Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late but we in the Independent Group put down a Private Members' motion for debate in the Dáil this morning. I really should still be in the Chamber. I am in and out of the meeting and have missed most of it. On the Chairman's point about the TEN-T, I will never forget the meeting of the European Affairs committee at which the Minister at the time - whom I will not name, although I well remember the name - was going to Brussels the following week and I asked him about these TEN-T projects. Mr. Murphy is right that at that point, the Government was looking at road and rail services from Cork to Belfast via Dublin. I remember asking whether consideration would be given to at least one of those routes running up the west coast. There was almost laughter in the place. Fortunately, we have changed that to the extent that when we speak of balanced regional development, it is finally beginning, at least on paper, to mean something.

As I said, I missed most of the meat and potatoes of the discussion today. However, I want to make a point about the value of the European Court of Auditors. As Mr. Murphy noted, we are now contributors to the EU. Even when we were not, most people like to think public money is well spent or at least that somebody is overseeing or auditing how that money is spent.

On the other hand, it is my experience that when one talks to small community groups and other groups that are accessing funding, they complain bitterly about the amount of red tape. It is a matter of finding the sweet spot between those two where funding is still accessible but that also there is full accountability for how it is spent. That money is taxpayers' money. It does not appear out of nowhere. In Brussels, there is not a money making machine even though for many years people thought there was. It is our money, it is Italian money and it is Estonian money. It is all citizens' money that finds its way there. That point of the role of the Court of Auditors, what it does and how it protects people's hard-earned tax money perhaps needs to be made strongly.

I can also remember, year after year, in the Parliament we as MEPs had to vote on the budget. One had people shouting about the fact that there was material error, there was this and there was that. Does one vote for it? One cannot vote against it. It was always an issue. In that context, I suppose my question is quite general. Mr. Murphy is the person who has experience. This is something we come to once a year quickly in the middle of many other issues but Mr. Murphy's job and the job of the Court of Auditors is to look at this year on year, see where the problems and the bottlenecks are, and come forward with proposals to simplify. I note the Court of Auditors has done that with its simplified cost options. They were certainly the big thing a few years back when I was a Member of the European Parliament. I heard Mr. Murphy saying that they work reasonably well but he gave an example of where there was an error in Ireland. Mr. Murphy stated there were cases where Ireland used a different method when working with the Commission. I would like if Mr. Murphy could tease that out a little and say why that happened and what was the reason for it. That is merely a small part of the overall question. Overall, in Mr. Murphy's experience what changes would be useful, not only with his auditor's hat although he always wears it but from the wider perspective, as I said, that of the community group, the LEADER group or the guy in north Leitrim out on his land who will be looking to see what entitlements he will have under areas of natural constraint, ANC, basic income support for sustainability, BISS or whatever that are applying? Will Mr. Murphy link that to the Court of Auditors' job as guardian of public money and make that pathway as smooth as possible? What is Mr. Murphy's overall perspective on that?