The next item on the agenda is the presentation by Helen Johnston, director of the Combat Poverty Agency, on behalf of the Combat Poverty Agency, Area Development Management Limited, Co-operation Ireland and the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland.
Peace II Programme: Presentation.
Mr. Brian Duncan
It would be appropriate for me, as joint chairman, to introduce the group but first I congratulate the Chairman formally on his election and thank him for giving us this opportunity.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan
While I have the privilege of being chairperson of Combat Poverty Agency, I am also one of the joint chairpersons of the consortium which runs this programme. There are four parties to the consortium which runs the Peace and Reconciliation Programme. We run individual programmes and we also act collectively as a consortium. The organisations are Combat Poverty Agency, Area Development Management Limited, Co-operation Ireland and the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland. Ciarán de Baróid is the representative for the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland. Tony Kennedy is chief executive of Co-operation Ireland. Paddy Logue and Paddy McGinn are the two managers, based in Monaghan, who do all the work and are responsible for the day to day management of the programme. In my own case, apart from being chairperson of Combat Poverty Agency I am the joint chairperson of the consortium. Helen Johnston is the director of the Combat Poverty Agency and we have nominated Helen to make the presentation on our behalf.
We are running a programme due to finish at the end of 2004 which has got a two-year extension to the end of 2006. The main focus of today's presentation will be on what happens after 2006 because that is fairly important. Obviously the team collectively is happy to deal with questions on the existing programme.
Ms Helen Johnston
I want to set the context for peace building work and to look at some of the international evidence available. Key commentators on this, one of whom is Professor John Paul Lederach, would suggest that it is useful to think of peace building and peace making as a triangle, at the top of which are the decision makers — politicians, lawyers, etc. — who are responsible for reaching peace agreements and peace accords and for the business of peace making. At the middle level of the triangle are those who form opinions — businesses, the media and academics — who are engaged in this process in different ways and think about how they can contribute to peace building. At the base of the triangle or pyramid are those involved in grass roots work. These are the people who are affected and influenced by the conflict but who also are key to building peace and reconciliation from the ground up. Such ground-up work can take place only in the context of co-operation of the other levels, particularly the peace making and the contribution of those who form opinions. I will speak mostly about the role of the EU-funded peace programmes which we have been responsible for delivering. That takes place mainly at the grass roots level but also, to some extent, with those who form opinions. It is important to bear that context in mind.
My next point is about some of the lessons we have already learnt from the groups with which we have been engaged over the past ten years in our work of delivering the peace programme money. Much has been achieved. That has been evident in the involvement and the mobilisation of many people who would not have been engaged in any kind of work previously but who are now involved in peace building, community groups and local communities and there has been a great level of improvement among the local communities.
There have been what we call experiments in new forms of governance; in other words, there are intermediate funding bodies, of which we are one, who are helping to deliver peace funded groups on the ground. These include county council task forces and local strategy partnerships. It is very much about responding to needs on the ground and building partnerships in terms of bringing about peace. That has also been positive. There is a greater engagement in what is required to build peace and how we go about that, and we have learned much in that regard.
An attitudinal survey has been carried out recently on people who have been engaged in peace building work as compared to people in the population generally. It examined the issues of contacts and trust in neighbours, etc. There is strong evidence to suggest that people who have been engaged in the peace building work have higher levels of contact and stronger levels of trust than those who have not. One might say that would happen anyway because these are the people who are more likely to engage in this kind of peace building work. Nevertheless the fact that the programme facilitates such work is a positive message.
It is a long-term process. We have been involved in this work for the past ten years but the conflict has been going on for the past 30 years and there have been issues dating back much longer. In terms of looking forward, the European funding for the current programme will come to an end in 2006, by which time we will not have the peace built and there is a need to think of how we can continue building the work at a grass roots level.
Cross-Border work is another important part of our work to date. Much of the work has been going on separately, in Northern Ireland and in the Border counties, but part of the programme has involved interaction across the Border, bringing people from the communities in the North to the South and vice versa, and undertaking joint work. That is part of the work with which the consortium has been involved. That has been very positive and is something which we need to develop.
Part of what we have been doing at grass roots level also needs to be complemented by higher institutional arrangements. We have seen some of those set up — for example, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Authority and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. All of those structures and supports are important for the context of the grass roots work and building peace on the ground.
Given the time available, I do not want to speak further about the work in which we have been involved but my colleagues and I will be more than happy to give details of the kinds of work in which we are engaged. I want to look forward to what we think should happen next. Things should happen at three levels: at the local level, at the national level and then at European level.
At the local level, there are three areas which we feel could be explored and developed. The first area is about learning the lessons from the past. We have been involved in this work. Many evaluations have been done, both at the project level and also at the programme level, but nobody has really tried to bring that learning together to look at what is really making a difference and why. We believe it would be really important to do that so that as one moves forward one is learning from what has happened in the past and why. We suggest an innovation fund could be made available to fund and support that work.
In terms of lessons for the future, quite often one undertakes a programme and then decides to carry out an evaluation to see what worked and what did not. Part of what we think should happen as we move forward is that we should make provision for asking some of the questions at the beginning of the programme so that we can then look at the impact of it — we call this lessons for the future. One particular aspect of this in which we are interested surrounds the idea of social capital. How do people at the local level contribute to this and how are they building this? This is something one could ask at the beginning and then one could explore that as the work progresses.
The third aspect at a local level has been what we call delivery by intermediary funding bodies, in other words, the Governments' Departments have an important role in delivering some of these programmes but the strength of the peace programme has been that local organisations have also been delivering the programme. That has meant that they have been able to engage more closely with the people on the ground and have been more responsive and flexible to their needs. The benefit of having intermediary funding bodies has come through strongly in the evaluation. That would also include the local partnerships, etc.
At the national level, we think of two things that should be happening as we move forward, particularly in the Irish and UK Governments but also in the new Northern Ireland Assembly if such a body is set up. Obviously the committee will be most interested in the Irish Government's role in this. One of these two areas has to do with mainstreaming peace and reconciliation. There has been much support at Government level for the peace process but at grass roots or mainstream programme level it could be supported more strongly as we move forward. It is likely that the European funding will be reduced and therefore we will need more engagement from the national government in delivering these programmes through, for example, the health service, the VECs and other mainstream organised funding programmes in the community sector. That would have a long-term benefit of building and stabilising the peace.
The second area here is stronger North-South co-operation. I already mentioned the value of this and that some cross-Border bodies have been set up, but there is an opportunity for greater cross-Border co-operation in the peace building work and we would like to see that being built on.
The current round of Structural Funds will come to an end in 2006 and discussions are already taking place at European level about the next round. It is thought that most of the funds will go to eastern rather than western Europe, so that Ireland will receive less than it did in the past. When Peace I was set up it was a special initiative and did not qualify for Structural Funds, but Peace II qualified. There is a case to be made for that programme to continue but perhaps in a more flexible, focused manner. The money should be available to allow for the distinctiveness of peace building. In line with many European programmes, a trans-national learning programme should look at other socio-ethnic divisions as well as the one in Ireland, allowing us to learn from them and to contribute to that debate rather than see our own situation in isolation. There are thus two initiatives to be taken at European level.
I will indicate some of the areas in which we seek the support of this committee in making representations to the Government and to the European Commission. We urge the committee to support the strong case for continued EU funding of the peace building work post-2006. We can elaborate on the value of that work to date. We also seek support for this work outside EU funding in terms of Departments and the broader role of the Government, which we would like to see showing some leadership in peace building. Greater cross-Border operation should also be encouraged along with links with partners in the North, in order to build a sustainable peace on this island.
I join the Chairman in welcoming our guests and thank Ms Johnston for the oral presentation. The document provided is very useful for referencing.
The extension on Peace II from 2004, i.e. for 2005 and 2006, was not addressed, and I ask the witnesses to comment on satisfaction with the level of funding provided over the two-year period, in terms of the Peace II programme and the International Development Fund. I understand that funding was of the order of €60 million and €15 million in each of the years 2005 and 2006. Ms Johnston might confirm that she considers the offered funding to be substantial, and sufficient to cover the potential out-working of the programme over that period.
Can Ms Johnston evaluate the feedback on the disposition of the Government to the introduction of a Peace III programme? I spoke to the Taoiseach in the Dáil this morning regarding that matter and he was less than forthcoming. How does Ms Johnston feel about the Government position in that area and the British Government's role? The latter's recent submissions indicated a wind-down, with less resolve than previously demonstrated. Mr. Paul Murphy, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was present in the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery this morning during the course of the questioning on this matter. I am not asking these questions on a political basis but because Ms Johnston is asking the committee and the wider representation present to lobby. It is therefore important that we have some understanding of the position or disposition of the Government.
The focus of Peace II is greatly on reconciliation. The experience of communities on the ground would be that it was a much more difficult programme to access than the first programme. The continued out-working of the programme has regard to reconciliation and peace-building, which is the most important element. Is it too early to anticipate where the critical focus will lie? Will it be easier to access the programme, as access has been quite problematic for community groups, many of whom I have worked with and assisted during both programmes? No doubt Ms Johnston's colleagues and those at the coalface are familiar with the difficulties people have. There is concern that there should be an easing of the form-filling process and prior preparation for Peace III and that the qualification criteria should be clearer regarding what would fit within the parameters of the programme.
It would be remiss of me as a Deputy from the Border area not to say that both programmes have been greatly appreciated. The work of the Combat Poverty Agency and Area Development Management Limited in the management of the programmes, out of European Union House, is also appreciated and I pay tribute to all at the coalface of that work represented here today.
For my own benefit, could Ms Johnston tell me the levels of funding since 1994 with regard to Peace I and Peace II?
Ms Johnston
I have the figures here for the full programme. For 2000 to 2004, EU Structural Funds provided €531 million and there was national co-funding of €177 million, giving a total of €708 million. My colleagues might elaborate.
Mr. Paddy Logue
Some €100 million was provided annually, of which 15% went to all cross-Border work. Some of that was handled by intermediary bodies and some related to Government-related measures.
The extension to Peace II currently taking place will run at about the level of Peace II to date. While the Irish Government has maintained its contribution level, the British Government has reduced its contribution and there has been much debate on that matter. One of the conditions put on the extension to Peace II is that the intermediary bodies which currently deliver must again submit tenders for the work. None of us can therefore give any guarantee on how the programme extension will operate because we do not know if we will be operating it or not. We will be asked to submit tenders within the next month or so and must then decided how to proceed.
The level of funding is one issue, and I find it astonishing that the European Union and the International Fund for Ireland, representing the American taxpayer, put more into peace-building at a community level in Ireland than the Irish and British Governments combined. The other important issue is the level of co-ordination between the various bodies involved, North and South. The money will be most effectively spent if there is effective co-ordination between non-government organisations such as those we represent, local authorities and Departments. More work is needed in this area.
The special EU programmes body has worked to simplify the issues of access involved in Peace II. One of the proposals in the Peace II extension is that the number of measures should be substantially reduced. They will be less specifically focused, but when people make applications they will not be bounced around between various organisations, which should help. Other issues are still being considered.
Mr. Paddy McGinn
Regarding Deputy Ó Caoláin's point about access difficulties, we would agree that Peace II was much more difficult than Peace I to access for the broad range of sectors attempting to do so. The Peace I model was more of a broad capacity-building programme, but the more difficult access to Peace II means that more focused peace-building and reconciliation work was done. However, we were not happy with the level of bureaucracy. That was partly because EU funding, to which great accountability is attached, is involved. Those of us working in the Border region in particular feel that some of the bureaucracy represents another layer added on by some of the Departments in the North.
The managing authority, especially the progress body, had a very bureaucratic programme at the outset of Peace II. It has taken advice from our organisations and from representatives such as those on this committee, and matters have marginally improved, though much more could be done. Departments in the South need to challenge that bureaucracy and point out the duplication and triplication involved. We need some support at Government level in the South to challenge some of the Northern bureaucracy. There are indications that there will be less bureaucracy involved in the Peace II extension.
I welcome the witnesses. Mr. Kennedy appeared before the committee some weeks ago. When we hear from such groups we can see the jigsaw being formed on the ground to build a genuine peace process. Earlier today, Deputy Carey and I met a delegation from Israel to discuss the Palestinian issue, among others. We agreed that no matter what governments are currently doing or not doing in the Middle East, there is no organisation on the ground to build on whatever little bit of progress could be made. We are very fortunate in the existence of such organisations as those represented before the committee today.
I intended to say it was good that we did not discuss the level of money involved, because the work being done by these organisations is priceless. However, since some €708 million is involved, a little more than €100 million annually, we must commend the organisations on the fantastic returns being created. I appreciate the point made by Mr. Kennedy that when one sees where the bulk of the money originates, there is a greater onus on the Irish and British Governments to invest more significantly.
As committee members we must ask what we can do. Ms Johnston's presentation outlined what the organisations would like us to do. It is important that this committee puts whatever pressure it can on the various European players to ensure that the funding will be maintained. In this broader Europe, the newer EU member states in which there has been conflict over the years and up to quite recently can learn a great deal from what has been happening. As a committee it is incumbent on us to attempt to ensure that the work being done by the organisations represented today is supported. It is not headline work. We do not read about these organisations every day, which is a good sign, but the work done makes a difference and brings people together on a practical community basis.
One can have many grandiose political and inter-governmental plans in place but unless one gets people working together locally nothing can be completed. I commend what the organisations are doing and support their request to this committee that we seek to ensure the funding remains firmly in place. The work done represents a mere pittance in Europe's budget over the past couple of years, and we must try to ensure that at least that level of funding will be maintained. I thank the witnesses for their presentation and for their work which, though unseen, makes a great difference.
Mr. Duncan
We will report these comments to the staff in Monaghan doing much of the work on the ground.
Mr. McGinn
The point was made that despite great highfaluting political ideals, it is the people on the ground who deliver. There is currently much speculation that there is about to be a breakthrough in the North and that the Belfast Agreement institutions will be re-established. If and when that happens it is important that one does not take one's eye off the ball. While the institutions are down, people's attention is fixed on the peace-building plans, but if they are re-established people might look elsewhere. The institutions merely create the context for peace-building work and genuine reconciliation on the ground, and the support of grass-roots communities must continue, especially after the institutions are restored.
I should point out that Deputy Ó Caoláin and I do not have nameplates in front of us because we are not full members of the committee. It should not be thought that we are complete social outcasts. Deputy Ó Caoláin certainly is not at any rate.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked about the focus of the next programmes and I did not hear an answer. Do the witnesses think that the measures will be aimed at either social inclusion, cross-Border, cross-community or economic regeneration? Some discussion has recently taken place in the media with regard to having a major reconciliation focus as distinct from a regeneration element. Many people would say that by its very nature the conflict had major social and economic consequences for communities. These must be addressed. The witnesses might elaborate.
Regarding the ratio of funding for the management of the entire project vis-à-vis the amount of money given to the various groups, has any study been done in terms of efficiency and deliverability?
Mr. Tony Kennedy
I am not sure if we as a consortium have a united view on this matter so I will give the Co-Operation Ireland view. It is very clear that the programme focus will be primarily on reconciliation. I welcome this. I accept that there are issues of economic and other disadvantage but what makes this programme special in European eyes is that the funding is there for reconciliation. If we begin debating economic disadvantage we will lose the funding to Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and elsewhere. There is also a question of whether the EU should be funding exercises which are properly the responsibility of national governments. The programme is recognised as a European priority for reconciliation and lessons should be learned elsewhere from what we are doing for reconciliation.
For the Peace II programme extension there will be a limit of 10% of funding for administration costs. Currently, intermediary bodies such as ours are more expensive than Departments and our costs have accounted for about 12% or 13% of the funding provided. One gets what one pays for and if one wants simply to have services steamrolled out without working at a community level, there will be one level of service. To get the level of service which we have been providing, working at a community level, costs more. I have no objection to this service being examined to see if it is cost-effective, but delivering the service in this way is more expensive.
I happen to think at the end of the day the outputs are better because they are involving groups which one would not normally involve. For example, there is an estate in north Belfast called Mount Vernon which would be widely known as a UVF estate. It would not be as widely known that last weekend there was a group of women from Mount Vernon estate lighting candles to Saint Oliver Plunkett. We do move people along. They went to Drogheda and did that seriously in what they felt was a recognition of a different set of beliefs on the island. These are people whom one would not find inside Catholic churches in Northern Ireland but who are prepared to go across the Border to meet other people and make what they feel are genuine gestures towards another tradition on the island. It is small gestures like that which go towards making big differences at the end of the day.
Ms Johnston
I support what Tony Kennedy has said on the importance of making sure that the peace funding through the European Union is distinctive for peace building work as opposed to broader issues, which can be funded under other programmes such as through the national development plan. While Peace II could be criticised in terms of its administration, it has had a strong focus on building peace and reconciliation. It has to address the legacy of the conflict or take opportunities for peace and in so doing it must pave the way to reconciliation. The proposals and recommendations which we have been putting forward for the extension are to focus even more on those elements of the work.
On the support that intermediate funding bodies such as ourselves can provide, we put great stake in our development work. We would have development officers who work closely with groups on the ground so that they can draw down the funding, can start to build a capacity at local level and, hopefully, become sustainable in the long term. We have not spoken about the importance of sustainability at the other end but one needs that pre-development work in order that the communities can access the funding and start on the road to peace and reconciliation.
I want to return to Deputy Ó Caoláin's point about the Government's response to Peace III. I do not have any inside knowledge of that. The Government has been supportive in the past but we believe that we all must argue the case for it to be supportive in the future. That is part of the reason we are here today, to get support for this work which cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion. We have also written to the British Government to get a similar hearing and also to the Northern Ireland Assembly if that is up and running. We are trying to promote our work at all levels to secure funding for the longer-term peace building.
I congratulate our Chairman on his election and welcome the group. I will be critical by saying that the group has failed to sell itself well in the past couple of years. I am saying that by way of constructive criticism. Mr. Kennedy gave me this book some months ago. What a fabulous piece of work it is and what a great story there is to tell, but nobody knows about it. I am not sure how well the group has managed to put it across. Coming in here today is certainly a step in that direction.
The group has asked us to make its case, through our Government and through the EU. To that end, they have very willing listeners but it is much easier to make such a case if it is good value for money. Some €168 million is currently allocated each year to the work, although that figure may include other matters. Others who are making much more noise about what they are achieving are getting much more attention. I am being constructively critical of the group because if they can manage to tell their great story well, they can achieve a great deal more.
I believe there is a link between peace and reconciliation on one side and economic well-being on the other, in other words that a community which sees economic benefits from what the group is doing is much more likely to get the funding for this work, but that must be seen to be sustainable. Some years ago at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation somebody criticised the use of the money being allocated and voiced the hope that it would not be used to build luxury golf courses. I think the person was talking about the Slieve Russell Hotel in County Cavan. I do not know if that hotel got money but in my mind I had no problem whatsoever in saying that would be sustainable. That old adage used by Oxfam seemed appropriate: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. It seems much better to put seed capital into something that will sustain itself in the future and it is possible for the group to do so. While I know the group is doing that, it must sell itself to a greater extent.
I have come across instances of tiny sums of money that created real change. I visited the slums of Santiago, Chile, where a wealthy Belgian had provided sums of money to a co-operative of 600 women. They were selling knitwear for $1 which was eventually getting into the shops, in places like Texas, California, to be sold at $50. The co-operative was trying to move their goods further up that chain to get more for it and that is where the man to whom I refer was spending this money. He was forming small groups who did not know one another previously but had learned to work together. By pooling the $1 each had with which to buy seeds, eggs or a spade, for instance, each of them was able to create far more wealth and well-being. As they met every week and talked about what they were doing, suddenly they were getting to know one another better and those on different sides of the community were learning to respect each other as well. I tell the story only to show my enthusiasm for the work this group is doing and in the hope it will be able to do a great deal more with a comparatively small amount of money. With this sort of money, however, it is possible to achieve the sort of dividends we see being achieved.
I have some interest in, and experience of, the work of the Glencree Centre for Reconciliation in County Wicklow. Often its work must be done with no publicity and it works much better as a result. I am thrilled to hear that the women of Mount Vernon came to Drogheda to light candles to Saint Oliver Plunkett. Perhaps it is better not to publicise that because it probably does not help them. It is a reminder that while I am critical and saying some aspects need more publicity, I take the point the group will probably make that there are other aspects where less publicity achieves far more reconciliation.
Ms Johnston said in the presentation she would give examples of the work in which the group is engaged on interaction across the Border. Once she has answered Senator Quinn's question, perhaps she could address that point. It would be helpful to me anyway.
My question is related and the two questions could easily be answered together. If I may be forgiven, I want to sound a note of scepticism. I am as conscious as anybody in this room of the work the group has done over the years and I am appreciative and supportive of it. I am not convinced, however, that it is feeding significantly towards building reconciliation within Northern Ireland or to entrenching peace within Northern Ireland, not because of the way the group has done it but simply because I am not convinced that this can work within the current political context.
A few years ago the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body had a look at education for mutual understanding, EMU, in the North. I remember seeing a particular report which struck a note of reality in my head. It stated that while they had undertaken exchanges between schools in various parts of Belfast, eventually they found that when the kids came to throw stones at each other at the interface at the end of the day they knew each other's names. The kids got on okay during the exchanges but they still went back to throwing stones and knew the names of the guys at whom they were throwing stones.
I am not persuaded, for example, as a central point, that sectarianism within the North is less evident than it was before the ceasefires. In a political context where the two major political parties in the North focus entirely on strengthening their control over communities where they have a vested interest in maintaining sectarian conflict, with or without arms being used, I am not sure it is possible for the building of golf courses in County Cavan to make a huge difference. I am not convinced in any case by Senator Quinn's argument that economic development will help peace and reconciliation between North and South or within Northern Ireland. That is not to say it is bad. In fact, it is good. However, I am not totally persuaded the link is clear between that work of economic development in the Border areas and building peace and reconciliation within Northern Ireland.
It seems to me that, while it is good that women travelled from Mount Vernon to honour Saint Oliver Plunkett in Drogheda, that misses the point, because the issue is not between North and South. Northern Protestants have always had a more benevolent attitude towards us Fenians in the Republic than towards their neighbours in north Belfast. As long at the communities there are at each other's throats it does not matter in the least how many candles they light in honour of Saint Oliver Plunkett or anyone else who died 300 years ago. The focus must be on reconciliation within Northern Ireland, and economic development in the Republic is not as important.
I am aware this sounds very sceptical. I know the work the organisation has done and I have seen some of the projects. The work is good in itself, but I am not persuaded of the linkage and results in terms of the specific target of entrenching peace and reconciliation within Northern Ireland.
If any members of the committee or the Oireachtas want first-class, on the ground examples of the excellent consequences of the work done, I can take them to the Border area. If people think one can work on one side of the Border, Britain's line in the sand, and ignore the other side, they should think again. That is the fruit of the Senator's contribution.
I am sure the witnesses will want to respond to Senators Quinn and McDowell. What they said is quite weighty.
Mr. Duncan
I will take the easy part first, which is what the Chairman should always do, and then pass on to the hard question. I accept that we may have done too much work in secret but it has been difficult to excite interest. It is great to see such a large group of people in attendance today. People are clearly aware of what is going on, yet we struggle when we try to get publicity and support for our activities in Dublin. The matter does not merely involve funding, but also what one might call spiritual leadership in all of this. We must get away from the attitude that this is a Northern problem. We too must take ownership of it.
We accept the point about publicity and will take the management issue on board. As school reports urge, we will try harder in the future. The other issues are very wide and we do not want to overstate the benefits of what we are doing. Whatever we do must be predicated on the political system delivering too and we would never say we can deliver everything without that system. Regarding what is happening on the ground in Belfast, Ciarán de Baróid might respond.
Mr. Ciarán de Baróid
I will give one example. I recall in the early 1970s taking children from the Ballymurphy and Shankill areas to Donegal, where they had a great time. Because there was a gun battle taking place in Ballymurphy when we returned, we had to drop the children off in the Shankill first, though we had always been advised to go to Ballymurphy first. We dropped the children off in the Shankill, were greeted with a cry of "Fenians!" and had bottles and rocks thrown at us before we retreated down the Shankill Road. I accept therefore that there are difficulties.
Would that be less likely to happen now than it was in the 1970s?
Mr. de Baróid
No. I do not think that sectarianism in the North has decreased. As the committee may gather from my accent, I am not from the North but originally from Cork. I went to the North without much initial understanding of sectarianism, so that against all advice I walked up the Shankill Road on my way home to Ballymurphy after visiting the pub one night in 1972. It did not register with me that someone would shoot a person merely because he or she was perceived to be different.
Over 30 years of conflict in the North, sectarianism vented itself by means of that conflict. It is now venting itself in other ways, such as through events at the Holy Cross school in north Belfast. A great problem remains to be tackled. Through the many projects we fund which have a cross-Border element, I have found a softening of attitudes and perceptions as a result of the non-threatening aspect of someone from the Protestant Ardoyne area visiting Cork or Galway, for example, where there is no immediate threat or friction. We fund many cross-community projects, and people sometimes become involved on an opportunistic basis as a way of getting money to fund other projects. There is a drip effect however, and if one changes people's behaviour one changes their attitudes.
We fund on a cross-Border basis an organisation called the Springfield Inter-Community Development Project. As a result of its work it has set up a hotline between the Shankill, Highfield and Springmartin, and the Ballymurphy-Springfield interface. While I was on a bus going to Dublin, project members were informed by phone that there was a problem, and they contacted members in Belfast. The matter was sorted out within ten minutes. People went out on the streets and pulled the young people away from each other. Such events often begin with young people throwing stones and then develop further. There are many example of that.
In the past four or five years I have seen a much greater engagement by the Protestant community in cross-Border work. There needs to be much more reconciliation between Northern Protestants and people in the South generally, as well as between Northern Catholics and people in the South.
Does the North-South work feed through to better relations between the communities in the North?
Mr. de Baróid
My experience is that it does.
Mr. Kennedy
The example I used, involving the women from Mount Vernon, might not mean much to Senator McDowell. However, these are people who were never previously inside a Catholic church. By going inside they start to see another culture and that is a big step for them. Sometimes that can be the last step on the road but sometimes it is the first step.
One of the ways in which people in Northern Ireland coped during the Troubles was by not talking about the issues which divided them. People were able to exist as friends for years in that way. One of the changes has been that workforces are much more integrated than they were. The lead was taken in legislation and people had to follow it through, but people still work together without talking about the issues.
Not discussing the issues was probably a good way of coping while there was daily violence. Once the violence stops, one has an unhealthy society if people cannot share their views and talk openly. We have to educate people to talk again. We tell Protestant groups that crossing the Border and talking to Catholics in the South is their first step. The second or third steps should involve establishing local relationships.
Is it fair to say that there are fewer mixed areas in Belfast today than there were even ten years ago, during the height of the Troubles?
Mr. Kennedy
There has been an increase in residential segregation but there has also been an increase in integrated education. There are more mixed marriages taking place now than previously, and more mixed workforces. Accordingly there are two sets of conflicting signals.
I know that what we do works. We measure the attitudes of young people involved in our projects before and after they participate. If the exercise is repeated, and young people meet those from the other side of the religious divide twice or three times, the results increase exponentially and prejudice is broken down. This is not nearly as effective as it could be because the Governments North and South still do not have a clear objective of building a shared society. It would be much better if it were part of Government policy that the work we do as part of the European programme and the work we do outside it fitted in with an overall strategy of building a shared future for the people of the island. That would have much greater impact.
On the Everton complex on the Crumlin Road in Belfast, there was a bus stop used by Catholics and Protestants. For operational reasons the bus company moved the stop 100 yards down the road, from a perceived neutral area to a perceived Catholic area. The Protestants said they would not use the bus stop. The bus company reopened the old bus stop but it also retained the new one because it did not want to upset the Catholics. There are now two bus stops 100 yards apart, one of which is used by Protestants and the other by Catholics. This does not bother the bus company because it costs mere pennies per year in terms of additional petrol used. By opening the two bus stops, it has managed not to annoy anyone. This decision was taken, for perfectly logical reasons, at an operational level by a semi-State organisation but it reinforces divisions in society.
In the world I would like to create, there would be a positive requirement on State and semi-State organisations to promote shared society. As a result, such organisations could not take a decision of the type to which I refer. This is catered for in part of the legislation in Northern Ireland but it is not adequately enforced. Where legislation has been enforced for mixed workforces, there has been a measurable increase in integrated workforces. It can, therefore, be done.
I wish to pick up on another point which is also a North-South issue. Both communities in Northern Ireland look to what their perceived view of the attitude to the South is in order to rationalise their own positions. Protestants from north Belfast need to travel to Drogheda and talk to people there in order to discover what are their attitudes. There are still many people in the North of a Unionist background who believe that those in this jurisdiction are massing on the Border, ready to invade at any possible time.
I will give one further example before concluding. A number of young people from east Belfast took part in a citizenship programme. We asked them, before they travelled down to Dunboyne, County Meath, what kind of community they would be visiting. They said that the people would probably all live on farms or in thatched cottages, that they would get up early to do the milking and that they would all support the IRA. Those children were 15 or 16 years of age and they made their trip only one year ago. There are attitudes that need to be addressed and this can be done by people coming down to the South to see what life is really like.
Mr. Logue
A number of tough questions were asked. First, the Peace Programme has never funded a golf course in County Cavan, or anywhere else for that matter.
I am glad Mr. Logue cleared up that matter.
Mr. Logue
As regards publicity, the point made is correct and we have laboured with that. The stories we are telling are good news stories and this is not particularly popular with national or even local papers. Given the choice between a good news story or one about someone getting hurt, they choose the latter. We have recently been dealing with this by encouraging the projects to tell their stories. In the past year there has been a major difference in that the projects have a publicity budget and they are able to talk to the media and highlight the work they are doing. That is beginning to seep through. It has been difficult and it is something with which we have laboured.
Some of the points made by Senator McDowell go to the heart of what we are trying to do and the difficulties we encounter. I agree that there is no evidence in Ireland, Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the world that economic development, on its own, has helped to solve ethnic problems. Economic development, with other elements, can contribute. There were Governments in the North which believed for many years that economic development would solve the problem, but it did not.
One of the elements to which I refer is containment. When people say it is a Northern Ireland problem, that is a serious challenge to us because, as Mr. Kennedy and Ms Johnston stated, in our experience it continues a kind of containment policy which was in place during the conflict, when everything was locked in and it was like a pressure cooker. It is most important that all people, not only those in the North but also those in the South, become interested in the matter, find out what things are really like and take responsibility for it. We and the projects we fund are trying to break out of that and reach out.
I was asked if sectarianism has increased. The evidence appears to show that it certainly has not decreased in a visible way. What is happening is that people are saying that the Catholic community is sectarian and that the Protestant community is sectarian. That might mean that there are sectarian people within these communities but that the majority of people in both do not fall into that category. The Peace Programme has given those people an opportunity to take steps outside their tribe and meet people from the other side, from the South and from other parts of the world. This does not mean that the hard core sectarian element has disappeared, but those people who have not bought into sectarianism have been given an opportunity, funded by the Peace Programme — we have discussed this earlier and provided examples of it — of reaching out. This has a powerful knock-on effect.
The EMU example was cited earlier, where young boys began to throw stones at one another and they knew each other's names. We know that this was a false strategy and we no longer fund that kind of simplistic, cross-community initiative. It must be tied into a great many other things. It is not simply a matter of taking two groups on a trip to spend time together and have fun before returning to their communities. That has not worked. When we develop our strategies, we try to develop other things. Some of our work involves a single identity, whereby the community is given the confidence to step outside. That may seem crazy and people may state that it is not reconciliation and that we are giving money to a single identity. However, it is helping them to move forward from, in some cases, a very low bases. It is slow and it is piecemeal but it is a strategy and we have learnt from our past mistakes such as EMU.
The challenge we are facing is that there is an easy option, namely peaceful co-existence. I refer to Belgian society, which functions and which involves peaceful co-existence. We are just at the point of peaceful co-existence in Ireland. It is better than conflict or people being killed. It could be an easy option but there are two communities running on parallel lines. We know from simple geometry that such lines do not meet. However, we could end up with peaceful co-existence in ten, 20, 30 or 40 years' time.
The challenge is to go beyond that towards reconciliation. Peaceful co-existence is very polite and looks good on the surface but what we actually want, through reconciliation, is to get these people to engage with each other, share an identity and make common cause around issues of human rights, equality, justice, economic development and faith in the past by taking responsibility and building a shared language, narrative and discourse in order to discuss these matters. That is hard work and it is the challenge we face. We could all park at peaceful co-existence and hope it does not fall apart again. Unless we can move on down the road towards reconciliation, the chances of matters regressing and of sectarianism staying deeply rooted will remain.
Ms Johnston
I wish to add to what Mr. Logue and Mr. Kennedy have stated. This is a long-term process. If we consider other societies which have been in conflict and which have reached the end thereof, it is apparent that it takes a long period before society can be restored. What often happens is that the majority of people support the peace process but the views of those who do not or who are alienated by or not participating in it often become more entrenched. The media then tend to focus on those particular areas and issues. We need to keep working to try to build up peace. As Mr. Logue stated, we need to work with those people who are most excluded from the process.
I moved from Belfast to Dublin ten years ago. The change which has come about in society in the North and in the Border counties has been measurable and tangible. One can see the real benefits but these have not yet reached everyone and every community. We need to continue to——
In terms of cross-community relations or simply in terms of development?
Ms Johnston
In terms of both — in terms of the development of deprived and disadvantaged communities, in terms of what they have there, in terms of jobs, etc. What Mr. Logue said is correct, economic development must contribute to the peace process, but on its own it will not be enough. We must work at building reconciliation as well. The latter involves working with people in local communities and through local organisations. One can see the tangible benefits for communities which before would not have interacted but which are now doing so. However, there are areas where neither economic nor community development is taking place and we still have to work at getting involved with those communities.
Mr. Kennedy
I agree to some extent with Senator McDowell's comments. There is no evidence that the peace programme is making a difference. However, the political process has been stop-start in nature and we are currently awaiting another breakthrough. The one thing that has kept people's minds focused, kept them active and kept many adversaries busy doing things in their own communities in the interim has been the practical way in which they could work on peace projects. Tens of thousands of people were involved in different types of such projects.
To give members an understanding of what we are involved in, we operate a very diverse programme. Everything is done by means of application. At present, between 5,000 and 6,000 projects are being supported in the North and the Border region. They are not all good projects. I am aware of this for a fact. Some of them are quick exchanges of youth groups. People on this side of the table have enough experience to know that these projects do not make the sustained difference required. However, there are a number of really good projects that are working. After seven or eight years of involvement in this work, we are still only learning which are the better projects and what are the better interventions we can make. A very important aspect in that context is that we need sustained interventions in some respects in order that some of the better projects can be continued.
It is very diverse. There are all stages of reconciliation, namely, single identity, people beginning to learn about each other and people working co-operatively and in a sustained way in cross-community projects, which are extremely effective. Even in the Border region there are numerous examples — Clones, Pettigo, Dundalk, etc. — where massive problems exist within nationalist communities. There are all shades of green and there are different projects aimed at building relationships within nationalist communities, not to mention those operating on a cross-Border or cross-community level. This is all part of the diverse work in which we are involved.
I agree with Senator Quinn that we are not selling the story. We are aware of that fact. This returns to the issue to which Deputy Morgan referred, namely, what it all costs. Most of our energy goes into trying to count the coppers ten times over. We are, therefore, in a difficult position. Our staff have to verify, vouch and account for what we are doing at all sorts of levels. Once we publicise a project, if there is any sort of political sensitivity involved we will spend the next couple of months trying to cover our tracks as to why we funded it in the first instance. It is not easy work but it is diverse in nature and we have to work on selling that diversity and also the work we are doing.
I thank Mr. Logue for putting the position correctly. I did not intend to suggest that economic development, on its own, would solve matters. It has to be part of a much bigger picture and what our guests are doing comes into that category.
Ms Johnston referred to trust. There would seem to be a much better opportunity to establish trust if people are better off and if they see benefits coming from it. The book, Building on Peace: Supporting Peace and Reconciliation after 2006, produced by our guests provides some important figures and information. In referring to the period from 1999 to 2001, it states that the total number of unemployed fell by around 54%. What a smashing achievement. Those who were not working before and who are now in employment must have a vested interest, particularly if they have learnt something of trust. As regards the latter, they are getting a benefit from it, they have learnt that the bogeyman across the road is not as big a bogeyman as they thought and they have learnt to trust him in some form or other. Reconciliation will only come about from experience. What our guests are doing is obviously right but we just want to sell it a bit better.
I do not wish to add a great deal. I wanted earlier to play devil's advocate and some of the replies given were very interesting. I did not mean to say — I can understand how it could have been construed as such — that it is just a Northern Ireland problem. I accept that relations between North and South are important, although I am not sure that they are equally important. The point I was making is that, in terms of reconciliation, the primary need lies within Northern Ireland as opposed to between North and South. I accept, however, that there are differences between how Catholics and Protestants in the North see the Republic and vice versa. I take the point Mr. Kennedy made that communities in the North define their relationships with each other, at least in part, in terms of how they relate with the Republic. That is interesting and I will give some thought to it.
I do not want, in any way, to be critical of our guests' work. I know it is a vital sine qua non of building reconciliation within Northern Ireland. I was interested in the point — our guests made it clear that they do not all necessarily agree on this — that they want to focus in particular on the work that has a direct link with reconciliation in the North. That is a good thing and that focus would be welcome.
My major point relates to the bigger picture. The overall political arrangement and approach to matters in the North is not primarily geared towards reducing sectarianism and, in a sense, it requires sectarianism or a measure thereof in order to feather the caps of those who are primarily party to the political system. We have a problem in that all the good work our guests are doing will impact to some degree in such circumstances but it will not resolve matters.
I am somewhat concerned that we could do the entire project a disservice by focusing on the difficulty in measuring the impact. It is important to point out that there have been real and tangible returns out of all that has been done in recent years. Our visitors agreement or acceptance of some of the points made by both Senators does themselves and the overall programme some disservice. From my exposure to different projects that have been supported, I recall memories of people who were brought together and who worked together who might never previously have had an opportunity in this regard. Projects and initiatives acted as catalysts in terms of bringing people together.
I can say from personal experience — which would be cursory enough in terms of the wider experience through the North of Ireland — that not only contacts but friendships and trust have been built out of the whole experience. These are things that are difficult to measure and quantify. It is not merely a case of bricks and mortar in terms of physical community facilities being put in place. The impact comes in terms of people's consciousness and the way they look at and relate to each other. I do not have to spell out the positive impact of the programme because Mr. Logue and Mr. McGinn and others provide some detail and testimony in that regard. It is important to say that. We do the project of moving to Peace III no service at all by stating that success is hard to measure. It may be hard to measure but it is real. No mistake should be made about it. People can give adequate testimony to confirm that is the case.
Senator McDowell made a comment with which I would strongly disagree. It is not the first time but I will not get edged about it.
It will not be the last.
No, it will not. It is important that people also take on board that the matter of addressing the cancerous sectarianism that exists should not be laid upon the shoulders of those who have come before the committee today. The programme is being met by people across the full spectrum of political opinion in the North of Ireland and the Border counties. There is major and courageous work being done by people at community level and people from across the entire raft of political opinion. I am particularly knowledgeable of initiatives and continuing work colleagues in my party are spearheading in difficult situations. It is often the case that the most difficult people to engage with are those within one's own community, particularly in terms of explaining, marketing and selling the programme and bringing people along. However, that work is being done. I assure members and others, regardless of the political views they hold, that there is, without question, a serious, earnest and universal acceptance by the party I am proud to represent that sectarianism is a cancer and that it is the very antithesis of the political beliefs we uphold and espouse. I am confident that such contribution will continue. It will take time. No amount of wishing will change it. It is hard earnest work on the ground. I wish all of that a fair wind.
Mr. McGinn
We tend to be fairly self-critical of our work. That is the nature of it. It is much nicer to hear someone else saying it is good than for us to say it is good. I thank the Deputy because self-praise is no praise.
On another point of reflection, humanity tends to bank what is coming forward and what advantages are involved, and then starts to look to what needs to be done. It is worth remembering that the 1974 agreement collapsed over the North-South arrangements. This time, whatever problems there have been about the Agreement, the North-South arrangements have fairly well continued and have almost become acceptable. The Democratic Unionists are on record as saying they have no problems with North-South co-operation providing it is practically based. Therefore, movements have taken place and that has been partly built on the solid work done on the ground. That is something we should recognise and welcome.
Touching on publicity again, I thank the committee for today's opportunity. Much of the publicity we generate from this will not be generated directly through newspapers. I know for a fact that if a southern newspaper leads on a Northern Ireland story, it sells many fewer copies than if it leads on a southern story. As a result, journalists naturally do not put such stories at the front of their newspapers. How we will get this information out is by speaking to people like the members of this committee who then pass on the message. I thank the committee for this opportunity.
Ms Johnston
Sometimes it is thought of as being a problem "up there" but it is one which affects us all. The message to take away is that we need to continue this work because it does involve us all.
I thank each member of the group for coming before the committee. Bearing in mind what everyone has said, I propose that we send a copy of the presentation to the relevant Departments, the Departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs. It might not be a bad idea also to invite officials from those Departments to speak to the committee about the programmes. Deputy Ó Caoláin's question about the response from the Government was relevant. I will make a note to invite Deputy Ó Caoláin to the relevant hearing.
Mr. McGinn
May I suggest you invite us back to see how it is progressing?
Yes. In the meantime, I suggest we write to the relevant Departments to which I referred, have them come before us and find out exactly, not if they agree or disagree but their opinions generally of the different programmes.
Mr. de Baróid
Incidentally, we brought a number of information packs which include the book, Ms Johnston's presentation and leaflets.
Sitting suspended at 3.24 p.m. and resumed at 3.26 p.m.