Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Soares and his colleagues for their contributions today. They have whetted our appetite for more discussion. They have raised a lot of issues with us today and in their submission they have called for a more structured approach. That is something this committee should think about.

Reference was made to climate change and sustainability, and the possibility of working together on a cross-Border basis at a practical level. I am sure Dr. Ní Lochlainn is familiar with the Politics in Action programme. Mr. Peter Weil and Mr. Dave O'Brien of that programme have been working with young people through the Glencree centre. Young people go straight for the jugular in terms of the issues. They do not get caught up in or bogged down by the issues in the way politicians do. They reach out for the big, heavy issues and are not afraid to get stuck into them, including issues like education, climate change, future business, future work and where we are going. If the witnesses need to make contact with the Politics in Action programme, the committee secretariat would be happy to help.

The empowerment and education of women through second-chance education is an area in which I have a keen interest. I worked on a number of programmes in that area before I got involved in my current profession. I know the value of that work and would agree with what Dr. Soares said about the PEACE PLUS programme. We need more of that. We need more engagement and more opportunities for women to work collaboratively on a cross-Border basis. At the end of the day, there is real potential there in terms of second-chance education and empowerment. It is not just about empowering individuals but also empowering communities so any help we can provide in that regard will be forthcoming.

Dr. Soares called for a better process with a more structured agenda and we actually had that during the Brexit discussions through the Department of Foreign Affairs. It laid out a very credible, structured process on a cross-Border basis so in that context, we are not talking about reinventing the wheel. There is a potential governmental structure there that we could possibly look at. We could devote an entire day, if not weeks, months or years to talking about multiple identities. The complexity that surrounds that may exist below the political level. While I do not want to open up the debate again, I must ask a few questions around that. Is there enough safe space being created to discuss the complexities of identity and multiple identities? Is there enough safe space being created for people to express their own identity or identity preferences, be that Irish, British, British-Irish, Irish-British or Northern Irish? The non-political group to which the witnesses belong has a very interesting composition in terms of focusing totally outside of politics, which is perhaps where the safe space lies. Has the group looked at the history of Canada and how it has evolved and grappled issues of identity and multiple identity including people identifying as Canadian, French-Canadian, British-Canadian, Irish-Canadian, Scottish-Irish-Canadian, Welsh-Canadian, Manx-Canadian and so on? Canada is a country with no shortage of discussion points around multiple identity.

A more comprehensive answer may be required but I would be very interested to hear brief feedback on that point from Mr. Douds.