriaeth Newydd a'r Gymraeg’.

54. Welsh Assembly Government (2006) Consultation Paper on the Merger.

55. One might also add without adequate discussion as to the consequences. For a similar knee-jerk reaction in terms of abolishing another former quango – the Welsh Arts Council – see the inside story of the former Chair, Geraint Talfan Davies (At Arm's Length).

56. Williams, Language and Governance. None of the established posts have been overburdened with complaints from the public, partly, according to Rawlings, as a result of the lack of interface between public administration and civil society. Nevertheless, for the period 2001–02 the WAO

received fifty-six complaints, concluded fifty-nine cases without investigation (chiefly for lack of jurisdiction or no prima facie evidence of maladministration); and moved to a full investigation in only five cases. Although much higher (155 new complaints), the case load as Health Service Ombudsman also appears unexceptional from the comparative viewpoint, both in terms of the rate of complaints and the subject matter. (Rawlings, Delineating Wales, 379)

57. For over thirty years I have been championing the case for a Welsh Language Commissioner and much of my thinking on this has been informed by a systematic analysis of the Canadian model since 1973 (see Williams, ‘Official-language districts’, 1981; Williams, ‘More than tongue’, 1984; Williams, ‘A Requiem for Canada?’, 1996) and more recently by my involvement with the ‘From Act to Action Project’ and the WLB consultations.

58. For over a decade successive senior Board staff and members have been involved in garnering evidence as to the operation of alternative regulatory systems in such constituencies as Canada, Quebec, Catalonia and the Basque Country. Together with Foras na Gaeilge and Svenska Kulturfonden, the WLB commissioned the ‘From Act to Action Project’ under the direction of Siv Sandberg, Abo Akedemi, which sought to compare the implementation of language legislation in Finland, Ireland and Wales.

59. A similar concern seems to have been voiced about most of the quangos which fell within the remit of then Minister Alun Pugh and of other absorbed Non-Departmental Public Bodies.

60. The vacancy in the Blaenau Gwent constituency was occasioned by the death of Peter Law on 25 April 2006 who held the seat at both the Westminster and Assembly elections. His Westminster seat was won on 29 June by Dai Davies and his Assembly seat by Trish Law, the widow of the former incumbent. Both representatives sat as Independents.

61. In a press release on 18 February 2008. http://www.byig-wlb.org.uk/english/publications/pages/index/aspx?drillmode = year&year = 2008. Meri Huws, Chair of the Board, said:

We have already discussed as a Board what should be contained in new legislation from the National Assembly, after that body has secured the right to legislate on the Welsh language from Cardiff. Broadly speaking, we should like to see legislation which includes, inter alia: an announcement of the official status of the Welsh language in Wales; a declaration of individuals’ language rights in relation to the receipt and provision of services, and also the rights of workers to use Welsh in the workplace; the establishment of a Welsh Language Commission having statutory and developmental powers.

62. The Minister for Heritage's responsibilities are tourism, heritage and the historic environment, the national strategy and policy for culture in Wales; sponsorship of the Arts Council, the Sports Council, the National Museum of Wales and the National Library of Wales; responsibility for Welsh Assembly Government funding of the Wales Millennium Centre; the Welsh language – including overseeing and co-ordinating general Welsh language policy (other ministers are responsible for Welsh language issues within their policy areas); ministerial functions emanating from the Welsh Language Act 1993; sponsorship of Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg/the Welsh Language Board, including appointments of the Chair and Board members; policy on broadcasting as it affects Wales; and sponsorship of the Welsh Books Council.

63. I do not forget the parallel effort which is needed to secure the interests of the Welsh language as part of Westminster's general legislative programme.

64. For a very early attempt at such integration see the discussion and diagrams contained in , ‘New Domains of the Welsh Language’, Contemporary Wales; and ‘New Domains of the Welsh Language’, in Called Unto Liberty.

65. Even if the Board members are not always directly answerable to a particular party's interest.

66. In Wales, the style of intervention becomes almost as critical as the content of reform. The enforcement of compliance with Welsh language schemes is dependent on action by the National Assembly for Wales. Public bodies believe that the Board has far more powers than it actually has to enforce its recommendations.

67. The Board has used its investigatory powers under section 17 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 sparingly, with only nine formal investigations under section 17 having been initiated since 1993.

68. The Minister of State with responsibility for decentralisation in the last government lost his seat in the general election!

69. Might an Irish speaker in Cork, Limerick or Waterford be forgiven for thinking that Foras na Gaeilge was purely an Ulster institution with no relevance for him/her?

70. The British–Irish Council is another forum for promoting such languages and the WLB and Foras are active partners in promoting joint programmes of action, although much more could be achieved by this instrument.