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

On behalf of the committee I am very pleased to welcome representatives of the Centre for Cross Border Studies. It is good to see Ms Taillon again. I met her informally a while back and shortly afterwards she was appointed to her new position as director of the centre. We appreciated her meeting us at that time and look forward to her presentation today.

Dr. Anthony Soares, not the other one-----

Dr. Anthony Soares:

That is it.

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

Dr. Soares is the centre's research and policy manager. It is good to see him again. I welcome Ms Annmarie O'Kane who is the information officer and Border People project manager. She is in charge of the Border People website which has been an invaluable tool for people accessing information on entitlements on a cross-Border basis. The initiative has proved quite helpful since we last met the delegation. I also welcome Mr. Thomas Haverty who is research assistant.

The Centre for Cross Border Studies is an advocate for cross-Border co-operation and a valued source of research information and support for collaboration across borders on the island of Ireland, Europe and beyond. It is dedicated to contributing to social cohesion, economic development and environmental sustainability through cross-Border co-operation on the island of Ireland and beyond. We look forward to hearing from the delegation on opportunities to further develop North-South co-operation.

Before I invite the delegation to make its presentations, I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their utterances at this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease making remarks on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their remarks. They are directed that only comments related to the subject matter of this meeting are to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor 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. Did the delegation catch all that?

Ms Ruth Taillon:

Yes, thanks.

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

I invite Ms Ruth Taillon to make her opening presentation.

Ms Ruth Taillon:

Good morning, everybody. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to it today on behalf of the Centre for Cross Border Studies. The centre was established in 1999, specifically in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, with the aim of providing a non-governmental vehicle to support and promote cross-Border co-operation. Today's submission is based on our experience of promoting and supporting cross-Border co-operation both on this island but increasingly, and more recently, in Europe as well. I hope Members will have more details about the centre and our longer presentation in their information packs. Our comments are based on that.

I shall commence by saying that we get core funding from the Irish Government through the Department of Education and Skills which is an essential element of our sustainability. It is very important for us to acknowledge that assistance here and outline that we are very grateful. Like so many others recently, our primary income has been limited to time-limited project funding from Europe.

While working with other cross-border regions has been increasingly important for us, the context of the centre's work has always been, first and foremost, Strand 2 of the Good Friday Agreement. Thus, we are very conscious that we are now 16 years on and it is 20 years since the ceasefires. We are also very conscious of the fact that only a minority of peace agreements survive more than a decade and in the absence of comprehensive efforts to transcend social divisions, armed conflicts frequently reoccur. In recent years we have seen an escalation in what is known as post-conflict violence, in particular sectarian, racist and other hate crimes and also other types of crimes, anti-social behaviour and crimes within communities. The residual paramilitary violence also provides a portent of how truly terrible a resurgence in politically-motivated conflict will be if the fragile political structures atrophy or break down. The dangers of allowing the agreement to become unravelled, or for some elements to be allowed to wither away, should be clear to all of us. Therefore, it was reassuring that the Tánaiste, in his remarks at the launch of the Government's reconciliation fund strategy, recognised the corrosive effect that legacy issues continue to have over the daily lives of people on the island, and the responsibilities of both Governments towards finding political and societal mechanisms to deal with these legacy issues.

Our focus is on cross-Border co-operation. The centre works very closely with the North-South Ministerial Council's joint secretariat and we recognise that co-operation at that level has been very effectively embedded. We would like to see co-operation extended and deepened. In that sense we are somewhat disappointed that there has been very little visible progress on the review for additional cross-Border bodies in areas of co-operation. We think it would help to build greater political endorsement for the bodies if a more proactive approach was taken to ensure that the benefits of their work was better understood by the voting public in both jurisdictions. This could be done through more robust communication strategies. We also suggest it could be done by commissioning social and economic impact evaluations in order to provide a firm evidence base to support the case for continued public investment in the North-South bodies.

Below that level, however, cross-Border co-operation is not so well embedded. Cross-Border co-operation among other public bodies, and between public bodies and civic society, is still fragmented and weakly institutionalised. Since the economic crisis of 2008, austerity has to some extent provided a rationale for a de-prioritisation of cross-Border co-operation.

The potential efficiencies of delivering public services on a cross-Border or all-island basis should be starkly obvious to anyone. However, cross-Border co-operation requires capacity, skills and resources and, even more importantly, it requires leadership and clear and unambiguous direction from policy-makers.

Since the demise of the Common Chapter the limited, but nevertheless important, references to cross-Border co-operation have dwindled and all but disappeared from major policy documents. Unless there is a clear policy imperative supported by resources, and it is made clear to civil servants and other public officials that it is part of their job, even the most motivated people will find that cross-Border co-operation has become an unaffordable luxury.

The European PEACE and INTERREG programmes, in particular, have made a huge contribution to normalising cross-Border co-operation networks among local authorities, public agencies and community and voluntary organisations. The PEACE programme, in particular, is well recognised as having helped to sustain the peace process at times when formal structures were stalled or suspended.

Perhaps one of the most valuable outcomes of the EU cross-Border programmes has been the facilitation of cross-Border networks. The requirement, built into the programmes for partnership working, has effected a real change in the culture for civil society organisations and gave them new access to decision-making. Importantly, it also made a major contribution to encouraging active citizenship. However, the fact remains that cross-Border co-operation in Ireland has been highly dependent upon the EU programmes called PEACE and INTERREG. The only other significant sources of public funding for cross-Border co-operation has been EU and American funding through the International Fund for Ireland, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's reconciliation fund. Therefore, we welcome the commitment given in the new strategy for the reconciliation fund to building a strong civil society and the explicit inclusion in the fund's criteria of support to projects that build North-South links.

As the strategy states, the significant progress made since the Good Friday Agreement cannot be taken for grant and it is essential that cross-Border co-operation be mainstreamed in public policy and budget lines on both sides of the Border.

The draft PEACE and INTERREG programme documents are now out for consultation.

The focus of the programmes is becoming increasingly narrow and it is becoming less accessible not just for civil society organisations but also for local government.

We are concerned and very disappointed that there is no specific allocation within the proposed PEACE IV programme for cross-Border projects. It is essential that a specific proportion - we recommend 15% as in the PEACE I and PEACE II programmes - be ring-fenced for cross-Border projects.

Similarly, there are changes to the planned match funding allocations and the two Governments allocation will now be reduced to 15% from the previous 25%, with projects now expected to find the other 15% from other sources which again will be fine for the larger statutory projects. However, it is essential that the reduction in the national contribution to the 2014-20 programmes does not simply revert into central Government funds.

Cross-Border work has particular challenges and difficulties. It requires new skills and additional resources. We propose that the two Governments establish a new cross-Border funding programme targeted at civil society. We recommend that approximately €40 million over seven years would be a reasonable amount.

In 2012, the centre published a major study on the Border region economy. More recently, we commissioned and published additional studies on the theme - towards a Border development zone. Since then we have been supporting a Border development zone steering committee chaired by Mr. Padraic White, involving cross-Border local authority networks, the Border Regional Authority, IBEC and InterTradeIreland.

The Border region continues to be characterised by multiple disadvantages relative to the rest of the island and the UK and continues to lag behind the EU average on a number of social and economic indictors. The European Union has introduced a new mechanism – integrated territorial investment – specifically intended to address such social and economic disparities and promote territorial cohesion, that is, to bring regions such as the Border region closer to the levels of prosperity and development of more affluent regions. The centre strongly supports the concept of integrated territorial investment for the Border region. This would ensure that not only the smaller dedicated cross-Border funds but also the main European Regional Development Funds, European Social Funds and other mainstream funding programmes in both jurisdictions would prioritise the Border region.

Cross-Border work has particular challenges and difficulties. It requires new skills and additional resources and, most important, it needs a supportive policy framework. There has not been an overarching and strategic framework to give coherence to the many valuable cross-Border initiatives that have been implemented in the past two decades. Too often, the European Union programmes have compensated for a lack of leadership and investment rather than complementing a strategic cross-Border intervention. Sustainable peace and development on the island requires new ways of thinking and new ways of doing business and that means public officials and representatives and the social partners thinking and working beyond their traditional jurisdictions.

We recommend that there is a need for a new common chapter explicitly incorporating an imperative for cross-Border co-operation in public policies and development strategies in both jurisdictions. A new cross-Border funding programme should be established focused on civil society projects, with a minimum investment of €40 million over seven years. A specific proportion - 15% - of the PEACE IV programme should be ring-fenced for cross-Border projects and an integrated territorial investment strategy for the Border region should be developed, targeting the Structural Funds in both jurisdictions and combined with the European territorial co-operation programmes and national government contributions. We recognise that those recommendations are very ambitious but believe that is what is needed to make a real difference in terms of sustaining cross-Border co-operation over the next two decades.

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

I welcome Ms Taillon and thank her for her detailed presentation containing a lot of very good material, which is of importance to all of us, as public representatives, both North and South. I compliment the centre which has done exceptionally good research over the years. It has pulled together many issues affecting both sides of the Border and which need to addressed in an all-Ireland context. That type of material and research had been lacking over the decades, so it is very important that the centre's work continues. The centre has been a catalyst for pulling together strands on different issues relevant to all of the island. Its work has been very important.
The tone of the contribution struck a note that we must be pretty assertive in the need for much better cross-Border co-operation and in the development of further all-Ireland bodies in the context of the review of the St. Andrew's agreement. I had the opportunity to listen to the centre's presentation in Leinster House some time ago and to presentations at other conferences. It has always made the very valid point that there are areas which stand out in which we need to develop cross-Border, all-Ireland bodies, including in the area of further and third level education and in the delivery of health services. While co-operation is happening on an ad hocbasis in those areas, it needs to be pulled together and given that leadership and status. We need to get the proper architecture around the development and implementation of those policies.
The last major programme which had a common chapter was the National Development Plan 2010-2014, which was a very important chapter. Particular attention was paid to consultation in advance of that chapter being agreed by government. It was very disappointing that when an investment programme was launched in Belfast almost a year ago, at which Prime Minister Cameron, Mr. Robinson and Mr. McGuinness were the main speakers, there was no political representation from Government here. That was a missed opportunity. Whoever devised that mechanism of not continuing the common chapter approach has done a very serious disservice. We can have the common chapter and we might not get the investment and progress needed but if we do not have certain parameters within which to work, then we are going nowhere.There is so much potential and so much has been achieved. We always want to recognise what has been achieved on a daily basis between statutory organisations, both North and South, whether at semi-State level, State level or departmental level.
The centre can continue to highlight the need to harness the potential of all-Ireland development. The Border area, in particular, needs that emphasis and attention to draw investment because as we know, sadly, over the years, we lost out so much due to the Troubles.
In regard to PEACE IV, Ms Taillon mentioned that it will not provide for funding on a cross-Border basis to individual programmes. That would be disappointing because the idea of INTERREG and the PEACE programmes was to place a particular emphasis on the Border region plus the cross-Border aspect. My home parish borders County Fermanagh. When I cross over to a football match and chat to some of the locals in Fermanagh, we discuss the same issues I discuss in my home village of Bawnboy. It is farcical to think that projects with a cross-Border element will not be supported under a programme that should be targeted at those particular areas because there has been so much success in those cross-Border projects which all of us, as public representatives, have supported over the years. We have seen the real benefit in rural and urban communities of that investment, in particular the ownership of the projects by the local community.

Whatever we as a body can do, we should highlight the necessity of an inclusive North-South measure, particularly in regard to PEACE IV, where funding is identified. We want to ensure the funding reaches the areas, not only that we believe it should be targeted to but that need that particular additional investment. I sincerely thank the centre for its contribution and for the excellent work it has done over the years.

Mr. Pat Doherty MP:

I welcome Ms Taillon and her colleagues here today.

We have just been through the elections in the North to the new so-called "super councils" that have been given increased economic powers and the councils in the South have been given increased economic development powers. Is there any ability to create a Border development zone that could develop all of that and bring it forward? If one looks at any of the indicators of unemployment or deprivation, one will find them at their height outside of large urban centres in the Border areas. I wonder about the potential of a Border economic zone, given that in ten months time the new super councils in the North will be in place. The elections have been held and the powers are being transferred from various departments as we speak.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Taillon. I met her many years ago, in the early 1990s, in my involvement with the Fianna Fáil women's group visiting her in Conway Mill. She has a tremendous reputation for that and I am delighted to meet her again. She is a passionate person. She is obviously committed in her activities to keeping the spirit and realities of cross-Border co-operation alive in the interests of all our peoples. I commend her on that.

Her review suggests what I know in my heart and soul, that there is a worrying decline in commitment to cross-Border co-operation. There is no question about it. She made two points, first, that "Cross-Border co-operation among other public bodies [apart from existing North-South bodies], and between public bodies and civic society, is still fragmented and weakly institutionalised.", which is worrying, and on the same issue, that "the limited, but nevertheless important, references to cross-Border co-operation have dwindled and all but disappeared from major policy documents". How can this be changed?

She points out that cross-Border co-operation has been highly dependent on EU funding and the IFI. She welcomed the new strategy for a reconciliation fund and its supports for North-South projects, but until we see the scale of the budget it is difficult to judge its possible impact. She states that "it is essential that cross-Border co-operation be mainstreamed in public policy and budget lines on both sides of the Border." I believe this committee should support fully all of what Ms Taillon supports.

Are we coming later to the educational paper, to Mr. Haverty and Mr. Soares? Are they speaking to us separately?

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

Senator White can raise that issue now.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate both Mr. Soares and Mr. Haverty on that most interesting document. It is a pity the people of Ireland would not even know the figures and the reality of the lack of movement, North and South. It is sad. It needs some political driver to make this happen. It is complete nonsense. The figures are so poor. When one considers all the people going back and forth, over to Europe and England, on Erasmus. The young people go off anywhere at the drop of a hat. On the lack of respect for the mutual qualifications, who do they think could drive this or who should drive it to change this ridiculous situation? It is a first-class paper. I really appreciate it. It was eye-opening for me. I am familiar with all the other areas where there is not movement, but that was an eye-opener. I thank them very much.

On the funding of Ms Taillon's centre, it should be of considerable concern to the committee, and it is a shock to learn, that there is no specific funding in PEACE IV for cross-Border projects. We should support Ms Taillon's proposal that 15% of PEACE IV be ring-fenced for cross-Border projects. I recommend the work of the centre in supporting the analysis of the economic challenges of the Border region, North and South. I am aware of the support the centre is providing to the Border development steering committee, which my husband chairs. We both have a deep commitment to work in consolidating the peace process. The steering committee is seeking to build co-operation for a number of priority areas, such as tourism, Border roads, etc.

I thank Ms Taillon. My colleague, Deputy Feighan, and I are on a committee to visit the prisoners on both sides, the loyalists and republicans. Even in the prisons, there is this sense that there is no awareness of the situation in the prisons for loyalists and republican prisoners, that if they do not get their rights, which are undeniably human rights, it will affect the peace on the ground outside. Deputy Ó Cuív and I participated in a meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ms Theresa Villiers, in the British Embassy here and I found her lack of understanding and empathy astounding. She had no empathy for the political situation, in particular, on the prisons issue.

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

The Secretary of State is not here to defend herself. I do not know whether there is a definitive measurement.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also told her how I found the attitude of the British Government in the lack of support to the US Special Envoy, Mr. Haass and Professor O'Sullivan. If that was on the British mainland, they would have had to-----

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

We will try to keep to the point.

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

If that was in Britain, one should say.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that was in Britain,-----

Mr. Pat Doherty MP:

Please correct that record.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was a Freudian slip. It is a serious point.

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

We are venturing into a territory that is not fully clear. All I can say on the Haass negotiations is that we do not know what went on behind the scenes from both Governments. By making those statements, it is unfair and unhelpful.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Feighan was not at the meeting with Ms Villiers.

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

Hold on. Let us-----

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to say-----

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

I know it is important.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not hold the Chairman up anymore other than to say that Mr. Haass is a frustrated person at this time and the British Government did not put its shoulder to the process. If it had been in Lancashire or anywhere else, as my colleague, Deputy Smith stated, "in Britain", they would have been far more active and conscious of not resolving the issues on the ground.

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

Senator White has got her point across.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Taillon for her presentation here this morning. It has been informative, and in many instances, challenging, particularly for public representatives.

What is striking is something we have always known - the effects of the recession on Border regions. In particular, unemployment has soared in those areas. In her report, Ms Taillon mentions higher than average unemployment levels and a poorly qualified workforce, low business formation rates, areas of significant poverty and deprivation, health inequalities and the legacy of the conflict. In reading the presentation, those issues jump out at me.

I refer to the legacy issues.

I was struck by Senator White's point on the Haass talks that did not succeed at that time. Is there a perception that the existence of anti-peace process groups are undermining much of the intention of the working groups? Are the delegates satisfied that the local authorities on both sides of the Border are working in harmony to try to address the deficits, be it in employment or investment in and support for small and medium sized businesses? Are both Governments doing enough in that regard? My party would be critical of the Government's oversight when it took its eye off the ball in trying to address the legacy issues.

The poorly qualified workforce was mentioned in the course of the address. Is it fair to say that the more educated people are leaving the country because of the economic situation and that is impacting on the development, both economically and politically, in Border regions?

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

I welcome the delegation. I wish to apologise as I was not present to listen to the presentation as I was in the Dáil chairing Question Time. Having read the documentation, I note the reference to core funding from the Department of Education and Skills, as well as the reference to its primary source of income from the European Union. Do they have the figures for the sums of money involved? I am sure the joint committee would support the work of the delegates in seeking funding.

There is a great deal of confusion about what is available for students. One hears about the continuous movement of students from the South going to the North or Great Britain but not so much of students moving in the opposite direction. There is not as much information available on the grants or scholarships available for students coming South. Is there a leaflet or booklet available for students to clarify these issues? Some of the confusion arises from the points as well as the Irish language requirements for courses in the Republic, in particular for students who wish to study teaching and require a qualification in Irish to teach. I would like the delegates to comment on those points.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too will be brief. I thank the delegates for their excellent presentation and briefing documents. I too concur. I was very surprised to learn that there is no funding available for cross-Border projects under PEACE IV. This is an issue we should look at. I very much welcome the comments because County Louth, my county, is similar to Deputy Brendan Smith's and borders the North. I am well aware of the economic difficulties, particularly in an area like Dundalk, a gateway town.

Following on from Deputy Kitt's point on education, I understand the course requirements and the assessments of academic achievement has a bearing on movement in education North and South. We are aware that the maximum number of points awarded in the South for an A level is 350, so there is an issue of the courses for which a student from the North are eligible. Dundalk Institute of Technology, DkIT, is an excellent college that has blossomed but there are more students from China studying in Dundalk than from the North. There is a great deal of work to be done in that regard. Could the delegates advise us on what more we can do to publicise the fact that DkIT is in Dundalk? Information on the opportunities for students to study in these colleges in the South, which are on their doorstep, does not seem to travel to the North.

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

I apologise for having missed the presentation, I had a meeting but was able to watch some of it in my office. The Centre for Cross Border Studies has done significant work but sometimes people do not see it. A project may take ten to 15 years to come to fruition. I concur with the points made by my colleagues. We have failed on the education front and only 1% of the student population attend college in the South, when there so many opportunities for them to do so. We need to work much harder on cross-Border co-operation on education and I would like to hear the delegates views on that.

We are working on a report on cross-Border smuggling. Cross-Border smuggling must be addressed in terms of cross-Border co-operation. It is worrying that almost 25% of fuel is laundered. I do not think we fully appreciate the scale of the problem.

Another issue is smuggling. Some €14 million worth of cigarettes were seized in Drogheda. This is an issue that must be tackled. Will the delegates comment on how we might tackle the problem of smuggling?

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

The members have ranged over a number of areas, but if the delegates wish to respond specifically to other areas, they may do that. They may also, if they wish, flag a matter for the public record. I am not going to open up the discussion again to members as time does not permit. The delegation will have the final word.

Ms Ruth Taillon:

I will ask my colleague, Dr. Anthony Soares to address the issues on education and I will clarify PEACE IV.

Dr. Anthony Soares:

First, I will address the question on information for students on third level education opportunities in the South. The Department of Employment and Learning cross-Border working group is looking at providing that type of information to students on both sides of the Border. We must recognise that higher education institutions operate in a marketplace and that universities when enrolling students tend to look at the markets they want to attract. Perhaps work needs to be done to underline the need for high quality highly skilled graduates to stay within the island of Ireland in order to address the economic issues we have, especially in the Border region. I must highlight that work has been done on the question of alternative qualifications. For example, the North West Regional College has worked with colleges on the other side of the Border and they work well together. I spoke recently to the chief executive of the North West Regional College who told me about the many excellent students he has from County Donegal. He welcomes the fact there are many students from County Donegal in the North West Regional College. There have been questions raised at a political level on budgetary pressures that arise from the student flows through the North West Regional College and other colleges in Northern Ireland.

Perhaps the Departments need to work together to address what are sometimes perceived as budgetary pressures on the colleges. However, I must emphasise that the colleges say this is not a problem; they welcome those students and want that student flow to continue.

Work has been done in offering joint courses on a North-South basis, particularly at master's and PhD levels, where universities are co-operating and offering joint postgraduate courses. However, there may be space for this type of work at undergraduate level also. For example, in terms of student movement under the Erasmus programme, students see this as an opportunity to leave the island to go to other universities abroad, but perhaps there is room to use the existing Erasmus scheme to promote a greater North-South student flow at that level.

Ms Ruth Taillon:

In terms of the consultation document, it is important to clarify there are possibilities for cross-Border projects to apply to PEACE IV. In PEACE I, the commission directed that 15% of funding had to be ring-fenced for cross-Border work. In PEACE II, specific cross-Border measures accounted for 15%. However, in PEACE III the funding was mainstreamed and we have not been able to ascertain the actual percentage that went to cross-Border projects. We have some serious concerns in regard to the PEACE IV consultation document, although cross-Border projects are mentioned.

Because there has always been a derogation for the PEACE programme providing that single jurisdiction projects could be funded under INTERREG programmes, which must be cross-Border projects, the PEACE programme has always allowed for single jurisdiction projects. However, now there is so little emphasis on cross-Border projects in the documents that we are very concerned they are not being given space and will be in direct competition with every other PEACE project. Given the pressure on civil society organisations - PEACE now constitutes one of the few areas of potential funding for civil society programmes and projects - cross-Border projects could get squeezed out even more. This is why we stress that we should go back to the 15% funding and ring-fence it for cross-Border projects. It is a European territorial co-operation programme, so it should be a cross-Border programme and should have more of a cross-Border focus than appears to be proposed.

Work is still going on in regard to the Border development zone. We work very closely with cross-Border local authority clusters. Unfortunately, local government reform on both sides of the Border over the past year or so has taken up everybody's energy and focus, so development has been quite difficult. Now that reform is getting more settled in, there is quite significant support within the cross-Border local authority clusters for the Border development zone idea. They are working on a charter which will, hopefully, go to the councils this coming autumn for endorsement. This charter will summarise the principles of the cross-Border development corridor idea. Then people can advocate it, as we have been doing, as broadly as possible in different areas to try to get the policy and resources focused on the Border region.

We believe the Border region is an entity in itself, with characteristics on both sides of the Border that are very similar, which make it distinct from the rest of the island. For that reason, the area needs a concentration of interest, support and resources. We hope the cross-Border development zone idea will percolate over the next few years. Perhaps in ten years or so, the area could be a euro region, but in the meantime, we are concentrating on the zone as an idea. We are talking about the Border development zone not just as some sort of special economic zone, but in terms of a holistic approach to the development of the region.

Dr. Anthony Soares:

On PEACE IV, may I just add some comments about the civic society theme? Of the nine indicators given for that theme, only one makes reference to cross-Border co-operation. Our response to the consultation document makes a recommendation in this regard, and we refer to the recently released reconciliation strategy by the Irish Government. The main policy document referred to throughout the draft PEACE IV programme is the Northern Ireland strategy entitled Together: Building a United Community. This creates an idea that the solution to Northern Ireland issues lies within Northern Ireland alone and does not encourage a North-South outlook. We strongly recommend that the reconciliation strategy be included in the PEACE IV programme.

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

I asked about cross-Border smuggling. What are the witnesses' views on it?

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

Is the Deputy asking whether they are for or against it?

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

I am just asking for their views on the issue.

Ms Ruth Taillon:

While it is not violence as such, I would see that in the context of a legacy issue. We are not unique and what we call post-conflict violence is something that happens everywhere. I see some of the criminality that goes on as a legacy issue and believe that will be addressed in a holistic manner. We are not experts in justice, but we are addressing some of the other social and economic activities that support that kind of activity. Therefore, it may be addressed by dealing with criminality. If many of these issues are not dealt with, we could see a real deterioration in the social fabric. That is already happening in some urban areas in the North and in some estates around the Border region. We do not have a solution for smuggling except to suggest that a tax rebate might be provided on fuel.

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

It is a criminal issue that might be found in any state.

Mr. Pat Doherty MP:

In regard to the concept of the Border development zone, is this on the radar of the North-South Ministerial Council, and if not, is there anything this committee can do to put it on the radar?

Ms Ruth Taillon:

The North-South Ministerial Council would be well aware of it. The more support it can get, the better. The Border development zone steering committee will take it first to the local authorities to try to get it endorsed. We would be delighted to see it get a higher profile and to see it considered. We are pushing the territorial investment strategy as a way in which the issue could be addressed by the two Governments, as opposed to leaving it to the local authorities to push.

Mr. Pat Doherty MP:

Therefore, it would be good if this committee wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gilmore, asking him to put it on his agenda.

Ms Ruth Taillon:

We would be delighted to see that.

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

I thank the group very much for its contributions. It has made a series of recommendations and we will forward these to the current Minister, but there may be a change in that regard in a couple of weeks. Whatever is the case, we will pass them on to whomever will be in the position of responsibility with regard to North-South responsibility for evaluation. It is important to recognise the work the group is doing, not just today and yesterday, but for quite a while, including much of the preparatory work prior to institutional set-up. We do not have an institutional set-up currently, but we have a North-South interparliamentary association. Issues have been raised here in regard to education, and at the next plenary session education will be on the agenda. I understand the session will not be in public, but perhaps we should see more information come from those meetings. The report from those meetings goes to the First and Deputy First Ministers and to the Taoiseach, but perhaps groups like that here could work more closely with these institutions.

The North-South Ministerial Council will have a plenary session on 4 July and the group has said it has a close working relationship with it. The council has moved into a different space, where it is getting into the nitty-gritty and the nuts and bolts of the issues. Our Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, will meet with Michelle O'Neill, Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, and they will discuss animal welfare and issues relevant to farmers North and South, such as labelling.

We will work closely with the witnesses. They have a series of recommendations, which we will pass on. When we talk about the Border, everybody still has the mindset of a border on a map. It is a fiscal border that people see. The Border itself - the physical border - is seen by people, but the perception is more of a fiscal border that is changing and is very fluid. We must be conscious of that.

I thank the witnesses for their time. We will now suspend the meeting for a vote in the Dáil.

Sitting suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at 12.10 p.m.