Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I think there is such a myriad of individual programmes and schemes that the vast bulk of people really do not know about them. My concern has always been that it will become a specialist area. There are people who throw out acronyms that blind most people all the time. I co-chaired the SEUPB as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for five years. Very significant amounts of money are allocated through that programme and through INTERREG. I negotiated the multi-annual framework prior to the current one. One of the things that always struck me as odd is that one of the great recipients for INTERREG money has been Wales, which voted to exit the European Union. I thought that was certainly a case of biting the hand that feeds you. That is an aside.

One of the issues I am always concerned about is that, for example, the lotto here puts ads on the television showing the beneficiaries and the people who get funding from it. It shows the good that the lotto does. One can make one's own judgment on the balance of good and evil between gambling and beneficiaries. The European Union does not do any of that. Most people have no notion of the actual benefits of it, other than a sign on an occasional building. This is a general observation before I ask a question. There really needs to be a campaign to explain these programmes.

In her presentation Ms Murtagh refers to Access Europe. I was surprised at the low level of funding that has been drawn down in that regard, approximately €12 million over three years. That does not strike me as terrific, although she talks about a really positive echo system for drawing down that money. That does not sound like an awful lot of money.

I am taken by the point about match funding. It is often the most able who thrive in an environment where they have the shillings to match. The weakest are the ones that do not get it. That is a very compelling case. It is something that I think we should look at and we should make that case in our discussions with Brussels.

Senator Keogan has gone and I do not want to steal her thunder but she has advocated for a very long time to have EU officers in every local authority. Quite frankly, the regional assemblies are too diverse, large and disparate from most organisations on the ground. I am sure people representing the regional assemblies will correct me on that. Certainly they have a more direct relationship with their own local authority. There needs to be a more visible presentation of European funding and a better support mechanism. Again, as an aside, from experience, when we were doing sports capital grants, the most able of clubs and organisations drew down the great bulk of the money because they were the most proficient in filling in the forms and ensuring everything was right.

We looked, from a governmental perspective, at how to aid particular sectors - I will not name them - which really were not drawing down the money in a way that we thought was fair. We talked, for example, about giving professional assistance, through some mechanism to assist in the application process. I wonder about actually setting up a proper EU affairs officers in every local authority to do the minutia of form-filling. There is a formula to doing these things and it is a case of getting it right once. Those are my observations. I think there is very significant money out there and I do not know, other than anecdotally, whether we do well or not so well in comparison with the drawdown from this funding by other member states. Is there a go-to spot where one could go to all the different schemes and programmes that are available and see what each country draws down? Even within our own nation, could we see if some areas are just not as good as others? There are all sorts of variations such as the overall funding available under INTERREG, for example, and the percentage drawdown possible varies but is that comparison available in a general way?