Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The danger with contributing at this stage of a meeting is that many of the questions are asked already. Therefore, I will resist the temptation to engage in repetition. I will make my first point without blowing smoke because I know none of the guests need or want that. From my experience of having lived in and represented an interface area, I am fully aware of the invaluable work that youth workers do at grassroots level on the front line above and beyond the nine-to-five of their jobs, for want of a better term. From that perspective, they have made the case very well. I have seen the work at first hand and up close.

I want to make two points. Dr. Farry touched on some of the EU-related issues I was going to refer to. We have talked about politics, the political structure and how it relates to young people and youth work. That is critical. A really important strand in the broader societal debate is how the media portrays young people, particularly those who live in or come from interface areas. I do not like the term "interface" because it dehumanises communities. The Shankill Road has a very proud working-class community with a really rich history. The same goes for Springfield and Short Strand. It is little wonder, therefore, that young people feel devalued if they come from those communities. There is also an element of desensitisation because it is quite easy to engage in violence when you do not see a community, families and fellow young people and when all you see is an interface. That is what has happened, and that is what is in the news. What really resonated with me was the point that was made during Deputy Conway-Walsh's slot. The commentary on the burnt bus on the Shankill Road during the last round of troubles at the interface was made in the absence of knowledge of the hours, shifts and hard graft put in. There has to be a point at which the media get to the root of youth work and account for what youth workers bring to our society.

The second point I wanted to make was on the issue of post-Brexit and post-Covid circumstances. While I understand full well the point Ms Watters made about the protocol and the sensitivities in that regard, is there anything emerging from engagement with young people on the loss of their European identity and the entitlements, rights and protections, and even funding streams to develop programmes, that they would have had before Brexit? I raised a few weeks ago the DiscoverEU programme, which concerns the free travel pass given to 60,000-odd 18-year-olds so they could travel for free for a month across Europe. That is no longer accessible to young people in the North. Are we cutting through some of the broader noise? In saying that, I do not want to be unconscious of the legitimate concerns. Are we breaking through to say that while the protocol exists and there are concerns about it, there is a broader issue concerning the impact on rights, entitlements and other things?

How did the delegates feel about engagement during Covid? How do they feel now about the re-engagement with young people? Have they lost many young people as a result of Covid who have not come back? Is there an upsurge in the number who want to avail of youth services because they are emerging from Covid and all the associated mental health problems?