UK Parliament / Open data

EU Financial Management

The Minister says no from his sedentary position. We shall see what he says when he winds up, but when he opened the debate he made a lot of the fact that the figure has reached 35 per cent. If he undergoes a Damascene conversion in the space of two hours, I will welcome it. On a technical point, we acknowledge the introduction of activity-based budgeting into the budget process, which appears to be helpful as it makes it easier to identify spending by subject headings and by specific line items within them. That makes the whole process clearer and is therefore to be welcomed. May I press the Minister, however, on progress towards full accruals-based accounting, which I understand, from page 6 of the bundle and from his remarks, was due to be introduced in the financial year 2005? That should, in theory, improve the quality of the audit process, but there are several references in the bundle to the fact that it has not yet been brought fully into operation. I know the point is technical, but it is important, and I wonder whether the Minister can update us on progress on the introduction of accruals-based accounting. If nothing else, can he tell us how it has fared so far in financial year 2005? At page 9 of our bundle, the European Scrutiny Committee states, on the basis of the chapter of the ECA’s report that focuses on financial instruments and banking activities:"““the Commission does not have a complete overview of the existing assets held by financial institutions on its behalf and such an overview would ensure that the assets are subject to regular and adequate monitoring.””" That is an extraordinary statement. Will the Minister say what initiatives are contained within the much-vaunted road map to ensure that that difficulty is put right, so that the Commission will, in future, have a more accurate picture of what it actually has in the bank? As a British taxpayer, that question does not seem unreasonable and perhaps the Minister will help to answer it. The Minister said that the European anti-fraud office, which is popularly known as OLAF, is helping to win the battle against fraud in the EU. Last month, however, Accountancy Age revealed that fraudsters have sent out fake letters from OLAF to innocent victims in an organised scam. Those letters accused the victims of making irregular bank transfers and thus violating money laundering regulations, and they demanded a payment to make amends for the alleged transgression. That is hardly OLAF’s fault, but it does not inspire confidence in the system when the name of the anti-fraud office of the EU is used to try and defraud people. Will the Minister tell the House what specific action has been taken to combat that fraud? By way of comparison, has there ever been a similar scam in the United Kingdom by fraudsters purporting to represent the National Audit Office? Hon. Members would like to know whether anyone has had the temerity to try that in the UK, because a bunch of fraudsters have had the temerity to try it on within the EU in the name of the EU’s anti-fraud office. I want to pick up the Minister on an outstanding matter from our exchange in Committee on 14 December, when we touched on the UK’s budget performance against the so-called Maastricht criteria. In particular, we discussed the recommended ratio of debt to GDP, which the Maastricht treaty states should not exceed 60 per cent.—I have the Hansard here, if the Minister’s memory has failed him. I asked the Minister what the UK ratio would be if the Government’s considerable off-balance-sheet liabilities were included in the calculation. He said that he did not possess that detailed information and that he would write to me, which was fair enough, but it is March and I am still waiting for an answer. Having given the Minister almost three months’ notice of my inquiry, will he tell us tonight the ratio of debt to GDP including off-balance-sheet liabilities? [Interruption.] The Minister has quipped from a sedentary position that he should resign, but the matter is not that serious.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c765-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top