THE Irish Commissioner for Social Affairs will today fire his first salvo in the emerging and important debate on the future of EU structural funding.
Mr Padraig Flynn's speech to the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels will argue for the "radical redesign" of structural funding and a defence of the Social Fund.
It is also likely to highlight differences within the Commission, most notably with the Regional Affairs Commissioner, Ms Monika Wulf Mathies.
Mr Flynn suggests a simplification of the funding system from seven, often overlapping, objectives to two.
These would be a fund targeted at poorer regions and those suffering from special problems of industrial adaptation, and a "human resources" fund which would operate across the Union.
He opposes thee idea put forward recently by Ms Wulf Mathies of a single fund. Mr Flynn argues that this would eclipse the human resources development component by confining such spending to those regions not receiving regional spending.
The EU regards education, training and empowerment of people as crucial, "the greatest single challenge facing us in the 21st century", Mr Flynn will argue. And he defends the system of community initiatives, such as the Northern Ireland peace fund, or programmes aimed at assisting women to return to work as "windows on Europe for thousands of people at grassroots level".
In addition, the Commission should redefine its own role in funding by pulling back from the detailed administration of spending once outline approaches have been agreed.
But as a quid pro quo, he says, tough funding reviews should incorporate incentives for successful use of aid and the possibility that where funding is wasted it should be withdrawn.
"I believe we need to move away from the present system of open entitlement towards a much more open and frank partnership based on shared rights and obligations to perform," he says.
The speech will also criticise another sacred cow of structural funding, the so called principle of "additionality", under which funding is only allocated to projects that member states would otherwise not fund.
Apart from the impossibility of verification, Mr Flynn says, it makes no sense to put resources into projects inherently less rewarding and interesting.
"If we are satisfied that a member state has a good scheme for, say, the reintegration of the long term unemployed," Mr Flynn asks, "then why not add ESF money to theirs in order to allow greater numbers to benefit, rather than seeking to force the member state to design a separate programme in order to gain access to Europe funds?"
