Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to comment on a number of issues, one being expenditure in 2012. The cost of agriculture, marketing and direct supports is very high, while expenditure in the area of social affairs is considerably lower at 8%. I am confident that this will change in the next couple of years, given the increased commitment to amending expenditure in the direction of employment in social affairs. As stated by Deputy Joe O'Reilly, the estimated error rate has increased every year since 2009. In regard to the overall estimated error rate by type, I was struck by the fact that the largest increase concerned the serious failure to respect public procurement rules. The use of the words "serious failures to respect public procurement rules" in this regard stands out. Has the organisation delved into the reason for these serious failures to respect public procurement rules and do they in any way relate to the fact that there may be issues with the rules that need to be addressed? In regard to the serious failures issue, on a scale of one to ten, what is the most and least serious failure?

I am struck by the fact that even though the statistic for serious failures is recorded as 29%, of these 21% were related to ineligible costs included in cost claims, while 17% were related to incorrect declarations in agriculture. An issue of great concern in the Seanad has been the level of genuine errors made in terms of the costs claimed in agriculture. Perhaps Mr. Cardiff might comment on this. It was stated by him that the key message in the 2012 annual report concerned the increases in the estimated error rates that were greatest in spending in the direction of employment in social affairs, agriculture, market direct supports and so on. What recommendations would Mr. Cardiff make on how these increases could, first, be capped and, second, moved in the other direction? In other words, how can the error rate be reduced?

I was struck by Mr. Cardiff's statement that the authorities within the member states had sufficient information available to them to allow detection and correction of the errors. Perhaps he might elaborate further on this. It appears from the statement that there is the capacity within member states to identify and correct errors, but for whatever reason they are not doing so. Perhaps I have misunderstood him. What more needs to be done at member state level?