EU Financial Management

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Government’s opinion on when the accounts will be 100 per cent. cleared. It is the Commission’s stated objective that the qualified assessment will be removed by 2009. We think that it is good that the Barroso Commission has set itself that target and we welcome that, but we cannot be sure that all the necessary measures will be in place to achieve it. There is still a lot of work to be done before we can be sure that it will be achieved. The hon. Gentleman asked for an update on the progress of accruals accounting. I have become an expert on accruals accounting in recent times and there is good news. The Commission successfully met the deadline to implement the new system in January 2005. The transition to the new system was successful and there is an ongoing process to develop that system. The European Court of Auditors queried whether the production of the 2005 opening balance would be ready in time. The Commission assures us that it is on track. The hon. Gentleman asked also what would happen to the debt-for-GDP ratio if off-balance-sheet figures are taken into account. I think that he was expecting me to write back on the matter. I apologise for the letter not having arrived. The Office for National Statistics classified public debt based on agreed national accounting rules, SA95. It is nonsensical to add contingent liabilities to GDP calculations as they do not apply to other member states. There is no figure with which the UK could make a comparison, nor is there any implication in relation to stability and growth. The issue is not relevant. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the abatement concession was included in figures for the United Kingdom’s contributions that were published in the pre-Budget report and whether it would be included in the figures for the Budget. As far as we are concerned, the PBR was in line with the code for fiscal stability, which as always contained cautious assumptions, a point which I made to the hon. Gentleman at the time. From memory, the negotiations at that time were ongoing. Therefore, any assumption would be an assumption. We were cautious. The figures will be updated now in the usual way at the time of the Budget. The hon. Gentleman asked also for some examples of how the road map objectives would be achieved. The major actions that will improve assurance are improving internal controls in the Commission and in member states to the standards that are proposed by the European Court of Auditors, promoting further simplification of complex legislation—the ECA says that this will lead to improvements—reaching a political agreement with the European Parliament on the level of risk that is tolerable, and introducing greater involvement of national audit offices. As many Members have suggested, our NAO is very willing to help in that regard. I have tried to address all the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke for the 11th successive year on these issues. He made an informed and intelligent contribution, but I cannot say that I agreed with everything that he said. That may come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members. However, my hon. Friend tried to make a constructive contribution. I hope that the career of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) will not suffer as a result of her enthusiastic support for the recent unsuccessful leadership bid of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). The hon. Lady asked about some important points, including the Commission having an appropriate system of accountability. The directors-general of the Commission already sign declarations of assurance. From now on the Commission’s chief accountant will sign off the accounts. That is a further strengthening. The hon. Lady asked also about the National Audit Office and what the United Kingdom might do. We were the first member state to provide a response to the annual report of the NAO. That is a process and obligation that is now in the EU’s financial regulation. We have already cleared the way to support the idea of management level declarations. We were fully prepared to support this at Council. We are certainly interested in making better use of the NAO to audit our management of EU funds. We did not make the level of progress that we would have liked on that because many member states did not feel able to support that approach. That is because they have highly federal or regional structures. The UK has a pretty impressive record in recent times in trying to drive the agenda forward during our presidency and also in making contributions in Council whenever possible. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was thoughtful and constructive. He is frank about his scepticism. Most of the time it is a balanced scepticism. I think that he conceded that there has been some progress in recent times although he feels that there has been nowhere near enough progress. That is a reasonable point to make.