Dáil debates

Thursday, 3 March 2005

Priority Questions.

PEACE II Programme.

3:00 pm

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will report on progress to date at EU level to secure the extension of the PEACE II programme until 2006; if he has also pressed for a successor programme or programmes, that is, PEACE III, to build on the achievements of PEACE II; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7385/05]

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government is aware of the valuable role the PEACE II programme has played in building peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border region and that there continues to be a need for such funding. Therefore, I am glad to report that we have recently secured an extension of the PEACE programme to 2006. The extension has been adopted on foot of the conclusions of the Heads of State meeting in June 2004 which, responding to a joint initiative by the two Prime Ministers concerned, the Taoiseach and British Prime Minister, invited the Commission to examine the possibility of extending the programme to 2006. It was approved by the European Parliament on 14 January 2005 and by Council on 24 January 2005.

The operational programme detailing the priorities and measures for the extended programme was submitted to the Commission on 11 February 2005 jointly by my Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel in the North. The submission took account of an extensive public consultation carried out last summer by the special EU programmes body which manages the programme. There was a very good response to this consultation, including more than 70 written responses and a wide attendance at public meetings. This shows the high level of public engagement with the PEACE II programme.

Although the extension of the programme was agreed only five weeks ago, we are already turning our attention to the post-2006 situation. Under the terms of the programme agreed, spending may continue up to 2008. The question of what will happen when the extension runs out is one which will have to be reviewed by the two Governments in consultation with the European Commission. This is under active consideration at present.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the good progress made and the confirmation that the European Parliament has formally ratified the extension of PEACE II to 2006. The programme is very important for communities in the Border counties and the Six Counties which still experience, as we all recognise, the legacy of partition, conflict and neglect over decades. The previous Minister stated in reply to a question from me on this issue last year that a new programme beyond 2006 would be considered in due course. While I note what the Minister has just stated on the consideration of this matter by the Irish and British Governments, is it also being addressed at EU level? Will the Minister be more specific in this regard?

We addressed the Taoiseach yesterday on the absence of infrastructural investment in the Border counties as part of the overall Border, midlands and west region. Does the Minister accept that the supports under PEACE II should at all times be in addition to and not substitutes for normal State investment in regard to infrastructural development or other initiatives that come under the ambit of the PEACE II programme and, it is to be hoped, a PEACE III programme which will follow?

I understand concerns have been raised that while training for women in the child care sector was funded under PEACE II, this may not be continued under the extension to 2006. I am not privy to the detail of this matter. Is the Minister aware of the concerns raised and can he provide further information in this area?

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

An extension to the end of 2006 will bring the programme in line with other Structural Funds programmes. Therefore, a new PEACE III programme could not be sought until then. Both Governments wanted to ensure that a gap period did not occur and, therefore, an extension rather than a new programme was sought at that stage. The question of whether there will be a PEACE III programme will be considered in the context of the budget discussions for 2007-13, financial perspectives which are being discussed in respect of all programmes and policies thereafter. What we were doing here was to make sure that this programme which was due to end last year was extended to bring it in line with other structural funds programmes so that one could make the argument thereafter.

Regarding the funding arrangements, the total fund of €707 million, including Exchequer and other matching funds, has been made available to projects in Northern Ireland and the six Border counties in PEACE II between 2000 and the end of 2004. The EU contribution was €531 million, with a ratio of 80:20, four to one respectively between North and South. The Border region has received €106 million in Structural Funds, an average of about €21 million annually, plus additional Exchequer support of €35 million over the five years. Under the terms of the programme, 15% of total funding was allocated for promoting and supporting cross-Border activity. The amount available, including the maximum funding in 2005, totals €80 million. This breaks down to €56 million to Northern Ireland and €24 million to the Border region. These are independent of or in addition to the national development plan programme rolling out the regional development objectives of the BMW region.

As regards the specifics on the opportunities for women, I have not got the information available as to whether that is covered in the child care sector of the extended PEACE II programme.

Photo of Caoimhghín Ó CaoláinCaoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would be grateful if the Minister would be good enough to come back to me when he establishes the position because it is a matter of concern whether the extension of the PEACE II programme also covers women in the child care sector in terms of what is applied heretofore.

Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that we are now looking at both Governments addressing what might apply post-2006 and that there is not yet an EU dimension to what might then come into play? Will the Minister be more specific in that area?

Is the Minister familiar with the report entitled Building on Peace: Supporting Peace and Reconciliation after 2006, which was produced by a consortium of cross-Border bodies based at European House in my home town of Monaghan? If the Minister is not familiar with it, I commend it to him. It is an excellent case for a PEACE III programme and I hope it is being factored into the consideration of both administrations in deciding what is to happen from 2007 onwards.

In recognition of the important role that PEACE I and PEACE II have played, I ask the Minister to affirm his commitment and that of the Government to advance to a PEACE III programme. That is very important for those counties.

Photo of Brian CowenBrian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The extension proposal contains European agricultural guidelines as regards the fund and financial instruments for fisheries guidance funding, increased funding for and focus on reconciliation, more capacity building for groups such as ethnic minorities and Protestant working class communities, continued focus on economic and social projects, specific tourism measures and a continued focus on cross-Border co-operation. This is all as a result of the public consultation process.

My reading of the final part of the draft as recently delivered by Minister Pearson in Northern Ireland on Monday, 7 March, is that it would send a clear signal that the current extension of the PEACE II programme would complete the work and that there might not, therefore, be a successor programme. Our view is that in advance of sending such signals there should first be proper consultations with the stakeholders and given the political aspects of the questions, we imagine these consultations should take the form of Government to Government discussions, and that the views of the European Commission should be sought.

It also highlights the point that successful conclusions to the peace process would be the best way of maintaining the extra goodwill we have had up to now regarding this programme, and everyone should take up that responsibility.