Joint Committee on European Union Affairs díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 2023

Unlocking EU Funding: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Emma Murtagh, senior EU programmes manager for The Wheel, and Mr. Ivan Cooper, CEO of The Wheel. The Wheel is the national association of charities, community groups and social enterprises. It provides leadership to the charity and community sector and advocates on behalf of its members. It also offers advice, training and other opportunities to workers or volunteers in the charity or community sectors. I welcome Mr. Terence Connolly and Mr. Karl Murphy of the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, an organisation of which I was once a member. I also welcome Dr. Travis O’Doherty of the Northern and Western Regional Assembly and Ms Rose Power of the Southern Regional Assembly. The regional assemblies were established in 2015 under the Local Government Reform Act 2014. The assemblies forge links between the EU, national and local levels through regional spatial and economic planning and the European Regional Development Fund. The witnesses are all very welcome.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss matters relating to unlocking EU funding. Before we get into it, there are a couple of housekeeping matters we must address at the start of each meeting.

All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members that there is a constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I cannot permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via MS Teams to confirm they are within the Leinster House complex prior to making their contribution.

With that bit of housekeeping done and dusted, it is time to call on Ms Emma Murtagh from The Wheel to make her opening statement.

Ms Emma Murtagh

I thank the Chairperson and members for the invitation to attend this meeting to discuss unlocking EU funding. I am the senior EU programmes manager at The Wheel, Ireland’s national association of charities, community groups and social enterprises. I am joined today by Mr. Ivan Cooper, CEO of The Wheel.

I want to start by referencing some of the work that is already being done to help Ireland unlock EU funding. At The Wheel, I co-ordinate a programme called Access Europe. This is an EU funding support service for Irish civil society which, over the past three years, has helped organisations to draw down almost €12 million of EU funding into communities throughout Ireland. Access Europe is a landmark investment into unlocking EU funding in Ireland and it has only been possible thanks to the vision and funding of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

We also work closely with national contact points for various EU programmes and other stakeholders like the European Parliament liaison office and the European Commission representation in Ireland to promote EU opportunities. We are lucky in Ireland to have such a vibrant and collaborative EU funding ecosystem driving Irish involvement in these programmes. However, excellent as these supports are, there is still much that can be done to better unlock EU funding. The suggestions I will make here are with the charity and community sector in mind and would go a long way to increasing EU funding drawdown.

A relatively straightforward step that could be taken is the introduction of an EU match funding scheme for charity and community organisations. Many EU funding programmes necessitate match funding from applicants, where the EU co-finances a percentage of costs, leaving the applicant and partners to secure the remaining percentage. When EU co-financing covers 80% or more of the costs, this is usually doable because sector organisations can provide the match through in-kind contributions such as staff and volunteer time. However, many lucrative programmes such as LIFE , which funds environmental projects and the INTERREGs, which funds cross-border cohesion projects, have co-financing rates as low as 60%. Community and voluntary organisations do not typically aim to accumulate surpluses and are actually discouraged from maintaining reserves, with the expectation being that every euro should go directly into services. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage compared with their publicly funded counterparts and it usually means they are effectively excluded from participating in these programmes. This exclusion has a ripple effect. EU funding tends to beget more EU funding. A concept might start as a small project and then be scaled up through several EU funding applications until it is fully developed. If organisations in our sector are stuck with the smaller, more accessible programmes, they cannot scale their ideas up through larger funding programmes and that innovation is stifled.

This barrier also impacts other sectors. Many EU programmes, but especially the INTERREGs, prefer multi-sectoral consortiums in projects and they give priority to projects that can demonstrate public, private, academic and community sectors all working together to tackle societal challenges. Co-financing barriers means it is difficult to even include community organisations in consortiums, thereby reducing the quality of the partnership and the competitiveness of the application.

An EU match funding scheme for charity and community organisations would mean that for only a small percentage of Government investment in overall project budgets, our economy and society would benefit from the full value these projects offer. Many other European countries have effective match funding schemes in place. Before Brexit, the Welsh Government had a £350 million match fund for EU structural programmes. Elsewhere, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany all have different systems to encourage more participation in these programmes and alleviate the co-financing burden.

We can share more information on the potential for an EU match funding scheme with the committee. We submitted a proposal that outlines the concept in a previous pre-budget campaign, which was co-signed by several sector organisations, MEPs and the regional assemblies who are national contact points for the INTERREGs. This is a practical and relatively straightforward step with precedent elsewhere. It could be introduced into Ireland and would make an immediate difference.

I want to take the opportunity to very briefly mention three other ideas that could be beneficial, based on experience. Many EU funding programmes that have been decentralised from Brussels and are managed by Irish authorities have a bad reputation in the sector for having extremely onerous application and reporting systems. This includes programmes like LEADER, PEACEPLUS, and ESF+. The EU itself has been moving towards a more streamlined lump sum and trust-based system for programmes it manages, which has been a powerful step towards inclusivity and accessibility. Irish authorities should follow this example from Brussels and focus on alleviating the bureaucracy that often gives EU funding a bad name in Ireland.

Another barrier is the fact that public bodies absorb much of the funding from programmes like ESF+ in Ireland for Government initiatives. While these initiatives are also very important, if even a small percentage of this funding were ring-fenced for the community sector, it would provide a lifeline to many struggling community organisations, especially those that are too small to participate in the centralised, larger scale funding programmes. My final suggestion is a scale-up fund which would help capitalise on innovation funded through EU programmes. EU-funded projects tend to be one to three years in length and involve intense production of outputs. Often it is not possible to fully mainstream these outputs in Ireland during the project lifetime. A scale-up fund could address this. It could provide an extension for EU-funded innovation so that it can be fully maximised here in Ireland. In that way, we can all benefit more from the initial EU investment.

As Ireland transitions from being a net beneficiary to a net contributor to the EU budget, fully capitalising on EU funding opportunities becomes even more vital. It helps communicate the value of the EU in communities throughout Ireland and enables our sector to participate in cutting edge policy and practice innovation. It is also crucial for empowering our community sector to play its role in delivering on both national and EU policy objectives. Without community sector involvement, we will never fully achieve an Ireland that is fair, inclusive, sustainable and thriving. We hope the suggestions we have made today will be considered by the committee as practical steps that could be introduced to empower Irish communities to play their role in a better future.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you very much. I now invite Mr. Connolly to make his opening statement on behalf of the regional assemblies and then we will take questions from members.

Mr. Terence Connolly

On behalf of the three regional assemblies in Ireland, the Northern and Western Regional Assembly, NWRA, the Southern Regional Assembly, SRA, and the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, EMRA, I thank the Cathaoirleach and committee members for inviting us to this morning’s hearing. I am from the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly. I am joined here today by Ms Rose Power, programme executive from the Southern Regional Assembly, and Dr. Travis O’Doherty, national contact point for the Northern Periphery and Arctic and the Atlantic Area INTERREG programmes. Dr. O'Doherty comes from the Northern and Western Regional Assembly. I am also joined by Dr. Karl Murphy who is the national contact point for the URBACT programme, and for the European Urban Initiative. Dr. Murphy is also from the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly.

The three regional assemblies play a crucial role in the administration, management, promotion and certification of EU funds, ensuring compliance with all national and EU regulations, achieving programme objectives, and helping the promotion of sustainable regional development. In the 2001 to 2027 period, the NWRA and SRA are acting as the managing authorities for the two European Regional Development Fund, ERDF, programmes, while EMRA is acting as managing authority for the Just Transition Fund. The regional assemblies also act as national contact points for several European Territorial Cooperation, ETC, or INTERREG programmes. These programmes are in the family of cohesion funding and are designed to promote co-operation between regions and countries to help their economic and social development. The assemblies also act as first level control or auditor for Irish partners looking to draw down funds from EU programmes.

The Irish Regions European Office, IREO, managed by the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, is based in Brussels and represents the three regional assemblies and the 31 local authorities of Ireland. The IREO focus is on bringing the EU closer to the wider local government sector and vice versa. The IREO has four main functions, by which it seeks to provide timely and relevant guidance and advisory services to stakeholders to inform and facilitate their individual and collective understanding of, and engagement in, European activities. These are policy monitoring, providing the secretariat to the Irish delegation to the European Committee of the Regions, highlighting funding opportunities and networking.

Regarding the INTERREG Northern Periphery and Arctic, NPA, programme, the NPA area consists of regions inside the EU member states of Finland, Ireland and Sweden as well as regions outside the EU such as Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Sparse population and extreme peripherality from the economic centres of the EU are defining characteristics of the territory. From 2021 to 2027, the programme will allocate nearly €47 million to projects. It is funded by the European Regional Development Fund, ERDF. Grant funding rates of up to 65% are available.

The programme has three priorities: strengthening the innovation capacity for communities, climate change adaptation, and strengthening the organisational capacity. Projects typically have a transnational partnership of between five and seven partners, an average budget size of €1.5 million and an implementation period of three years. A good example of an NPA project is Blue Circular Nets, CIRCNETS. It supports the collection, treatment and recycling of end-of-life fishing gear to ensure nets are disposed of appropriately and do not end up in seas, degrading the marine environment. The total budget is €1.5 million. Sweden is a pioneer in this field and is sharing best practices and policies with NPA regions. The Irish partners are the Western Development Commission and the University of Galway.

The INTERREG Atlantic Area, AA, programme is an EU transnational co-operation programme funded by the ERDF. The total programme budget is €113 million euro. The programme covers the western part of the Atlantic Ocean and includes all regions of Ireland and Portugal as well as several French and Spanish coastal regions. There are four programme priorities, ranging from innovation and competitiveness to the environment, tourism and co-operation. The total project amounts should be in a range between €1 million and €3.5 million and will be co-financed up to 75%. A good example of an AA project is TrailGazersBID. This project explores new technologies such as GoPro cameras, drones and applications to showcase trails to Atlantic tourist visitors. The lead partner is Donegal County Council. The project has ten partners, including Sligo County Council, and has a total budget of €2.58 million.

URBACT is an EU-funded programme with up to 70% ERDF funding available. In Ireland, its target audience principally comprises the 31 local authorities throughout the State. URBACT's focus is on the exchange of learning and best practice in a transnational context, namely, between European towns and cities joined together by a common urban challenge. Towns and cities work jointly to form an integrated action plan during a 31-month period. Projects typically have a value of approximately €850,000. Following the most recent call for this network type, we have seven Irish projects in place. The URBACT local group helps to ensure the projects are participatory and includes the most relevant local stakeholders.

The European Urban Initiative, EUI, seeks to consolidate what has gone before it in the realm of sustainable urban development and to work alongside the URBACT programme and the overarching urban agenda for the EU to bring Europe closer to the citizen. It also helps regarding member states' commitment to integrated territorial development and fostering sustainable urban development. Its three main strands of assistance are innovative actions, capacity building and a knowledge environment. For innovative actions, there is up to €5 million available per project with a co-financing rate of up to 80%.

The INTERREG Europe programme aims to improve regional development policy instruments through the exchange of experience, innovative approaches and capacity building across all 27 member states, plus Norway and Switzerland. The objective of INTERREG Europe is to enable public authorities and other relevant organisations to actively learn from the experience of other regions in Europe to improve local and regional policies.

Projects can have a wide scope under six themes: a smarter Europe, a greener Europe, a more social Europe, a more connected Europe, a Europe closer to citizens, and better regional governance. Currently, in excess of €379 million is available and the co-financing rate is 80%, which is reduced to 70% for private non-profit bodies. A good exemplar of an INTERREG Europe project was INTENSIFY. INTENSIFY's objective was to reduce carbon emissions through intense community engagement and had a budget of €1.9 million. This project had eight partners, including Cork City Council, and led to the establishment of the home energy upgrade office located on Grand Parade in Cork city. The office offers advice and information to citizens to reduce energy consumption in their homes and assists with energy efficiency grant applications and home retrofits.

The INTERREG North-West Europe programme focuses on projects involving at least three different countries in the north west of Europe. Projects can have a wide scope, covering five key pillars: climate and environment; energy transition; circular economy; innovation and resilience; and inclusive society.

An Cathaoirleach

Mr. Connolly is close to having used up his time for an opening statement. If he has anything he can edit out on the examples side, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Terence Connolly

No problem. I will take some of those out.

An Cathaoirleach

If Mr. Connolly would like to finish, he may do so, but we already have his statement in front of us. We have the examples.

Mr. Terence Connolly

No problem. Projects are only 60% funded by the EU and currently there is more than €287 million available. When the 40% co-financing is added, this programme will offer around €478 million worth of investment in projects across north-west Europe in the coming four years.

Regarding the EU Just Transition Fund, just transition is the term used to describe the socioeconomic transformation to a climate-neutral economy while securing the future and livelihoods of workers and their communities. The fund is designed to do this in an area designated the just transition territory. Interestingly, the programme, which is 50% co-funded by the Government, allocates a substantial €169 million to support the just transition. There are three priorities: generating employment for former peat communities; the restoration of degraded peatlands and the regeneration of associated assets; and smart and sustainable mobility.

I would like to give the members further information on the ERDF regional programmes. The programmes for the period 2021 to 2027 will be managed by both the Northern and Western Regional Assembly and the Southern Regional Assembly. Both focus on similar schemes, with the Northern and Western Regional Assembly having a co-financing rate of 60% and the Southern, Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly having a co-financing rate of 40%. The co-financing rate difference is reflective of the fact that the Northern and Western Regional Assembly region is considered to be a region in transition, or lagging region, by the European Commission. Both programmes will focus on three priorities: smarter and more competitive regions, greener more energy efficient regions, and sustainable urban development in our regions. The total budget for the northern and western region is €217 million, and for the southern, eastern and midland region it is €663 million.

We thank members again for the opportunity to present to them today. As they can see, there is a huge amount of work concerning EU funding happening at regional government level. The regional assemblies have now been managing EU funds for a quarter of a century, with total funding of €4.7 billion, and the level of expertise, knowledge and understanding of complex funding models in the regional assemblies is now second to none. Ireland punches above its weight with INTERREG funding but of course we can do better, and a Government-funded co-financing pot would ensure much greater success in line with other member states that have taken that route. Again, I thank members for the opportunity today. We look forward to answering any questions they may have.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Connolly, including for truncating the end of the presentation.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I thank our guests for coming here. Nobody is going to disagree that EU and PEACE funding has been really welcome. Much of it has been used for really good projects. I welcome some of the commentary on the difficulties. I will start on the fear. We are talking about PEACE IV and the local authorities playing a major role. There is always the fear that moneys will be directed into what should be finance for somewhere else. However, because of some of the difficulties, I accept that capacity can be brought to bear. I saw a very successful project very close to where I live, namely, at Muirhevnamor Community Centre.

It is an extension, which was named after Kevin Mulgrew, a friend of mine who had a huge involvement in the local community. At the end of the day it was due to the SEUPB, local authorities and the Department all working together but with all the difficulties that one can imagine. There were 1 million bureaucratic obstacles that involved a bit of jumping around.

I also want to make a point about INTERREG funding. My wife works in the Changing Lives Initiative, which provides programmes for parents of relatively young children who present with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, or symptoms of it without requiring a diagnosis. That is a project that has gone on to a different level of funding and it will hopefully be expanded by the HSE and others. We all know the issues that exist there. In fairness, that is really positive. Sometimes that is down to the people who are behind the project and who can drive it. At times, I have heard people complain about some of the funding. They say it is always the same people that get it and that Louth County Council is only too willing to give it to X, Y and Z. Then when we talk to the council it says the problem is that these are the people who apply. We should have greater tools and be able to facilitate those organisations that do not have the capacity. That is where I am going with my questions.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

What questions?

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

They are really about what Ms Murtagh and Mr. Connolly spoke about. Right is one thing but what would innovation look like in regard to dealing with the co-financing issue? What pot would there be? How exactly do they think that would work? I understand that we need to facilitate scaling up as much as possible. Anybody who has ever had to deal with the SEUPB or LEADER knows that European funding can be an absolute nightmare. That is not to take away from the good work and people who have gone above and beyond to facilitate others, but it is only the committed that can avail of it. Sometimes it takes a huge level of skill sets. That is something that needs to be addressed. I accept that we cannot just hand out money to myself and Deputy Howlin and that nobody would ever account for it but there has to be a structure and it must be a workable roadmap. Could the witnesses reply in the next couple of minutes before I have to run into the Chamber and speak?

An Cathaoirleach

I know the Deputy has to leave in a few minutes but I am going to open up the debate. Multiple people can give a couple of answers if they feel they want to respond.

Ms Emma Murtagh

I will just mention that the Changing Lives Initiative was actually supported by the first phase of Access Europe so I probably worked directly with Deputy Ó Murchú's wife at one point on that. A capacity-building programme like Access Europe is an excellent one that tries to give people the capacity, tools and support they need to go through what is often a really maddening process of bureaucracy and barrier after barrier. It is a great thing, but to properly address the issues of access we need to make it more streamlined and accessible.

I understand that transparency is essential and that we need to ensure the best levels of governance and also ensure that we are spending money in the right and most impactful way, but there are other ways that we can go. There are existing European programmes that have proven that we can go towards a lump-sum model. They are working incredibly well. They are saving administrative costs at both ends of the spectrum. I used to manage programmes that were in the same kind of system and reporting on every receipt for every cup of coffee. I used to do that. I reported to Brussels and there was some civil servant sitting in Brussels who then had to go and check all of that. Now the programme that I used to manage has moved entirely to a lump-sum system. It is saving money and it is streamlining at both ends of the scale.

We kind of over-corrected towards excessive levels of bureaucracy in an effort to make sure that we were being as transparent as possible but we can now look at it in a more informed way and ask what we can cut away that is not adding any quality and is only adding barriers. We can use examples of other European countries when it comes to the match funding. Even here in Ireland the Arts Council has a match funding facility for Creative Europe. We could replicate that at national level or look at our European counterparts. We can also look towards European programmes that have already been streamlined and see what we can learn from them. I think that would be a very positive step.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

Just before anyone else comes in, could we get some sort of synopsis on how we do this? Could we get more specifics on it? Is there any piece of work on it that we can chase up?

Ms Emma Murtagh

We sent in a pre-budget submission last year, so there is much more information in that. I can share it with the committee. It includes more in-depth information in terms of how Germany, the Netherlands and other countries do this.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I thank Ms Murtagh very much.

An Cathaoirleach

Does anybody else want to contribute?

Ms Rose Power

I will just add to what Ms Murtagh says. We have experience of the INTERREG programmes. To give a specific example, following the last call for INTERREG North-West Europe 50% of the applications that were selected were from Belgium and the Netherlands. They were the lead partners for providing the co-funding. That is a specific example of where those two countries alone took 50% of the lead partner positions and the funding under the scheme because of the co-funding that they have available to them.

The other area that probably needs to be addressed here as well relates in particular to civil society, social organisations and some of the smaller technological universities. There is a big issue here in that some of these ETC schemes do not provide advance payments. Therefore, people in those sectors with limited funding have a requirement to fund the cost of these programmes but they will not be reimbursed for a period of perhaps up to nine months. That is a huge cost that they have to incur before they receive any reimbursement under these EU funds. That prohibits a lot of the smaller technological universities and civil society organisations from participating in some of these programmes also.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Power. Does anybody else want to come in? No. In that case I will move on to Deputy Howlin.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

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?

An Cathaoirleach

Before I let our guests back in I wish to comment on something Deputy Howlin just said. For sports capital, my local authority area put a programme in place where officers of the council met all the organisations and the failure of application rate went down. About 20% were failing and that went down to about 1%. That was just by something that is effectively what Deputy Howlin is suggesting on a European level. It is just supplying the basic information. There is another thing which is unfair for our visitors to comment on so I will make the comment. When it comes to funding, there is a certain tendency of Irish politicians to declare everything came from them and forget that Mr. Europe was in the background. I know it is a bit unfair to ask our guests to say that to us as politicians. Deputy Howlin has some very solid questions. Who would like to start?

Ms Emily Murtagh

I know €12 million in the grand scheme of EU funding might not seem hugely impressive, especially when one hears of INTERREG projects of multi-million euro each and Special EU Programmes Body, SEUPB, projects. I would emphasise these are largely community groups. Our target figures in terms of the millions of euro we were seeking to drawdown was almost secondary to the fact that our main target was 50% organisations which were new to EU funding. Much of the time, the starting point for organisations to begin cultivating the capacity to go for the larger programmes starts with a €30,000 grant from Erasmus+ to start building that capacity gradually. We are very much focused on establishing a culture of EU participation and letting organisations gradually get started and scale their way up through larger projects. They might start with something like Erasmus or the Citizenship, Equality, Rights and Values Programme, CERV, which are smaller grants. They are a big deal to community groups - it is a huge amount of money for a community group - but relatively small fry in the EU funding world. Without barriers such as match funding they can progress through the various programmes and be able to compete in projects such as INTERREG and PEACE and even Horizon, which are bigger programmes. It is important to emphasise that the goal of the programme is more about supporting entry-level applicants rather than pursuing the bigger, more ambitious pots of funding.

EU officers would be excellent. A few local authorities have these. For them to work with smaller groups, particularly voluntary groups which might not be legal entities and would not be able to apply for EU funding, they could take the social innovation from communities and shoulder some of the administrative and financial burden that comes with pre-financing, application processes and so on. That would be a great benefit to the community sector.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Assistance with financing.

Ms Emily Murtagh

We will see about that. However, it is even just to support because it is true that all these groups do not necessarily have the capacity to manage this funding on their own but with some support from public bodies, they could benefit from the social innovation which allows them to do what they do best and allowing public authorities to support that. That would be an excellent addition.

An Cathaoirleach

Does anyone want to come in on the split between regional assemblies and local authorities?

Mr. Karl Murphy

On regional assemblies and placing contact-point roles there, there can be information days or sessions. It depends on the programme but with URBACT, typically the 31 local authorities are the recipients of funding. The participatory piece is the URBACT local groups. It brings in tidy towns, local residents and local businesses in a very participatory way.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Is that the regional assembly's job or the county council's job?

Mr. Karl Murphy

It is the county council's job to organise, in this case, the URBACT local group but the contact point would be there to ensure that it is participatory as much as is possible. The information sessions and the information days are a way of getting out there. It was noted earlier how funding can have something of a snowball effect. Sometimes the local authority can see its impact and then applies again. We have tried to integrate testimonies, so we bring past participants to our information sessions and days to spell out the benefit of participating. That programme is not a source of huge money but there is a lot of soft investment in the exchange of learning and best practice.

On help, the upfront cost of writing an application can put off some of the lesser-funded local authorities and it might be possible to help them that way. There is a sense of there being a sunk cost of doing an application if it is not successful. As the contact point, we are there to support them and instil the confidence that it is worthwhile. This fund can be a gateway to another, INTERREG and in sustainable and urban development, there is the European Urban Initiative for which the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly was recently appointed contact point alongside URBACT. I just wanted to note the role we can have in supporting local authorities and through that the citizens.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Is there a role for either the regional assemblies or the European Commission office in Dublin to do the advertising that these are the benefits of these things? Many people do not know they are there. It is about communicating the point the Chair made about the funding coming from Europe and my earlier comment about Wales. Much of the good that is happening is not known to the great bulk of people. Has the regional authority got the capacity to buy advertising for this or would that be a matter for the Commission office in Dublin?

Mr. Terence Connolly

On the individual programmes, it is part of our role to ensure they are communicated correctly, that they are visible and that the logos are on everything. However, putting the logos on everything does not go far enough. The Welsh did that. I remember being in Cardiff and there are little plaques on nearly every building but it had no impact.

Particularly on the regional programmes the days of funding for road and rail are behind us as we become a wealthier country so the softer impact type things that are happening at the moment are just as important but they are not as visible and more diffuse. The Commission is very concerned about that. Something the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform has put in place is a centralised communication officer. There is now a person there to get everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet but a budget probably needs to be put behind that person to make sure they can do those larger scale advertising campaigns. The infrastructure is there.

On centralised information, there is the eufunds.ie website. It is an excellent one-stop-shop for people to see the menu of programmes out there.

However, much more promotion is required to get people to go to that website. On support at application stage, I will point out that there is a very good system in existence in Ireland, Enterprise Ireland's Horizon Europe support scheme. Horizon Europe projects tend to deal with multimillion euro projects but, as can be seen from some of the examples, there are also INTERREG projects of that scale. Under the Horizon Europe support scheme, small grants are given for the writing of applications. Some of the pieces of the jigsaw exist in Ireland but how to put them together and make them more impactful is a challenge ahead of us for the coming years.

An Cathaoirleach

The cost of an application has been referenced two or three times now. What is the rough cost of an application, if there is such a thing as a rough cost? In his reply to Deputy Howlin, Mr. Murphy mentioned that, if an application was not successful, the cost was prohibitively high. Could the witnesses give us an indication of what they are talking about when they mention those costs? Ms Power had indicated. Had anyone else? Okay, we will let everyone in and have a full run through of replies. We will start on that follow-up and then pass over to Ms. Power.

Mr. Terence Connolly

The Horizon Europe grants for writing applications are approximately €12,500. That is usually outsourced. That is great for that one application but it means the knowledge is not retained in house. On project officers, the main ones are in Limerick, Cork and Dublin. Sligo also has a good one. Many of these staff are funded through the projects they apply for. Again, if the match funding element is missing, you are missing 20% of the funding but may as well be missing 100%. There really are small gaps that need to be plugged through match funding. That could allow capacity not only to be built, but retained, which is another issue. If you are funding staff through match funding, you will only have them for the duration of the project and, in some cases, you will only have 60% of the money to pay them. I hope that gives the committee some idea of the challenges and costs.

Mr. Karl Murphy

I will just mention that there is also a strategic funding unit in Donegal. That is also doing really good work in respect of EU funding. Very briefly on the costs, before I pass over to my colleagues, Mr. O'Doherty and Ms Power, who may provide more concrete examples, from the perspective of personnel and time, time is often invested in an application only for it to be unsuccessful. There is a need to support project officers, as has been mentioned, because it is often the case that project officers rely on more funding coming in to allow them to continue in their role. In the first instance, it is a question of the effort, time and personnel involved upfront in completing an application. Sometimes, they may be doing this in place of another piece of work. Some of the better resourced local authorities may be in a better place to tackle that issue than others. That is principally what I meant with regard to costs but there have been examples of applications being successful at the first stage but it not being possible to complete them thereafter. I will pass over to Mr. O'Doherty and Ms Power.

Dr. Travis O'Doherty

I agree with that point. For the Atlantic area programme, there is €17,000 in preparation costs available but that is only granted if a project is successful. If it is unsuccessful, the beneficiary has to pay that cost. I will make one other point on how Ireland is doing in comparison to other EU states as regards the drawdown of funds. The three regional assemblies produced a report in 2018, so it is now a few years old. It looked at how Ireland was drawing down EU funds. It was broken down by county, by fund and by priority and the report gave a good picture of how Ireland is drawing down funds and which organisations, sectors and priorities they were targeted towards. It is available on the website of the Northern and Western Regional Assembly and probably on those of the other regional assemblies. It is on the impact of European territorial co-operation funds. There is an EU cohesion data portal that would probably provide a comparison between Ireland and other member states with regard to how much Ireland is drawing down. In the programmes for which we provide the contact point, Ireland is doing quite well. We are certainly holding our own against other countries in those programme areas.

Ms Rose Power

I absolutely agree with the requirement Deputy Howlin mentioned to have an EU liaison officer in each of the-----

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I give credit to Senator Keogan. That has been her campaign since we joined this committee.

Ms Rose Power

From our experience of working with the local authorities over the last number of years, we can see a specific improvement where EU liaison project officers are employed within a local authority. We did an analysis of INTERREG projects in the southern region and the amount of EU funding secured by local authorities in which there was an EU project officer was approximately 70% higher than the amount secured by those who did not have an officer in place. I will caveat that by saying, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, that these EU officers in local authorities are funded through the projects they secure. The reality is that, if they secure two or three projects, all of their time will be taken up in managing those two or three projects. They therefore have no time to commit to encouraging participation in EU projects across the wider community. They solely manage the projects that are funding their time. If you are looking at having EU project officers available in the local authorities and if you really want to increase engagement and diversity among the people applying for funding and to really scale up, the way to do that is to nationally fund these EU project officers, irrespective of whether they have secured an EU project. In that way, they will be available to the community and to their locations to provide support.

I will just mention one other thing. Within the Southern Regional Assembly, we have set up a European territorial network. We have approximately 200 members, who come from a diverse range of technological universities, universities, local authorities, civil society, social enterprises and SMEs. We provide a capacity-building platform and network to allow, support and encourage more people to get involved in EU projects and EU funding. That operates across all of the INTERREG programmes. We provide that to our members as a service through online webinars, bringing in expert speakers, and providing them with advice on putting applications together, building consortiums for projects and managing their projects going forward. I would encourage the making available of more resources because, while we do in-person events and some online events, we could do more if we had more resources to support that.

Mr. Ivan Cooper

We are considering matters related to unlocking EU funding. We have heard contributions from Dr. O'Doherty that help us to understand what is drawn down by Ireland. It is a question of increasing the take that accrues to Ireland from centralised programmes in particular and, in relation to all such centralised programmes, ensuring that all of Ireland's EU allocation is, in fact, spent. That is part of it as well. There are different elements to this. Some of it has to do with raising awareness. Deputy Howlin will be aware, from his stint as the chair of the Special EU Programmes Body, of the effort that goes into telling the good news stories. The problem is that good news stories are just hard to sell. It is a challenge.

It might include the media. I know the effort that is currently put into SEUPB to publicise and raise awareness of the amount and the impact of the investment, and the challenge of that. We certainly need to do more on that and up the game.

Sometimes, we can overcomplicate things. It is clear, coming through here, that there is something about providing more support for people and organisations to apply. It is all very simple. This includes Access Europe and could be provided through EU officers and information officers in local authorities. There is something about ensuring that match funding is put in place to enable applications, especially from smaller groups that can find themselves crowded out. When we hear the costs associated with preparing bids, the risk that accrues to unsuccessful applications with regard to carrying the costs of those bids is enough to scare even fairly well resourced community and voluntary organisations with good confidence in their own abilities. They take fairly serious hits if they cannot get the application over the line. By the way, it also means that an industry develops in consulting on this. If one does not have access to those kinds of experts, one is not even in the game.

I am going to be clear about it. The failure rates for access from initial application stages are quite high. Access Europe and schemes such as this hand-hold voluntary sector personnel, staff and volunteer trustees through processes where otherwise they would be afraid and would not go anywhere near it.

Earlier, Ms Murtagh pointed out an important fund and additional contribution relating to mainstreaming, as I call it, or scaling up funds, so that successful projects that have taken off and delivered an outcome that is good can find a home in the system so the activity does not just die away when the particular funds are put into place. My experience with SEUPB, for example, is that it is really good. We have European funds and Departments that have oven-ready projects which have been developed over five to ten years ready to drop into place to receive the European funding and co-financing from the Departments. Effectively, while that may be strategically impactful at the macro scale, it means that little is left for organisations that are coming at it from a bottom-up, needs-based approach. If they see a need that has emerged in the past year or two, when they get their application in, it is so undercooked that it does not stand a chance in the face of these initiatives.

I refer to a match funding facility for smaller organisations. Part of our objective has to be to increase the take to Ireland. I am saying to maximise the impact by spreading the benefit more widely. That has something to do with supporting smaller organisations to be able to participate in the process of landing funds. That needs match funding because it is just not there at the moment.

Deputy Seán Haughey

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and for taking the trouble to come here today. I found the discussion very informative. I do not have many questions. I suspect my colleagues have further questions. The Wheel raised points about match funding, the application and reporting systems, the bureaucracy involved in these applications, the need to involve the community sector more, an extension to the community sector, and the need for a scale-up fund. The witnesses are obviously here today to make that case. What actions have they taken to advance those points that they want to make to improve these funding streams? The president of the European Court of Auditors is coming into us in the next fortnight. Every year, we raise with him the level of bureaucracy involved in funding and, every year, he gives us an answer. I cannot quite remember the answer but obviously nothing changes. We will certainly raise that with him again when he comes in the next week or two.

Is The Wheel's campaign for these improvements something that we need to do here in Leinster House and Government Buildings or do we need to do it in Brussels? Maybe it is a combination of both. On the regional assemblies and the cohesion funding, there are clear structures in place. I found what the witnesses outlined here today very informative. Dublin has a certain level of economic development. Cohesion funding for it within the State may or may not be as important as it would be to some of the other regions in the country. How fares Dublin in relation to EU funding generally? Obviously, we have extreme disadvantage in Dublin city. Does Dublin do well in these funding streams? I am not going to ask how proactive the local authorities are. I will leave that to others.

Ms Emma Murtagh

I can address the point about what needs to be done to streamline. I do not have the full answer to that question because it seems big and complicated, and there is much going on behind the scenes that I do not necessarily know about. There is much that we can do to lobby at EU level and utilise our MEP presence there to try to simplify those systems, although it seems that the EU is already moving that way, particularly with programmes such as Erasmus+, which has pioneered this lump sum, streamlined system. It seems to be working on that itself. What I see often happen with decentralised funds that are delegated to Irish managing authorities is that there is EU-level bureaucracy and then extra bureaucracy that is inserted over the top of it to safeguard the Irish, because they are the ones who will be audited by Brussels. It seems the risk is being passed on to the applicant to provide extra insulation and more red tape to try to alleviate the risk to the funders themselves.

We can do a review of how we manage decentralised programmes in Ireland and how we can take inspiration from those centralised programmes in Brussels, which have introduced these systems, and how we can try to insulate smaller groups from having to absorb all of the risk by excessive governance and compliance demands. From my point of view, there is a precedent in Brussels. We can replicate it here in Ireland and we can get comfortable with the fact that, in order to be more inclusive, we have to be willing to scale down the burden we are putting on groups that are trying to apply.

Mr. Terence Connolly

I will answer the Dublin question. I do not have an exact figure but the presence of the big universities in Dublin means that much is drawn down. Dublin City Council has tapped into that and set up connections. Horizon Europe works closely with universities. It aligns with what the Commission wants, which is to get the research out of the university and to the citizenry. Dublin City Council has a good model. It suffers from the challenges that we mentioned earlier but it seems to be working quite well at the moment.

Deputy Seán Haughey

It is very important that universities set their targets and get this funding.

Mr. Terence Connolly

It is. We often talk about capacity. Because universities are so reliant on this funding, by necessity, they have built the capacity. When an entity has the capacity, it keeps attracting the money. They are a good example of how successful it is possible to be if good foundations to draw down funding are put in.

Ms Rose Power

I would like to mention that across all of the European territorial cooperation, the Commission has brought in a number of simplified cost options that reduce the administrative burden on applicants. That has been increasing with each programme period. INTERREG Europe increased the number of simplified cost options that were available under its programme this time out. In addition, from our perspective, I can see where Ms Murtagh is coming from. There is a requirement on the managing authorities. We are the ones who review all of the claims that are made under these programmes, but the managing authorities have a responsibility to make sure that what is being submitted to us is factually correct and all in order. We do not want these to be audited at a later date and for a financial correction to come back to the applicants and participants.

There is a requirement for us to take that responsibility seriously and make sure that no participant in an EU project ever faces a retrospective financial correction. That is there.

With regard to the regional programmes and how we are trying to incorporate more participatory processes through that, an urban regeneration scheme is currently with the monitoring committee for approval. It is about €120 million and, within that, there is a mandatory requirement for that funding to include all sectors of society as an eligibility criterion. As the regional assemblies, we are ensuring that we are bringing in all sectors of communities, particularly in regard to any of the ERDF regional programme schemes that we are getting involved in, and putting in mandatory clauses that require that participation within the projects.

Mr. Karl Murphy

I will respond to Deputy Haughey’s point on Dublin. To take URBACT, one example of the wider ETC piece is how Dublin is performing, and it would be interesting to look more closely at that. Traditionally, this was something that was very centred around Dublin and the east coast but it has now grown throughout the country and in the most recent call, counties Clare and Sligo were involved. I mentioned the European urban initiative. As part of this overarching urban agenda for the EU going back to the Amsterdam pact in 2016, it recognises the growing urban areas and the associated problems around segregation, unemployment and so on. There is this overarching piece between member states to work on this urban agenda for the EU and this will manifest through the European urban initiative to try to increase opportunities for all cities. It is something that we want to see picked up in Ireland but that means throughout the land, not just in Dublin. I would also mention Dublin City Council's European programme support office in addition to some of the other European project work that is happening.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Senator Keogan.

Senator Sharon Keogan

I apologise but I have been in and out to another committee.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may have been in and out to another committee but I know she has done Trojan work on this. One of the main reasons that we are having our session today is to acknowledge that.

Senator Sharon Keogan

Thank you. I have been an advocate for the local authorities having a strategic policy committee on European affairs since I came into the Houses. Some local authorities are very good at drawing down money and there are those that are not at the races at all. Putting in place a European affairs team in each local authority is very important, not just the project officers, but the administrative team to support the project officer as well. That is very important.

We have come in here this morning and all we have heard are the words “millions and millions” and there is so much money out there. I thank the witnesses for coming in and thank The Wheel for the work it does in the voluntary and NGO sector, and I know it represents about 3,000 organisations.

Mr. Ivan Cooper

It is 3,300.

Senator Sharon Keogan

It represents 3,300 organisations throughout the country and it does fantastic work. In regard to the Access Europe fund, €12 million has been drawn down. Is The Wheel the only organisation working on that fund or does it have a team around it? That is what I would like to know.

I know The Wheel does its thing once a year in Croke Park. Is there any way - this applies to the regional assemblies as well - that it could do a whistlestop tour of every local authority and let them know what it actually does and what supports are there for them and for communities? I can tell the witnesses that a lot of local authority councillors out there do not know the work that The Wheel is doing. It is very important that we empower them to know that there is funding, support and training on how to get these funds. I know The Wheel does some online training as well and I know the work it does. Is there any way that could be implemented, maybe next year, in order to have a whistlestop tour of all local authorities to let them know in the various regions what The Wheel actually does, what is available from its offices and how they can access the funds?

Ms Emma Murtagh

Absolutely. We have been doing that over the last three years. We have been running a series of roadshows around the country and we have been in Cork, Mayo, Sligo, Donegal, Leitrim and Longford and we are in Roscommon soon. Where they are open to it, we work with the local authorities to bring them in to talk about the type of funding that they have available for the community and voluntary sector. We also talked about Access Europe and did a kind of overview of some of the European funding programmes that are available.

What really makes a difference, and what the Senator has been campaigning for, is to have a European person. It sometimes feels like we are not getting much traction or interest without that. We have worked very closely with the European programme support office in Dublin City Council to do a series of training sessions for its staff around how to manage these programmes. We would love to be able to do that with all of the different local authorities. We have collaborated with Donegal and other great county councils with regard to drawing down EU funding and I spoke at their conference and did other bits of training and things like that.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

Name the bad ones.

Ms Emma Murtagh

We will not name any names here. Where there is an appetite for it, we are very happy to come out and work with them. We would love to get the model that was suggested earlier where they could work a bit more closely with the community sector, not just for their own funding, but also to help groups in their own locality to draw down funding. If we get our next three years of Access Europe funding, we will definitely be continuing that work to try to reach every local authority. However, I emphasise the point that having a European person there gives us somebody to talk to and work with. Without that, they often do not connect with the opportunities that are there.

Senator Sharon Keogan

I have spoken to the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, on this. He is quite keen on putting in European officers at regional levels, which I think is still a little bit distant from the local authorities. How would The Wheel feel about European officers or project managers within the organisation?

Ms Rose Power

In each of the regional assemblies, we currently have EU project officers who are dedicated to EU projects and they are funded through EU projects. Therefore, outside of those projects, we do not have a dedicated person who is funded specifically for the purpose of engaging with the community. What we are all trying to do is allocate some of our limited time across a number of people to provide a service. What we do in the southern region is provide an in-person ETC meeting where we talk about all of the different programmes and what is available. We probably have the capacity to do that once a year currently and, outside of that, we do online events. We have about 200 members in our ETC network, and that is across the local authority sector, third level and civil society, so it is open to everybody. In addition, at each of our monthly assembly meetings, an update is provided to our members, who are elected members, telling them what EU funding calls are coming about, what areas of interest might be there and what opportunities are there.

With very limited resources at the regional assembly level, we inform our members and inform all of the members of our ETC network, which includes all of the local authorities. We keep them informed of what is going on and then we do a physical event across all of the schemes that are available, which they are invited to attend on an annual basis. We get in expert speakers in regard to different aspects and we also provide capacity building and one-to-one advice on managing a project once it has been secured. We get in experts from our first-level controller and the auditors of these EU projects to talk to them on a one-to-one basis.

That is what we have done up to now and we are put to the pin of our collar with the resources we have available. Would we welcome another EU policy officer who is available in our regions to assist the wider community? Absolutely.

Senator Sharon Keogan

Would it be one person or a team?

Ms Rose Power

A team will always be better. The Senator is right in what she is saying. We do very well as a country in regard to EU funding but there are huge opportunities out there for that to be substantially increased.

Senator Sharon Keogan

We are missing out.

Ms Rose Power

It will take resources at local authority level and regional authority level and a team of people who are not funded by specific projects. Once they are funded by specific projects, then their time must be dedicated to those projects and, therefore, they are not available to build that wider participation.

Mr. Terence Connolly

I might add for clarification that there are different definitions of "region". On regional assembles, there are three regions within the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, for example. If we are talking about a subregion, which is usually made up of approximately three counties, that is closer to the local model. Having been a contact point in Limerick in a previous job, I can tell the Senator that a contact in every county makes a world of difference.

Deputy Marian Harkin

I thank everybody. I know some who are present reasonably well while some other faces are newer to me. A lot of the ground has been covered. I could not agree more with what Senator Keogan said about the need for contact with both members and officials in county councils. I remember going to county councils as an MEP. We were supposed to be the people coming with all the information. What happened a lot of the time, however, was the discussion got bogged down in some minutiae of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, or something like that, and we never dealt in any comprehensive way with the overview of funding, what might be available, and what might be suitable. In truth, many of us just did not have enough expertise. The witnesses have it, as it is their business and what they work in.

We know about some funds but it is about putting it all together to see what works. I understand from what Ms Power said that the Southern Regional Assembly seems to be up and running with a lot of that but, again, the witnesses are the ones who can tell us what is there and where the gaps are because none of us are clear on that. I do not know. It is to fill those gaps. I remember there was an outer regions office in Brussels at one time. What it did was a big help but it was only a start and it then disappeared, or the work it was doing finished. That was a real loss at the time. From listening to our guests, a lot of work is now being done. Where do they still see the gaps? How do they think those gaps can be plugged?

My next question is on match funding. Ms Power referenced other countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany, which have programmes in place to help smaller groups in the community and voluntary sector with match funding to alleviate the cofinancing burden for them. Do we have anything like that here? Depending on her answer, at another point, the committee might look at whether work needs to be done on that. There is a lot the representatives can do and are doing but there is some stuff we could look at or propose.

On simplified cost options and the lump sum etc., I do not expect a comment on this but I will make a comment. For what it is worth, my experience was that we were never very good in this country at any kind of trust-based systems. I am not saying that one should only have trust-based systems, but I always felt there was a real reticence, and control had to kept and fingerprints had to be over every single euro that was spent. At one level, people might with justification say this is taxpayers' money and we need to know how it is spent but, equally, we were excellent at it here. Are we now moving in a controlled way towards the simplified cost options within certain programmes? Is it making any difference?

I am one of the people who had to vote every year on the Court of Auditors report. There was 3% or 4% fraud in one sector and maybe slightly higher in others. Many people used to scream very loudly about this fraud but, in some cases, fraud might be where money was used for a project but not in the way it was outlined on the original application form. Something might have changed a little. It is not that the money went into somebody's back pocket. Sometimes it did, but sometimes the response to what the Court of Auditors report stated was over the top. That is another story.

A proposal to ring-fence some money, especially from the European Social Fund, ESF+, for example, for the community and voluntary sector was made. Is any of that happening? If not, again, maybe that is something the committee might like to have a look at. It is again a situation where we have got smaller community and voluntary groups with, very often, not just enthusiasm, but real expertise and commitment, as we know. However, they are just not able to access the funding. Those who are better resourced, as was said, already have the capacity to do so, and good luck to them because they need it, but it is then harder for other groups to gain a foothold there. Ring-fencing was a suggestion. Is there any other? How much of any of that is going on?

My final question is for the Southern Regional Assembly and Northern and Western Regional Assembly representatives. Were both assemblies able to absorb all of the funding that was available in the latest round of regional funds?

Ms Emma Murtagh

I thank the Deputy. I will try to cover a few of those areas. I will come back to the issue of gaps, although we covered a good few of them in our suggestions. On the topic of the match funding, existing mechanisms are already in place. The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications has provided some match funding on a more ad hoc basis for environmental projects. I will defer to the national contact point in that Department for more information on this but, as far as I know, it is not a formalised open application system but something the Department deals with on a per-project basis. A cofinancing facility is available for the Creative Europe Fund through the Arts Council because some of those cofinancing rates are very low. As far as I know, that is a well-established, very effective and imperative part of being able to draw down Creative Europe funding where it is extremely competitive and cofinancing rates are low. There are existing mechanisms in Ireland that we could look at and many more examples in Europe. I can definitely circulate the pre-budget submission we made, which breaks down some of those examples. Precedent is there and there are things that could be scaled up and replicated.

The Deputy mentioned a trust-based system. We are not known for being particularly trusting and, especially for the community and voluntary sector, trust has been an issue. In centralised European programmes, such as Erasmus+ and a predecessor programme called Europe for citizens that is now part of a bigger programme - the citizens, equality, rights and value, CERV, programme - we are seeing this trust-based, lump-sum system. I have not seen any specific reports on how that has impacted on the transparency of the programme. There does not seem to have been any issues. It has been continued through a different multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and has been even more radically streamlined. Before 2014, what were the Erasmus+ programmes, including lots of small programmes such as Grundtvig lifelong learning, were all based on actual costs. They were then moved to a lump-sum system through Erasmus. Since 2021, it has been streamlined even further in a very radical way. The fact they are going further with that system indicates it is not causing any issues. It allows for agility and responding. It is more focused on impact than tracking whether every euro went to what was said it would go to. It puts more trust in the co-ordinator. The focus is on delivering impact. That is what is being paid for. As long as that can be done in a way that is above board, there should be no quibbling over the fact of someone taking a taxi when maybe they could have taken the bus.

That was the case before 2014. I can see that it has to be about saving money on both sides. It must take off the administrative burden and focus more on what the project is trying to achieve. There is plenty we could learn and try to adapt for Ireland and EU funding and perhaps for other types of funding as well. There is much to be learned in that regard. The EU tends to be a leader on these types of things. Ireland would do well to look at those examples and learn from them.

On ESF+ and whether any of it filters down, I do not know the exact percentages. What tends to happen is that the ESF+ pot is divided between various Government agencies and Departments. Some if it does trickle down and there are examples of that. Some funding for the social inclusion and community activation programme comes from ESF+. The ability programme that is administered by Pobal has a bit of ESF+ funding. What tends to happen is that the vast majority of it is absorbed and never trickles down. Even the bit that does trickle down almost entirely loses its EU dimension. It is a logo in the corner and people do not see that a project is supported by EU funding. As a result, they are not seeing the benefit of it and people do not realise that whatever they are doing is funded by Europe and they are benefiting from EU involvement. Having even a tiny percentage of this ring-fenced as an open and accessible call for communities to participate in would help them be more involved. It would certainly help smaller groups and take them seriously. The whole point of ESF+ is to deliver on the European pillar of social rights and the 20 principles. For each of those principles, our sector has a role to play and is an integral part of their delivery. In order for them to be taken seriously as partners in delivering on EU and national policies, making sure that they have access, even basically, to the funding that is there to support them is important.

I have covered the other gaps in the proposal. Those are things such as the scale-up fund, the simplifying of systems and match funding. Those are the gaps that are the most immediately glaring, as far as I am concerned.

An Cathaoirleach

What about the split between the draw downs?

Ms Rose Power

May I pick up on one thing before I answer some of the specific questions for the managing authority? There is an issue with co-funding. We all know that by providing a mechanism around that, we would definitely increase participation and the diversity of those who could apply. However, there is also the issue with advanced payments. Under some of the ETC programmes, as I mentioned earlier, there is a requirement for these institutions to incur the costs. They probably will not be reimbursed for a period of nine months. They are incurring costs for staff, travel and flights to participate in these EU projects, and they need cash flow for at least nine months to ensure they can participate. Perhaps we need to take that on board.

On the simplified cost options and trust-based systems, there is considerable opportunity for Ireland in what it can do. I am a member of the transnational network on simplification. We are learning from other EU countries and managing authorities what they have done, what they have experience of and what is best practice out there for us to introduce to our regional programmes in Ireland. We have two simplified cost options with the authority for approval. One of those will look at the overhead rates in a number of our third level institutions. The other will deal with postgraduate fees and come up with flat rates and unit costs for those. We have a long way to go.

We are also at the very early stage of looking at a simplified cost option for energy efficiency upgrades. What is required for us to achieve all that is gathering data that we may not have gathered up to this point or that were gathered in diverse areas. We must pull that information together. All of these simplified cost options must be approved by the audit authority and a section 94 simplified cost option must be approved by the Commission. We have a long way to go. We are not seeing the benefit of it as yet but the plan from the managing authority is to move further down that route and to implement as many simplified cost options as possible to reduce that burden of administration. It takes time and resources, unfortunately. We are doing our level best with limited resources to introduce as much of this as possible at this point.

There was also a question about the absorption rates for the 2014 regional programme. We are in the process of coming towards closure on those. Within most of our priorities, the absorption rate has been 100%. We have one priority for urban regeneration for which we are anticipating 100% absorption but it will take another couple of months before we are in a position to sign off on it. That is where we stand. We still have time to finalise that.

Mr. Terence Connolly

The Irish Regions European Office comes under the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly. It is now active and headed by Ms Teresa Lennon. It is back up and doing quite well. There have been a good few visitor groups of councillors over to Brussels. It is doing excellent work at the moment. We hope that will continue into the future.

I work on the European just transition fund. That is 100% funded, 50% from the EU and 50% from the Government of Ireland. It is new and interesting to work on. Of that, €29 million is ring-fenced for local economic and community plans and for regional enterprise plans. We launched the first part of that scheme last Friday. This is a very interesting one to watch.

I will turn to the trust issue. Things such as state aid had to be considered when the details of that scheme were being developed. State aid is a complex beast of which people are afraid. There needs to be more support at the national level as to how to answer such questions. State aid is ultimately the responsibility of the State, but there needs to be more resourcing there to shore that up. At the moment, the complexity is being passed down to the beneficiaries at the bottom. This is because there is so much confusion or complexity involved.

On trust, there is an anti-fraud system that the EU is encouraging every managing authority to use called ARACHNE. It harvests information to create a sort of traffic light system for fraud. It is, however, unclear how that is going to work in an Irish context. In terms of complexity, and compared with other countries, we do not generally have very good centralised systems in Ireland when it comes to fraud and things like it. The link at the top as to who is in charge of fraud is not very clear. If those things at the top could be shored up, it would create foundations for trust further down the cascade of funding. Those are some of my thoughts in that regard.

On gaps, I agree with everything Ms Murtagh and Ms Power have said.

On simplified cost options, it is very early days. A concern I have in respect of simplified cost options is that it makes it easier on auditing and managing authorities but whether it makes it easier on beneficiaries, we do not know yet. Just because the audit trail is simplified does not mean the beneficiary does not have to keep all the paperwork and do the same diligence. There is a lot of exploration to do in that regard.

Dr. Travis O'Doherty

I talk to local authorities that have been partners in projects under previous programmes, perhaps the 2014-20 programme or the 2007-13 programme. They found the financial technical reporting very bureaucratic and that has put them off EU projects. They have been burned by previous projects even though there have been great efforts at simplification. Anecdotally, the simplified cost options are effective but that message does not necessarily get across to all local authority staff.

Staff members in local authorities have their own jobs, so they may view it as additional work. An EU project often allows them to hire additional staff, maybe on contract, but, at the same time, there is a workload associated with contracting new staff. As well as the match funding we have talked about, there are sometimes barriers to that. The Northern and Western Regional Assembly has a similar network to the Southern Regional Assembly. It is an EU funding network with nearly 400 subscribers. We organise events and we announce when calls are happening. All the local authorities are informed when events and calls are happening and we showcase good examples of projects like that. It helps to get the message across to local authorities within our region.

Deputy Marian Harkin

Without naming names, are there local authorities that, because of their size, find it more difficult, shall we say, to apply for some of those calls or even to have any sort of in-house capacity to allow them to do that? What is The Wheel doing in that regard? Is there any assistance for those local authorities aside from their own resources?

Very briefly on state aid, it is absolutely nonsensical that that burden would be placed on those who are applying in the first place. What do they know about state aid? How are they supposed to navigate it? Is there anyway to try to clarify that? We obviously have the de minimis rule but that is not there now, although it used to be. Is there a need for something else? That is something that should be clarified at the appropriate level, not to add confusion to what is already not a very simple process.

I will just make a final comment about ARACHNE. I was interested to hear the witnesses say that we are not very centralised because most of the time we would think we are but on issues like that as to who is in charge of fraud or whatever, we are not. Maybe that is something this committee might make a suggestion on our look to if we thought it was useful.

Dr. Travis O'Doherty

On the first point on the local authorities, the smaller local authorities definitely find it more difficult. A staff member may have been involved in several areas of work and they just do not have the size of teams to try to get around it. As regional contact points, we help them, encourage them to apply, answer any queries and put them in touch with whoever can answer their queries if we cannot. They might enter a project as an associate partner or junior partner or sub-partner to another organisation. We try to match-make them with suitable partners within the region or in that area of interest so they can do the lion's share of the work and the smaller local authority will come in as the junior partner. That is how we try to get their involvement. It is definitely more difficult for smaller local authorities.

Mr. Terence Connolly

On state aid, unfortunately schemes do design the questions in the application form to try to answer the stated questions as naturally as possible but in a lot of cases, it is a requirement by the Commission. Other member states are running into the same problems. They have to ask very complex questions but the decision is almost a process. It is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, which makes it all very complicated. Supports are being provided but there is an issue with the level at which the state aid complexity can be answered. Maybe that is one thing we should not let the Commission off the hook on. There is a responsibility at EU level to try to simplify this because it goes across all programmes. In Horizon Europe it is simplified because the Commission gives out the money directly so it is not seen as state aid and covers research. However, because our funds are co-funded, there is a national element and it becomes a very different beast when these requirements kick in. It is something that needs a focus on it to try to answer this because it is becoming a problem for a lot of smaller scale applicants.

On de minimis, it is still there. Hopefully, the threshold will be increasing from next January. Even when the threshold increases, we are looking at €300,000 over three years. If an organisation is small, it is kind of cutting itself off from other funding. Unless it is picking the right funding for that €300,000 for three years to come from, it is not ideal. How much can an organisation realistically do with that much money? If a lot of it is going towards staff costs and things like that, organisations will sometimes end up with quite a small amount for the activity. It particularly on SMEs. Much of the funding for SMEs is done through de minimis for that very reason, because of the complexity. Somehow we are not targeting them. There are SMEs and large companies in Ireland. We have this problem with the missing middle of lots of healthy middle-sized companies or companies that were SMEs and grew into big companies. I wonder if there is a link with that complexity around state aid. Maybe because of that, we are not able to target companies that are not big enough to be super rich but are not small enough to benefit from the funding.

An Cathaoirleach

Before we conclude, I have one or two comments to make. Fundamentally, one of the reasons this problem, which we have been talking about, skirting around and going around in circles on, exists is an ideological problem. There is a belief across European institutions and sections of the Irish Government that somehow or other funding the cost and expenses of someone to deliver a project is wrong and needs to be almost demonised. The reality of it is that it is part of the project and part of the key delivery in the project and if you are not willing to engage in that, projects will not delivered. That comes down to the point about waiting nine months to get a reimbursement and in the meanwhile somebody has to fund that and put it in place that. Either the State does it or Europe cops on to itself and recognises that this chunk of cost is relevant and important. It comes into that whole trust area.

In previous experiences in my life, I dealt with funding. We were able to recognise that you can fund projects, but you can also have funding which was ring-fenced but where that is no longer the case. That is just a polite way of saying that we are going to fund the bureaucracy because it has to be funded. There are not people who are able to take flights if they are not able to take a taxi. If they are not able to have cost and subsistence to go and do a project, then the project does not get done. Too often there is an interlocking between institutions and people working in them who almost view that as bad and think everybody is trying to make a buck out of it for themselves. The reality of my experience is that of course there is fraud. There always is fraud and that is why you need monitoring systems and everything else but it is usually on a very small scale and most organisations go out of their way to deliver.

My view on the EU funding officer within councils is this: I am absolutely supportive that this is something that should be paid for as a separate position. The Americans have a great expression saying that when you are up to your neck fighting alligators, it is very difficult to remember that you came to drain the swamp. If there are officers within local authorities at the moment, their funding is dependent on the project they are working on. It is a downward cycle. I mean no disrespect to anyone doing it, but their first thought is their project and how they keep going and get to the next round of it. There is no incentive to look at more obscure funding areas, more difficult to access funding areas, or look at promotion of European funding at a general level because their job could run out. The local authorities and the Government need to cop that there is a huge benefit to having a position that is non-project dependent.

My experience of local authority administration is that the key thing that gets delivered is something that has a director of service's name bolted onto it. After that, there is a layer just below but that delivers. If somebody is coming in and they are either not permanent staff and are project dependent or it is an add-on to something else, which is to do with a third thing that is partially over there and they come to it once a week, that tells everybody else in the local authority just how important the thing is in the first place. It is about that mindset. Ironically, they are losing on the double because they are not even beginning to contemplate it. Those are the two key changes that are needed. If I am right, I hope and presume that is really what the witnesses were driving at for the bulk of it. That is something we as a committee can work on. I do not know if anyone wants to come back in on that. It seems they are happy enough that I have gotten it roughly right.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for the really good information we have received from them.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.51 a.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 October 2023.