Irish Language Act: ‘We need real delivery on real promises, wherever that may come from.’

Tuesday 9 July 2019 will be a day long remembered by many across these islands. Sitting with family and friends deep in the Bluestack mountains in south Donegal I spent the day searching for radio coverage and refreshing my Twitter feed. As the amendments rolled in it was hard not to jump to the conclusion that historic change was unfolding before us. The arguments over devolution and ‘direct rule’ decision making would inevitably be lost as Westminster finally got off the fence and the Tories turned on their confidence and supply partners.

The question of language rights, however, remains outstanding. During an interview with Noel Thompson on BBC’s Good Morning Ulster in the proceeding days I would be asked what the Westminster amendments would mean for the Irish language Act and our campaign for rights and recognition? Does this increase the chances of an Irish language Act and what does it tell us about potential legislation through Westminster?

In order to inform the debate in the here and now, we need to map out exactly what role the British Government has played to date regarding indigenous language protections and promises.

In little over 20 years, the British Government has ratified, promised or pledged protections for the Irish language on no less than four separate occasions. 1998 saw the Irish language be promised ‘resolute action’ and parity of esteem in the Good Friday Agreement. The same year would see the British Government ratify the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) and in 2001 they would also ratify the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages (ECRML). Both are international treaties that require the British Government to protect and promote indigenous languages and communities, including specific provisions for Irish. Finally, the British Government would commit themselves to an Irish language Act, based on the experiences of Wales and the Republic, in the 2006 St Andrews Agreement.

These four treaties all have one thing in common; they have been signed off in Westminster but since ratification have almost completely ignored and sidelined by the British Government.

COMEX, the Council of Europe Committee of Experts, during their periodical monitoring rounds would consistently criticise the British Government over lack of compliance whilst continuing to recommend they ‘adopt appropriate legislation protecting and promoting the Irish language’ and ‘engage in a dialogue to create the political consensus needed for adopting legislation’.

As co-guarantors of both Good Friday and St Andrews it’s fair to say the British Government aren’t neutral bystanders nor can they continue their pretence as objective arbitrators in the Stormont impasse. The same goes for the Irish Government. An Tanáiste Simon Coveney would go on to publicly re-commit to his duties as co-guarantor and reassure us of the Irish Government’s support for #AchtAnois in a letter to Belfast based Irish language group Glór na Móna.

Of course, the question of legislation for the Irish language is not as clear cut as a law facilitating same sex marriage, for example, and the Irish language community has to be careful of what we wish for from Westminster. I think there is a general acceptance right across the board now that for Stormont to return there will need to be an Irish language Act. Arlene Foster herself confirmed to Conradh na Gaeilge during that round of meetings with Irish language groups in the Spring of 2017 that “there will be legislative provision for the Irish language”. The fallout since has been around the form and content of that legislation.

The community alongside a host of international experts, from the Council of Europe, the UN, NIHRC, and a majority of 5 Stormont parties, are all singing off the same hymn sheet; an act must be delivered in ‘stand-alone’ legislation. The content, must be based on international best practice, affording the Irish language official status, with a commissioner, and provision for signage and services.

The draft agreement published in February 2018 would have fallen well short of what is needed, and would only have embedded the fundamental problem of political interference within the legislation. We have since then told the parties as much. After 900 days we must ensure we arrive at a worthwhile resolution, one that makes demonstrable and practical change for people and communities who wish to use the language. For those who don’t wish to engage with the language, new legislation will have little to no impact on their lives. As CAJ’s Daniel Holder explained, “Put simply the rights of non-speakers of Irish are not interfered with by also continuing to provide for English."

Drafted correctly, an Irish language Act will ensure the language is no longer held hostage to political tensions or crass and sectarian decision making. Leaving this to the whim of Westminster could be potentially naive and risky, as MPs could bring back an Irish language Act in name only; with very weak provisions and content. So we could find ourselves very much in ‘be careful what you wish for’ territory. The St Andrews Agreement did include a very significant caveat that helps to mitigate weaks proposals, clearly stating the Act must be based on experiences from Wales and the south.

Nevertheless we must explore and exhaust all avenues for delivery. The Dream Dearg grassroots campaign is constantly evolving as the political landscape chops and changes on a daily basis. The concept of bottom-up activism, community organising, ‘feet on the street’ participative ideology for change will remain key in this campaign.

During post election briefings in April 2017 we were told that politics here have changed forever.

Things have changed.

Westminster is off the fence.

This week we have learned that London has both the capacity and the will to vote through legislative change here, when it suits them. Local agreement remains the priority. That ensures both local buy-in and local responsibility.

If the DUP continue to elevate the exclusion of the Irish speaking community over the need for an executive that serves everyone, then we now have a precedent for Westminster delivery. Any return to Stormont without an Irish language Act, however, would only legitimiste and institutionalise that exclusion even further.

Real change and meaningful delivery fosters stability. Anything less and it will only take another #Líofa, another ‘crocodile’ or ‘curried yogurt’, and we will be right back here again calling for real solutions to the same problems.