Irish language commissioner needs to wise up

Añadido: 2026-05-06

[00:00:00]has responded with six points in his letter. There's a number of them if you give me time that I do want to highlight um because I do take exception to some of them. Point two, um I clarified in my letter of the 3rd of April. I did not at any time claim to have advised the assembly commission and that this is reflected in the agreed answered record of the hearing on the 18th of March. So let's be very clear. What does Hansard say? And Hansard is clear, Mr. Mr. Gaston, myself, your job is to give advice to public bodies. What public bodies were you giving to that advice?

[00:00:37]In response, Mr. Deed said, I gave that advice generally, but the assembly commission is one of the public bodies on our list. So, Mr. deeds once again who has claimed it is a bad translation um for what was quoted um from his Irish translation into English now seems to take exception with the English language that he [snorts] has used and and answered and I don't understand why when he's saying um Mr. Gaston asserted that I misled the committee it's clear in black and white that is what Mr. did say it. He said that what public bodies that the assembly commission is one of the public bodies on our list. So he implied to this committee that's who he was given the the advice to. Um so point three um Mr. D's letter says he did so again at your meeting on the 29th of April when he also made it known that he had contacted the journalist who wrote the original article upon which my complaint was based. I find this entirely inappropriate uh given that the FOI process is ongoing. [snorts] No harm to Mr. Deeds, but he'll not be dictating to either me or my office who we contact. We're in contact with journalists quite uh regularly and in a case of because he is trailing his feet.

[00:01:59]This is an open investigation or open consideration by this committee and to try and get a wholesome picture because Mr. just refusing to release the information in a timely manner. I felt that that was the only option open to me at that time. I have through FOI tried to get the information. He is trying to delay the process, wind down the clock and only release that information to both myself and now the committee when that window for an FOI response has been run down. I do take exception because he in he attacked the integrity of the journalist without giving the journalist a right to reply. So it was important that somebody within this committee challenged Mr. Deed's narrative and that what he say shouldn't be just taken as gospel that somebody should be probing into that and that's what this committee needs to do. Point four, he goes on to say, "I do not consider the committee's stated wish to understand the contextual issues surrounding the matter to be in itself sufficient grounds for requesting a copy of this correspondence, particularly as both the correspondence and the matter concerned relate solely to a complaint about how comments I made during an interview were reported." I think Mr. Don needs reminded that he's accountable to this committee. We're not accountable to him. And if we asked for information, regardless of how he interprets that or what he thinks about it, that information should be given without push back and should be given without him dragging his heels. And to go on to say, I'm content to share the information with the committee at the same time as it is released to Mr. Gaston. As Philip says, that has absolutely nothing to do with this committee's business. That's an FOI that I was following outside of this room, outside of committee. and to use as an excuse to frustrate this committee to release the information I think is unacceptable for somebody that is accountable to this committee. So I would be very supportive of Philip's suggestion that under section 44 of the 1998 act to compel the race the release of documents that we now start that process. And point six in closing [snorts] um this is on top of but not related or not always unrelated to the great interest in my work shown by members of your committee. As I said in my letter to you on the 27th of March 2026 this will continue to expend much needed public funds. [snorts] Mr. leads is deciding to expend public funds and frustrating this committee by continuing instead of releasing the information in a timely manner. He is continuing to send letters to frustrate the process and I think it's about time we used our section 44 pars um to Mr. Deeds. When we asked for information from the other commissioners, they provided it. When we've asked for the information from Mr. deeds. It's been met with a stonewall and a legal process and that's no way that any commissioner under the remmit of this committee should be acting. So I would support and if Philips making that proposal I would second it that [snorts] we start the process under section 44 um that we have to compel the documents that we've asked for Mr. Deeds. He was the one saying this was a bad translation. and he was the one saying he wrote to the Belfast Telegraph and instead of trying to clear that up, he has frustrated the process of this committee. He's delayed it to try and cover that essentially the Irish language commissioner when he was in responding to a question chose the wrong language in Irish as his failure and his failure to grasp the Irish language has led to this predicament that we're in.

[00:05:36]And this is continuing to take up time in this committee and if he had released the information at the time we would have moved on and we would have closed the case but he will continue to draw spotlight to his office because of the way he's acting the way he's carrying on.

[00:05:49]>> Okay. I actually have a couple more items in relation to this um agenda item but I want to bring Carol in at this point. Please go ahead, Carl.