EU: Financial Management and Fraud (EUC Report)

My Lords, I amsorry that the noble Lord feels like that. After all,Ms Andreasen was the Commission’s chief accounting officer and her views should be properly taken account of. Her original evidence was not just misinterpreted but was said by a member of the committee to be inaccurate. It was not inaccurate; she has an absolute right to reply to that. It should be made public so that those who read the report have the opportunity to decide who to believe—the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, or Ms Andreasen. Anyway, that evidence is not in the report but I hope that it will be made available for people who want to read it as it is very important. I repeat that I am disappointed in the report. It seems to want to make it easier for the Court of Auditors to give a positive statement of assurance—principally, it seems, by redefining ““fraud”” and ““irregularity””, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, mentioned. It accepts the Commission’s excuse that member states are to blame for billions disappearing into thin air, and supports its so-called ““roadmap”” to formalise the process of making member states more responsible. But, as my noble friend pointed out, the responsibility to do that is clearly laid on the Commission in Article 274. Under the Maastricht Treaty, that responsibility is the Commission’s; it has both the responsibility and the power, but unfortunately seems to lack the will. I fear that the situation will not improve while EU officials remain in a permanent state of denial on the reliability of the accounts. All we get are promises and window-dressing. I hope that they will follow up the suggestion made that a reputable firm of international accountants should be contracted to examine the accounts on behalf of the European Commission. Then at least the taxpayers might have some confidence that their money is not being wasted and disappearing into enormous black holes, as is the case at the moment—witness the 12th qualified audit by the Court of Auditors.