EU Financial Management

I think that my hon. Friend is being a little unfair. OLAF has made a difference. We are debating the year 2004, and obviously, quite a bit has happened since then. The overall judgment on OLAF is that it has been a good thing. It has begun to address some of the cultural issues, and to get them taken more seriously. Has it been the solution in itself? Until now, certainly not—but I do not think that that was ever the intention. However, to say that it has not made a difference is unfair, given some of the improvements that are now under way. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would agree with that, but perhaps we can discuss the matter on another occasion. OLAF is a pretty new organisation, and there is evidence that improvements and progress have been made. I shall now return to my speech. The relevant figures were 13 per cent. of the total agriculture irregularities and 17 per cent. of the structural funds irregularities, or about €11 million in agriculture and €118 million in the structural funds. These figures are a far cry from the allegations typically made in the media claiming fraud and waste of €5 billion. There is hard evidence to back up OLAF’s figures. Of course, that is nothing to be complacent about; it is not acceptable. But I support and commend OLAF’s efforts to put the figures on the table, so that we are better informed about the extent and nature of the fraud. The ““Fight against Fraud”” report also contains an analysis of the amount of irregularity—as opposed to fraud—reported by member states. In 2004, 9,463 cases were reported, involving a total amount of €982 million. That is an increase over 2003 levels, although the increase was mainly in the structural funds sector. Indeed, irregularities in own resources and agriculture decreased. The overall increase is, of course, bad news, but, as I have said throughout, it must be seen in proportion. On the expenditure side, reported irregularities accounted for 0.19 per cent. of the agriculture budget and 2 per cent. of the structural funds budget. To be responsible, we must put the figures in context, particularly if we are to have a meaningful dialogue with the public.