Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Deputies Regina Doherty, Seán Crowe, Clare Daly and Joe O'Reilly, and Mark Durkan MP. I give the usual reminder about mobile telephones and electronic equipment, which can interfere with the sound system.

We are joined by representatives from the Special EU Programmes Body to discuss the European Union's Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, PEACE IV and, possibly, INTERREG V. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the chief executive officer of the programmes body, Mr. Pat Colgan, who is accompanied by Mr. Shaun Henry, director of managing authority, and Mr. John McCandless, communications manager. We look forward to exploring new opportunities in the programme for 2014 to 2020. I am aware that the representatives have been working hard on the programme throughout the summer and, subject to different jurisdictions' agreement in 2014, we look forward to an engaging conversation on where the programme will be going. The European Commission has already identified areas of potential co-operation around youth, maritime affairs, eco-innovation and business co-operation.

Before I call the witnesses to make their presentation, I advise that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of utterances at this committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease making remarks on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their remarks. They are directed that only cognisant evidence on the subject matter of this meeting is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Colgan to make his opening statement. I do not doubt that members' will have many questions and observations to make.

Mr. Pat Colgan:

It is always a pleasure to report to and work with this committee. I will make some introductory remarks before opening the floor to discussion. Members will have received two briefing papers, from us and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, respectively. I understand the emphasis of this meeting is the PEACE IV programme, although I am happy to refer to the INTERREG programme and take questions on that subject.

We have been preparing a new PEACE programme since April 2012, when we received formal notification from the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government that we should begin the process of preparation. These programmes are being prepared in the context of EU cohesion policy regulations, which are still in draft format. We anticipate that they will be approved before the end of the year, probably in October or November. That is an important dimension in terms of being able formally to finalise the programmes.

It is good to note that Article 6 of the draft European territorial co-operation regulation makes specific reference to provision for a PEACE IV programme. The article specifically mentions that it should address issues of social inclusion, social cohesion and combating poverty in the region, and that it should continue to address the issues facing society in Northern Ireland and the Border counties as a result of the conflict. In line with that reference, a budgetary provision of €150 million was made in the multi-annual financial framework for a new PEACE programme. That money comes from the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF. In addition, on 14 June 2013, the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive made a commitment to allocate a further €50 million from the UK's ERDF allocation to the programme. That money comes from the broader European territorial co-operation allocation funding for the UK. It will be added to the other €150 million to create a fund of €200 million for the new PEACE IV programme. A statement was made at the time of the declaration that the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government would like this money to be used in areas they referred to as a united youth programme. This statement was made in the context of the Building United Communities paper, which was published by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and sets out certain targets on similar issues to those we have been dealing with under the current PEACE programme.

It is important to note that changes may occur in the intervention rates. The draft regulations make provision in the new programme period of 2014 to 2020 for changing the intervention rate from 75%, as it stands at present, to 85%. This means we could award grants of ERDF money for up to 85% of the cost of projects, which projects would need to find 15% instead of 25% funding. To date, projects have been receiving 100% funding, with 25% coming from relevant Departments in each sector. However, with an 85% allocation rate, it is conceivable that some projects may bring forward their own matching funding, including funding in kind in some cases. This new theme also has implications for the final size of the budget for the programme.

We are required as part of the programme preparation process to carry out certain formal evaluations. We carry out an ongoing ex ante evaluation process, which involves formal monitoring of the programme preparation process to ensure it complies with all the regulatory and legal requirements. We also carry out, as part of the process, a strategic environmental impact assessment of the programme, and we are also required to carry out an equality impact assessment. Those three assessments or evaluations are ongoing in parallel as part of the work we are doing in programme preparation.

Another important analysis that needs to be carried out in the programme preparation process is what we refer to as a socioeconomic analysis. This is a broad brush review of the socioeconomic situation in Northern Ireland and the Border counties and, in the case of INTERREG, western Scotland, and the key issues facing the communities and economies of these regions. A formal and comprehensive study was conducted by the economist unit in the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel and is available on our website. It provides an extremely important context for programme preparation in terms of identifying the key socioeconomic issues that need to be addressed.

We conducted an extensive consultation process in regard to the preparation of these programmes.

From August to November 2012, we organised approximately 20 events around the region that were attended by more than 1,000 participants. This demonstrated a large level of enthusiasm, interest and appetite for these programmes. Consultation covered both INTERREG and PEACE. We also invited written submissions from organisations to give us their opinions on what the programmes' focus should be and what lessons should be learned from the current programmes. We received 173 written applications, all of which we have published on our website. We have also published on our website a summary document of our consultations.

This consultation is an important part of informing us as to what the priorities for the new programmes should be. The consultees included Departments, State agencies, local authorities, political parties, the community and voluntary sector and the educational sector - the entire spectrum of society. There was an enthusiastic uptake of the invitation to consult with us.

The consultation process is fed into a formal monitoring system for the programme's development. In consultation with Irish Departments and the Northern Ireland Executive, we set up a programme development steering group. There is information on its membership in the committee's notes. It meets regularly to oversee the programme preparation process. It plays an important role for us in ensuring that the preparation process is in line with the priorities of Government policy and meets the issues raised in the consultation.

The strong themes emerging for the PEACE programme from the consultation process and society in general are: a heavy emphasis on the importance of concentrating on or addressing young people's issues, particularly in disadvantaged areas; an emphasis on issues of educational underachievement; issues of young people not in education, employment or training, NEETs; an emphasis on integrated education or shared education as an opportunity for breaking down societal barriers; and support and enthusiasm for continuing with the concept of creating shared spaces, as developed in the PEACE III programme. In this context, I refer the committee to the Peace Bridge, the Skainos project, which it visited in east Belfast, and similar projects, for example, Castle Saunderson.

The theme of civic leadership has emerged, particularly in terms of the role of local authorities' engagement with and leadership in communities. A further emerging theme is the importance of continuing to share the learning of the PEACE programmes from 1995 to 2023 on a broader scale throughout Europe and further afield.

This is probably enough by way of introduction. I am happy to take any questions or observations that members wish to make.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Colgan for his overview. Three members are offering. I will take members in groups of three. Deputy Smith will be followed by Deputy Feighan and Mr. Conor Murphy in that order.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Colgan and his colleagues and compliment them on the work and success of the three PEACE programmes to date. As a representative of two southern Ulster counties, I am familiar with a number of worthwhile initiatives in those communities that have been funded by the programmes and INTERREG.

As representatives of the Border counties, we have been concerned about an issue since the early 1990s when the first PEACE programme was initiated, namely, the question of additionality. This funding stream, which is meant to be additional to the Border counties, is often used as a substitute for adequate central government funding. We must always watch this issue and be careful about it as regards this programme.

Mr. Colgan referred to an emphasis on education. At various meetings, the committee has dealt in detail with the lack of educational attainment in particular communities in the Six Counties. I have a concern about Mr. Colgan's remarks on progressing integrated or shared education. Driving these initiatives is the remit of education Departments. It is mainline government activity. I hope that the investment that is necessary to give young people in disadvantaged areas an opportunity to increase their levels of educational and skills attainment will not be left to a relatively small programme like this one. Otherwise, the Departments in Stormont and our State would be allowed to opt out of providing adequate funding to necessary programmes.

We are all influenced by where we come from and the projects with which we are familiar. The Cavan and Monaghan local authorities have been proactive in the PEACE partnership and have worked closely with other local authorities when delivering the programme in the North. In this clustering arrangement, local authorities take the lead in specific projects, even where those projects are introduced outside their own areas. This model has worked well and I hope that it can be continued under this programme.

Mr. Colgan mentioned Castle Saunderson in my county, the Skainos Centre in east Belfast and other projects. These are exceptionally good projects that would fall between all of the stools on which Mr. Colgan is depending for central government funding from any jurisdiction. I welcome these developments and hope that these types of initiative can continue under the new programme. However, I am concerned about this funding being a substitute instead of an addition. Given our consultations with the PEACE programme at local and central level, it is the programme's desire to ensure that funding is additional to central and local government funding.

Mr. Colgan might clarify his statement that the intervention rate will decrease to 15%. Will matching funding be provided by central government or must local promoters provide the 15%? I am unclear on that point.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Colgan. It is good to see the briefing on developments and new operational programmes. Across Ireland, England, Scotland and Europe, it is vital that we target youth unemployment.

I live in County Roscommon 30 or 40 miles from the Border. Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal are wonderful counties, but a county can sometimes be excluded. To my east is County Leitrim and to my north west is County Sligo.

I understand there are initiatives to include such areas, but if we are moving into the west of Scotland maybe it is time to expand. I am quite sure that many projects have been trawled and examined with a view to joint participation, but it may now be time to come down a few miles to try to include that area also. There are opportunities there, and it is not for the want of tapping into this fund. Where I live was the home of the Connaught Rangers in which, 100 years ago during the First World War, Nationalists and Unionists fought side by side. Because of our history these men were forgotten, but history can be an effective uniting force, as I see when I go to the Skainos Centre, the Shankill Road or even to the Falls Road. Many men from the Falls Road joined the Connaught Rangers in Roscommon because they wanted to be part of a nationalist force. If we wanted to undertake some cross-Border memorial or education project on the Connaught Rangers, what would be the best way to access funding to build a centre?

I welcome the emphasis on energy efficiency in a cross-Border context. The way forward is not what we make but what we save. I look forward to the witnesses' comments.

Mr. Conor Murphy MP:

I listened with interest to the Chairman's summary of the report. It is interesting that the contribution has now risen to 85%, which is a new development. It would be interesting to explore in more detail what "contributions in kind" from groups means exactly. In many past cases where groups could have provided labour or land, it was not considered as a contribution in kind. That clarification would be welcome because it will make it easier for projects.

The Chairman also referred to the broad-brush socioeconomic analysis that will arise as preparation for consideration of the programme's themes. A much more detailed socioeconomic analysis is available, on a ward-by-ward basis, when it comes to assessing project applications and the awarding of funding to such projects. I assume and hope that that is something the Special EU Programmes Body, or SEUPB, will use at that stage. Quite detailed information is available to allow an assessment, rather than just a broad-brush socioeconomic analysis across the North and the Border counties.

Unless I failed to pick it up, there was no reference to turnaround time. Will there be improvements in this regard under the new programme? It has been a particular bugbear for many community groups, including those who have applied under all previous programmes and the current one. Has there been any specific attempt to address turnaround time for PEACE programme projects here, compared to other projects across the EU which take half the time?

While I know it is not part of the next programme, the Narrow Water Bridge project involves three councils - Louth, Newry and Mourne, and Down District - which have publicly committed funding for it. The SEUPB has been actively examining additional funds for that project. Is there any update on it? The Taoiseach has expressed some interest and people were also seeking an update from the Department of Finance and Personnel in the North.

The SEUPB made an award of £4 million to the Orange Order. In the North, we have had probably one of the worst summers in many years. I know that award was specifically for community relations work and reconciliation. Has all of that money been allocated? Has there been any discussion about the outcome that was supposed to be attached to such a significant award, given what has happened to community relations over the summer around the marching issue? Is there any ongoing engagement between the SEUPB and the Orange Order on what was expected to come out of a significant funding award? Over the winter period and into the summer, there have been street protests in Belfast. The ongoing protests in Belfast were clearly not about reconciliation and peace building.

Mr. Pat Colgan:

Some of the issues overlap but I will take them as they came. I might ask my colleague, Mr. Henry, to address the education question because he has been doing some thinking on that with Government Departments. That was the point raised by Deputy Brendan Smith.

We share with the committee an appreciation of the importance of additionality. This money should be giving us extra options for doing new and interesting things that would not otherwise have happened. As regards the discussions we are having with Departments, the intention is that it should be fully additional. It is a bit different from the way it used to be in previous programme periods. The European Regional Development Fund, or ERDF, money is genuinely seen as additional now and not substituting for government budgets. As the body implementing policy, the SEUPB takes its direction from the policy Departments. However, we take on board the importance of additionality as well.

The local authority model was raised. We agree that that model of clustering and co-operation has worked extremely well. In Northern Ireland in particular, the 26 local authorities have clustered themselves into seven different clusters plus Belfast City Council. It has been an efficient way of getting money into local communities. It has also encouraged co-operation across municipal council boundaries, where the partner principle has worked extremely well. We see that continuing in the context of the review of public administration reforms that will take place in Northern Ireland. We imagine that new clusters will be shaped in and around the RPA boundaries as they emerge. Those are the discussions we are having with local authorities at the moment.

On the southern side of the Border, the six local authorities have an impetus for the new vision for local authorities' roles arising from recent reviews. We will continue to work with them on that and we see an important role for them.

We welcome the committee's comments on projects such as Castle Saunderson. Unfortunately, we expect that this programme will be smaller than the current one, which is valued at approximately €333 million. The next programme will have a value of €200 million from the ERDF, with a potential 15% additional matching funding which would bring it up to €230 million. We are therefore talking about a project that is 70% of the current programme's size. Our flexibility for doing large projects such as those will be less than it is in the current programme. It will therefore be incumbent upon us to identify specific iconic and important projects that would be worth funding. We look forward to doing so.

A number of committee members - including Deputies Feighan and Smith and Mr. Conor Murphy MP - mentioned the intervention rate. Matching funding is currently provided by Government Departments, so we are in effect funding projects up to 100%. If the 15% rate is taken - and the member states will have some discretion; they may decide to have a different intervention rate for the programme - it could continue to come from Departments and therefore we would continue to have a 100%-funded programme, or there is the option that projects might bring that matching funding to the table themselves. The matching funding could be in kind, which would include overhead contributions and staff costs. That would make it a bit more flexible in terms of particular types of project. It gives us more flexibility in the new programme. We are in discussions with the member states about how that might be applied. No decisions have been made on it yet. This is all part of the recommendations and proposals that will be coming from us to the Northern Ireland Executive and to Irish Departments. It will depend on that.

I will now ask Mr. Henry to say something about the educational points that were raised by Deputy Brendan Smith.

Mr. Shaun Henry:

We are mindful that any PEACE programme should be additional to normal government expenditure. We are particularly mindful of that in the context of education.

During the public consultation process to which Mr. Colgan referred, the common and consistent theme was that any future PEACE programme should target youth and young people. We believe there are opportunities within the formal education and informal youth sectors through which young people from different backgrounds could share their education and youth experiences. We are mindful of the limited budgets that will be available within the PEACE programme and are trying, therefore, to identify suitable interventions within the education and youth sectors that provide real added value and would not otherwise happen. We are hopeful that we will be able to identify such interventions. It is important that young people coming out of the education system are given opportunities to have sustained and quality experience sharing of education, utilising the informal sector of youth clubs and youth organisations to create these types of opportunities. We are working through this process with the relevant Departments in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Pat Colgan:

We are working closely on these issues with the Department of Education in Northern Ireland and in Dublin with the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. As these are sensitive policy areas, it is important the lead Departments provide us with our direction on them. It is in this context that the proposals I have suggested are made.

Deputy Feighan asked about the exclusion of Roscommon from the programme. I take his point. On how parts of the west of Scotland became part of the INTERREG programme, this relates to changes in regulations in 2007, which was when the current programme period commenced, which allowed for a maritime border of up to 100 km in terms of co-operation. The introduction of this change made it possible for co-operation between western Scotland and Ireland. That is the basis on which that occurred. However, we are required to work within what are clearly defined eligible areas, which are defined by EUROSTAT in Brussels and relate to populations and specific definitions of areas that are contiguous or share a border with another partner. Roscommon is just outside that, as is Meath. There is flexibility around approximately 20% of programme expenditure that can be spent outside the eligible areas and we should, perhaps, be looking a little more proactively at how we might take advantage of that. I take the Deputy's point that Roscommon is close to the designated region and has some very important stories and linkages of which we could take some advantage. We look forward to exploring that into the future.

The socioeconomic analysis to which Mr. Conor Murphy MP referred is a comprehensive and broad brush, although that definition probably does not do it justice. It is a fulsome and comprehensive socioeconomic analysis. We are mindful of the local dimension of these socioeconomic analyses, particularly in the context of the types of initiatives about which we are speaking and the word-by-word analysis of issues of serious social and educational deprivation and so on. It is very much a part of our thinking.

Reference was also made to the turnaround time. As part of the consultation process we asked people to tell us what they thought worked well and what did not. This was identified as an area of the programme that is not working well. This relates to the manner in which we establish the rules for programme implementation. We are in discussions with personnel in the Department of Finance and our Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on new approaches, if possible, to the implementation of the programmes. In this regard, we are making suggestions and recommendations. We are hopeful that we will be able to put in place a system for INTERREG and the PEACE programme based on the difficult lessons we have learned during this programme period. We look forward to putting forward specific suggestions in this regard. It is important we meet all of the governance requirements of the Northern Ireland Executive and Irish Departments, but we believe it is possible to do so while being more efficient and predictable in terms of project applicants' expectations of when they could expect to get a reply in regard to a particular application. This is very much a part of what we are trying to do.

On Narrow Water Bridge, I am sure everybody in the room is familiar with the issues around this matter. Our discussions on this matter with the lead partner are continuing. Members will be aware that the tender bids received were significantly in excess of the amount available for award, which presents difficult issues for the project. However, we will continue our discussions with the lead partners and relevant Departments involved.

On the Orange Order, I accept it has been a difficult summer, particularly in Northern Ireland. We are in close consultation with the Orange Order. We meet it regularly and carefully monitor implementation of the conditions contained in its letters of offer. I am satisfied that we are making a good deal of progress in this regard. Is it perfect? No. Many things in Northern Ireland are not perfect. However, it is important we continue this dialogue. The projects we are putting in place with the Orange Order are, I believe, challenging it in terms of the way in which certain things are addressed and the way in which its institution, infrastructure, organisation and culture is open to the rest of society. The PEACE programme enables us to have conversations with organisations like the Orange Order which we probably would never have been able to have had. Despite the difficulties and complexities associated with it, it is in my view well worth continuing and pursuing for the benefit of everybody in society.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin followed by Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegation. I have learned a great deal from the presentation. Mr. Colgan spoke about new approaches and widening the body's remit. I would like to put on record some of my concerns in regard to the long-term goals of what the body is trying to achieve and what we are trying to achieve. One of the biggest threats to the stability of peace in Northern Ireland, the Border regions and wider afield is from dissident republicans. A profound issue on the north side of Dublin, which is in my constituency, is the growing simplistic definition or analysis of what the Northern situation is about and dissident republican organisations tapping into disconnected young people in this regard. There are issues of educational disadvantage tied into this, including economic disconnection and so on. It is very easy for dissident republicans in the South to present a simplistic and one-sided view of the political reality in the North. This pushes mainstream republicans and Nationalists further to the green side, which makes mainstream unionism and mainstream loyalism even more nervous.

Other issues affecting my constituency include local authority staff, whose responsibility it is to remove political graffiti, being threatened, an increase in paramilitary style events and an increasing mobilisation of dissident republicans in Dublin and, I assume, elsewhere. The first ceasefire took place in 1994. For young men now in their 20s and 30s, this is a distant memory, if they recall it at all. When meeting community groups from Northern Ireland, they expressed the concern that 17 and 18 year olds who have no memory of what the Troubles were like but who have heard stories about it from particular people may feel they have missed out and may be trying to relive some of the glories of the past.

Talking to someone who has been through the Troubles and who may have emerged enlightened from a period of detention or what he or she has done or experienced is easier than talking to a young person who has not been through such an experience. I wonder if there is potential for greater connectivity with different parts of the country, not only the Border regions, with a view to addressing the growing threat posed by people who take a simplified view of the politics of the North. Disaffected young people may be easily politicised and radicalised by this particularly dangerous view, which is growing in popularity. I am especially concerned about this issue given what took place in the North in the past. This meeting is a perfect forum for acknowledging the issue. What are the witnesses' views on this matter? Has it been discussed by the Special EU Programmes Body? Could the SEUPB offer practical solutions or engage in outreach on this issue?

As the representative of a constituency in central Dublin, I hope to get a perspective on what the joint committee can achieve. I do not pretend that particular emotions have been consigned to the past or that everyone has moved on and we all take an enlightened view. A whole new generation, not only in Northern Ireland or the Border counties but also in my constituency, is making life very difficult for local communities and could make life difficult for this island, North and South, if we do not engage proactively to address the issue.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the change in the intervention rate as it will assist organisations seeking to make applications in the changed circumstances prevailing in this State and the Six Counties as they try to secure matching or alternative funding.

The total moneys available under the PEACE IV programme amount to approximately €200 million. Our guests did not indicate what funding will be available under the INTERREG programme. While I accept it is probably early days, is there a figure available for funding under the INTERREG programme? A sum of €200 million may seem to be substantial but the annual allocation will be less than €30 million as the programme is to run for seven years. We must understand that while the funding may have a positive effect, it will not address all issues or solve all problems.

The funding will be used to meet "the specific and complex challenges of social inclusion, youth work, education and capacity building". This is a broad and ambitious range of areas. While €200 million may be a drop in the ocean, I hope that, combined with matching funding, it will have the intended effect.

I raise an issue that ties in with the proposed Narrow Water Bridge project and perhaps other similar projects of which I am not aware. If money is not drawn down and expended by the end of the programme, will it roll over into a subsequent programme or will it be reallocated to projects where there is a shortfall in funding? If, for instance, the Narrow Water Bridge project is delayed, which no one wants, can the €17 million committed for the project be reallocated to other projects or will it be sucked back into the European Union and take years to extract through a complicated bureaucratic process?

Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests from the Special EU Programmes Body. I had a great week at Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in Derry where the new Peace Bridge has become an iconic structure and has delivered great benefits to the city. I congratulate the Special EU Programmes Body on its role in that project. I hope a new bridge at Narrow Water will be just as iconic for the south Down and north Louth areas. As well as economic benefits, such projects also deliver higher order benefits. Major funding issues have arisen for the Narrow Water Bridge project, which the Special EU Programmes Body fully supports and in which it has played a helpful role. I hope the problems will be resolved in the coming weeks.

On PEACE IV, I share the concerns expressed about the concepts of additionality and substitution and hope they will not apply. While I do not often differ with Deputy Brendan Smith on many issues, I disagree with him slightly on one issue. Statistics show that educational attainment is significantly lower than the national average in the Border counties of Louth, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim, Donegal and, to a lesser extent, Sligo. The same statistics show that unemployment is higher than the national average in these counties. Moreover, a very high score in the deprivation index is recorded in most electoral areas and hinterland of the gateway towns of Dundalk, Sligo and Letterkenny and the hub town of Cavan. These high scores can be largely ascribed to the educational needs of these areas where the number of people who complete third level education is very low in some cases. I hope consideration will be given to the possibility of providing additional Government investment in education in these areas in conjunction with the institutes of technology.

I would also like PEACE IV funding to be provided for the development of second language skills. On a recent visit to Manchester, I was driven to a football match by a Greek taxi driver. In a discussion about our families, he told me his two daughters, both of whom had degrees and spoke two foreign languages, were working with him. According to my driver, every child in Greece learns two foreign languages. Most of the people employed by PayPal, National Pen and other companies located in Dundalk are recruited abroad because Irish people do not have the language skills required to deal with foreign customers on the telephone. For this reason, I would welcome any initiative to use PEACE IV funding for the purposes of foreign language acquisition. I thank our guests for appearing before us for this very interesting engagement.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and wish them luck with their work.

Mr. Pat Colgan:

I welcome Deputy Ó Snodaigh's remarks on the intervention rate, which brings considerable flexibility to the process. He is also correct to place the funding in perspective. Effectively, the sum of €230 million will be allocated over ten years rather than seven years because there will be a three-year window to complete the spending at the end of the seven year period.

We are actually planning from 2014 to 2023. It spreads it out considerably more.

There is still no decision on the allocation for the INTERREG programme. That will be decided between the British Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government in terms of the allocation of their European territorial co-operation funding that they receive from Brussels. However, we anticipate the programme will be similar in size to the current programme, which is worth €256 million. We do not know the details of that yet, but that is what we anticipate. The two programmes together are worth €400 million to €450 million. That gives a better sense of scale. It is much more important to have complementarity between the two sister programmes in that regard. However, on an annual basis it is not a considerable amount, which is why in our discussions with the stakeholders in terms of programme preparation we say it is very important for these programmes to have a very clear, targeted focus and are not spread too wide thereby having less impact. We are trying to prioritise specific areas of intervention where we believe the programmes can make a difference and leave something iconic and significant that is a specific additional contribution from the programmes.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh asked about the rollover of money and the reallocations of money. Money allocated within a programme period - the current programme period is 2007 to 2014 - must be spent within that programme period and cannot be carried forward into another programme period. Those are the regulations. In the current programme period we have until the end of 2015 to spend all of our allocation even though the programme comes to an end at this time. The new programme period technically begins at the beginning of 2014, will run until 2020 and there are three years after that to spend it out. So as I said it is from 2014 to 2023 but there is no carryover from one period to another. If it is not spent-----

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is only one year added on at the end.

Mr. Pat Colgan:

It is actually two because the formal end of the programme is at the end of 2013. So there are 2014 and 2015 to spend out.

The Deputy asked about projects that are not viable. We can take that money and reallocate it to other viable projects, something we have done on many occasions in the past. It is a normal and natural part of programme management to come up against these kinds of difficulties. We work very hard with the relevant Departments and other key players in the region to identify other projects that can absorb this funding. The major objective for us is to maximise the return for Northern Ireland and the Border counties for all of these moneys.

Deputy Ó Ríordáin made a very interesting point. We are facing those very issues all the time in Northern Ireland - this kind of work with young people and the kinds of influences they are under. One of the big challenges for us under PEACE IV is to see if we can make some difference in this regard. We have a good long track record of working with young people, and youth groups and organisations. Much of our work has been in building links across communities and across the Border, and engaging with groups of young people in many different ways from both a cultural and skills point of view and also in terms of understanding issues, understanding each other and building relationships. We believe that has potential. There is a demand and requirement for us to do a good deal more of that.

The suggestion of getting more dialogue going with areas such as in the Deputy's constituency is one we would welcome. As I mentioned previously, we have the option to spend 20% of the value of the programme outside the programme area provided the activity is of direct benefit to the eligible region. For example, we are in discussions with other regions throughout Europe sharing the experiences of the PEACE programme. We have done some work in Cyprus, the Balkans and in the Basque country. We have been asked to share our experience with a number of other regions and areas. We look forward to continuing to do that. I see no reason we should not also do that with areas of Dublin that have particular synergies or similarities in terms of the challenges they are facing. That may be worth exploring and we would be happy to talk to people about that. It is possible.

I will ask Mr. Henry to address Senator Jim D'Arcy's point on educational attainment.

Mr. Shaun Henry:

We are all very mindful of the low educational attainment in some of the most deprived neighbourhoods, whether that be in inner city areas, rural areas or in the Border region. When children leave the school system without obtaining qualifications, it very much limits their lifetime opportunities and leaves them vulnerable to becoming involved in a range of activity that works against the aims and objectives of the peace process. We are aware and mindful of that. However, we are also mindful of the very limited budgets we will have available. We are aware of a number of Government initiatives both within Ireland and within Northern Ireland to try to address this issue of educational under-attainment. We are aware of the complexity of the issues because it involves not only interventions within the school, but very often interventions within the home environment.

As I said previously, we are trying to identify how a peace programme can add value to the educational experience of young people. That added value is likely to involve building trust, tolerance and respect for difference. We need to ensure young people leaving our educational system have a value system that enables them to make a positive contribution to a diverse society. We are trying to identify that type of added value in our consultations with the relevant authorities, North and South.

It is worth noting that we are in discussions with the institutes of technology in the Border region and with other third level institutes within Northern Ireland to explore how they could participate in the future INTERREG programme and in particular to explore the potential of increasing their capacity in research and innovation. We believe the INTERREG programme may hold out opportunities to boost the research capacity of the institutes of technology and through that could have a very positive impact on the Border region economy.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Henry spoke about trying to assist youth work in particular. I had the opportunity to visit Lurgan GAA club along with Ms Dolores Kelly, MLA. In addition to the traditional games of football, hurling and handball, a very active youth club is based there and uses those facilities. There has been considerable difficulty in the area over the years. The model that was developed between the GAA club and local youth clubs there provides an exceptionally good resource for young people to participate in youth activities. Perhaps that type of model using existing facilities might be worth considering. The witnesses may be familiar with it.

Mr. Shaun Henry:

The PEACE programme currently funds a broad range of youth programmes involving all the main sporting organisations, football, Gaelic and rugby. The three main codes of football all work very much in a partnership way at a local level and we are funding a broad range of those programmes. We also fund a range of youth-sector initiatives for young people who perhaps do not wish to be involved in that type of sporting activity and for disengaged young people. As Mr. Colgan said earlier, over the PEACE programmes we have accumulated a broad wealth of experience of how to engage with marginalised and vulnerable young people.

Sporting organisations are definitely a very positive way to engage young people, as are a whole broader range of youth programmes. We would be keen to build on that experience.

Mr. Pat Colgan:

Another important PEACE programme project is the Clones Erne east investment, which is one of our creating shared public spaces initiatives. The project has seen land owned by the Ulster GAA Council transformed into a multi-sport facility for rugby, Gaelic football, cricket, soccer, hockey and bowling. It is an excellent example of the co-operation that is possible. We are happy with how the Ulster GAA Council and, as Shaun Henry mentioned, all the other sporting organisations are engaging with us, and there is the potential for more of that.

We also have a football-for-all initiative that we run with the Irish Football Association in which we work with the fans on sectarian issues. We have showcased the projects on international stages which we recently did in Brussels, for example. We are getting some great reaction from around Europe on the initiatives that we are engaged with.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Pat Colgan and the members for their input. A few innovative and creative suggestions have been put forward. It is an important topic, especially for this committee which is focused on the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 and relations between the North and South. Obviously, the programme is very much Border related, but there can be a good bit of creative thinking around bringing people together.

I acknowledge the work of Pat Colgan, Shaun Henry, John McCandless and their team. They have been working continuously and earnestly to make a better Northern Ireland. I am more acutely aware of the positive benefits of the Special EU Programmes Body to County Donegal and the Border region, but the impact of its work is - I hesitate to use the word "legacy" because every time that word is used in the Northern Ireland context it is seen in a negative vain - leaving a legacy. The body deals with a lot of pain and hurt in Northern Ireland and it is important that we always remember that when we are having conversations about trying to understand what people have come through over the past decades and how that is still the reality.

Deputy Ó Ríordáin pointed out the wider realities, that there are still sectarian challenges and that a lot of walls - I mean that in a mental rather than a physical sense - need to come down. The work of the body is more than symbolic and more than significant. I was delighted to be part of the opening ceremony of the peace bridge in Derry and to have the First Minister standing alongside the deputy First Minister. If an assessment had been carried out on which figure had made the bigger impact, the measurement would show that the First Minister made a massive impact in Derry. I hope I am allowed to say this in public because this is what he said on the day - but he even referenced the town as "Derry". There was a tremendous generosity of spirit. Equally, when Martin McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, was at the opening of the Skainos Centre in east Belfast, if one carried out an impact measurement it would show that he certainly made his presence felt and he went down very well.

There is a lot of work to do, but the work of the body is a cornerstone not only to the future understanding of what led to the impasse in Northern Ireland over a period of 30 years but to the future of Northern Ireland. We as a committee are looking to the future and anything that we can do to pull people together. Funding of €150 million was mentioned and Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned €30 million. Money sometimes gets the attention of politicians, but this committee is in the business of reconciliation. The carrot and the stick are always there but, if we can be progressive and creative in our thinking in bringing people together, whether that is young people in east or west Belfast, inner city Dublin or in the Border area, we may be able to make their lives better.

I look forward to our ongoing engagement.

Mr. Pat Colgan:

Thank you, Chairman.