Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, for the prompt way in which you are conducting the proceedings. This concerns the need for the Government to give more funds to Co-operation North. The Minister will be fully aware of the existence and activities of Co-operation North but maybe I could put one or two of them on the record of this House. It is possibly the most worthy and practical of the non-sectarian groups which work both north and south of the Border. I say it is practical because the Minister and the House will be aware of the enormous amount of visible work that Co-operation North has done in both parts of Ireland.
At a time of immense tragedy and great tension it would be appropriate if the Government were to make a significant contribution to this group, and indeed other groups if it sees fit, to promote the work of conciliation and cross-Border co-operation in a practical way. As the Minister will know, Co-operation North runs residential conferences, exchange schemes and the well publicised maracycles. It concentrates as far as it possibly can on communication and exchanges between young people. The results of these activities have been tangible.
The problem for Co-operation North has been funding, as it is with many voluntary organisations. It is a mystery why funding from the Government has decreased so much in the last ten years. To quote the figures, in 1982 Co-operation North received £50,000 from the Government and in 1993 it received only £20,000. That is inexplicable given the extraordinary cross-community work that it has done in that time. It is not a recognition of the great work it is doing.
In comparison to that, the British Government, which always used to fund Co-operation North on a pound for pound basis, paid £40,000 sterling in 1982 and in 1993 that contribution has risen to £100,000 sterling. The disparity between the Irish and British Governments' contributions is clear. I cannot understand why the Irish Government has decided, at a time when the situation is not getting better but worse, that this is not a priority. It has decided that this is one of the programmes it will cut by £30,000. Last year Co-operation North only got £20,000 but in 1991 it got £50,000. In the last two years a decision was made at Government level that this particularly worthy organisation should get less money. The Minister should look at that in the light of what the British Government is giving, and adjust the figure for the 1994 Estimates.
It is always dangerous to anticipate what the Minister is going to say but I have to because one of the procedural problems of this House is that we do not get a chance to reply to the Minister. I imagine he will say that Co-operation North has been very successful in getting IFI funding. That is true, but IFI funding is project based. When a plan is presented to do X, Y and Z, the IFI will evaluate it and approve funding. Co-operation North and others are extremely grateful for that IFI funding, which is a tremendous boost for them. The Government's money is needed, however, because outside that project base it is impossible for Co-operation North to expand on only £20,000 per annum. In other words, it cannot plan ahead. It has no idea what funding it is to receive from year to year because it has to apply to the IFI which, by its nature, takes a long time to decide. Co-operation North does not know if it will receive funding for a particular project or not. Neither does it know whether it will be able to fund more staff, projects and cross-Border activities or whether it will be able to expand co-operation and cross-community work.
The Government ought to guarantee a minimum figure which is much more than £20,000. At the very least, the Government should go back to the 1982 figure and link it to inflation since then, which it has done with other activities. Alternatively, the Government should match the British Government's £100,000 per annum. In that way it would allow Co-operation North to plan its activities for the years ahead. We all have great respect for this organisation and pay it verbal tribute but we do not all contribute in financial terms, including the Government. It is impossible to expect such an organisation to have a bright future if it does not have a reasonable, guaranteed sum from the Government.
Co-operation North has done some wonderful work in both communities. One of its great successes in recent times has been to hold two media conferences north of the Border. These are spontaneous efforts to get journalists from North and South to meet each other. One of the most striking aspects of the media here and in the North is that nobody ever reads each others newspapers. It is extraordinary how few people here read the Irish News, the Newsletter or other northern newspapers. Very few people north of the Border read the Southern newspapers. This conference brought people together from North and South, without any press coverage, in quiet surroundings, to exchange views. On both occasions the conference was tremendously successful with over 80 people attending. It is a vital means of exchanging ideas. Tomorrow Gilbeys are going to sponsor a young enterpreneurs conference in the Davenport Hotel which will be attended by 100 people as part of a business training programme.
It is essential the Minister realises this is more than just a voluntary organisation. The findings of several independent surveys have recognised the great work Co-operation North has done. The concrete, tangible results are there for everybody to see.
It might be appropriate to mention the reaction north of the Border to the recent Shankill bombing. There was an extraordinary and new spirit of reconciliation after it. The sight of priests walking along the Shankill in gestures of reconciliation and the sight of people from both communities making gestures of reconciliation to the other offended community, in the aftermath of atrocities on both sides, is a tribute to Co-operation North and other reconciliation movements with which it works in Northern Ireland.
Independent assessments show progress has been made. Such progress, by its nature, is slow because extremism cannot be countered overnight. In recognition of that work it would be a tremendous gesture if the Minister acknowledged reducing funding for Co-operation North was a mistake and agreed that in the future such funding will be at parity with that provided by the British Government.
