Mr. Kevin Mulgrew:

I thank the committee for the invitation. I am chairperson of Coiste na n-Iarchimí. We met the committee three or four times and I notice that some of the same members are here today so we did not want to come with the same list of issues, but the issues are all outstanding, for example, those relating to travel, mortgages, employment, fostering and adoption. We will forward a document to the committee on those issues. There is a small bit of tidying up to do on it because there has been some slight movement on some of the issues. I know travel is outside of the remit of the committee and this Government, but it can help in some other ways. The grandchildren of people who were arrested in 1972, who were not born when the conflict was going on, have been taken off aeroplanes.

We have had some success, nonetheless. We have met representatives of the embassies a number of times. The Australian Embassy, possibly given their history, had the best attitude and we have had some success in getting people in. We often say, quite flippantly, that if the Australians were using the same criteria now that they used in earlier times, they would not get into Australia. They took that on board and have been very progressive about it. It is done on a case by case, ad hocbasis but we have had some movement at least. Canada and the United States are a no-go situation, however. It is not an issue with which this committee can deal per sebut it would be good if lobbying could be done at a certain level. The conflict is over as far as we are concerned. We are totally supportive of the peace and political processes. We have been major players in supporting that from day one.

Mr. Culbert has touched on some of the main issues. The current position for us is that we were funded under the PEACE programmes I, II and III for service provision. PEACE IV has not turned out the way we would have wished. We went to Brussels a number of times and lobbied for the inclusion of target groups in the PEACE IV programme some years ago. We were successful in that but when the programme unfolded, there was nothing in it for service provision. The target groups are in but the only measurement coming out the other end is, as far as we are concerned, a sectarian headcount. It is about how many Protestants feel better towards Catholics. While that was a factor of our work - we have worked with all groups, including loyalist groups, Protestants and Unionists right across the board and we continue to do that - it was not the main remit of our group. We are dealing with the legacy of the conflict and the 25,000 people who were involved to some degree or other in that conflict and the issues coming out of that.

We met with the Fresh Start committee in the North and everything looked very positive. The Fresh Start agreement was probably the most progressive document that has come out in the past 30 years. That was when Stormont wasin situ. The agreement then went in to the civil servants and when it came out the other end, the money had all gone towards the agencies. There is no money for groups, including our own. We are going back to talk about that. That is an option we thought would have dealt with some of the service provision but that seems to be gone, although we are still pursuing it. In terms of PEACE IV, there is an offer there but none of what is involved would be central to what our people want done. That is what they are telling us. It has been a very negative experience. We met with the Special EU Programmes Body, SEUPB, prior to this and explained our position and our needs. There is a raft of literature available, commissioned by the SEUPB, which outlines the ongoing needs. The SEUPB commissioned a large scale evaluation of our work in PEACE III and of the loyalist groupings. That came back very, very positive and said that at the time of evaluation, the work needed to be continued because the needs were still there. PEACE IV is a completely different animal however. We are now left in a position whereby the network is surviving on a voluntary basis but to be honest, it cannot continue like that. We need a dedicated funding stream so that we can continue with service provision.

As far as we are concerned, the conflict is over so all those involved in the conflict should be treated the same, especially the combatants. The State actors in this have received significant funding and we are not opposed to that. That is fine but nothing of a similar nature has been given to former republican activists. That is something we need to address because people are getting older. Most of the political prisoners are now in their sixties or seventies. They have families but because of imprisonment, involvement in the conflict, being on the run and so forth they do not have the wherewithall to manage or to cope for their children. There are lots of issues there with regard to age and poverty.