As I wrote on this blog a few days ago, the European Court of Auditors have refused to give the European Union's accounts a clean bill of health for the nineteenth consecutive year.
It may be an indication of concern about this that my post on the subject, "The EU wasted 6 billion of taxpayers' money last year - official!" quickly became one of the five most read posts in the eight-year lifespan of this blog.
A few years ago Copeland Borough Council took a couple of years to get its' accounts sorted out and approved by the District Auditors. This was (quite rightly) seen as grounds for very grave concern about whether the millions of pounds of taxpayer's money spent by the council were being properly managed. Even the Labour administration of Copeland, which there are objective reasons to regard as one of the three worst run councils in the country, took the matter seriously, bucked their ideas up, made it clear that heads would roll if the accounts were not sorted out and eventually got them into a fit state to be approved by the Auditors.
My four years as a member of the opposition on Copeland Borough Council were some of the most frustrating of my life, and I don't want to give the impression that they handled their budget or resource management particularly well, but by comparison with the EU they were fiscal responsibility incarnate!
If one of the worst run councils in Britain takes a bad Audit report covering a few tens of millions of pounds of public money seriously enough to make sure they get it sorted out within two or three years, what on earth are we to make of the fact that the European Commission appears far more blase about failing to get a clean audit report for billions of pounds of public money for nineteen consecutive years?
One of the few things the European Commission have said in their defence which contains some element of reality is that national governments also need to do more to ensure that EU money is properly accounted for. This is entirely true, but should not get the Commission off the hook.
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of this sorry saga is that when researching it you have to look carefully at the date of any of your sources because when you do a search for a particular speech, report or article on one year and you'll find similar speeches, reports or articles making almost exactly the same points in multiple previous years.
Equally depressing is the sign that the Commission is trying to get the Court of Auditors to moderate their comments, though fortunately they do not appear to be succeeding.
Ingeborg Gräßle, a senior German MEP who is close to Angela Merkel, Ingeborg Gräßle, an EPP parliamentarian and respected member of the European Parliament’s budgetary control committee, has accused the European Commission of trying to influence the Auditors' report and said that "numerous questions arise" about this.
It's not just the Commission who are doing this either.
A couple of months ago, Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council (e.g. the representative of member governments) was caught on film asking the European Court of Auditors to tone down their reports so as to permit more “nuanced reporting” of misspending.
“We have not nuanced our report,” he replied. “The duty of the ECA is to speak the truth.”
Pleased to hear it, but it is the duty of the Commission and the Council to listen when the ECA speaks the truth, and I'm worried about whether they are paying enough attention.
You can read Waterfield's article on the subject here.
In March 1999 the European parliament got so upset with the failure of certain members of the Santer commission to correct a culture of financial mismanagement and obstruction of auditors that they threatened to use their power to sack the entire commission. The Santer commission jumped before they were pushed and resigned en masse.
The ECA report for last year found an "Error rate" of money not adequately accounted for of 4.8% of the European Union's £117 billion budget. That is far too high to be acceptable.
Does the European Parliament have to threaten to sack the Barroso Commission to get the matter taken seriously?
It may be an indication of concern about this that my post on the subject, "The EU wasted 6 billion of taxpayers' money last year - official!" quickly became one of the five most read posts in the eight-year lifespan of this blog.
A few years ago Copeland Borough Council took a couple of years to get its' accounts sorted out and approved by the District Auditors. This was (quite rightly) seen as grounds for very grave concern about whether the millions of pounds of taxpayer's money spent by the council were being properly managed. Even the Labour administration of Copeland, which there are objective reasons to regard as one of the three worst run councils in the country, took the matter seriously, bucked their ideas up, made it clear that heads would roll if the accounts were not sorted out and eventually got them into a fit state to be approved by the Auditors.
My four years as a member of the opposition on Copeland Borough Council were some of the most frustrating of my life, and I don't want to give the impression that they handled their budget or resource management particularly well, but by comparison with the EU they were fiscal responsibility incarnate!
If one of the worst run councils in Britain takes a bad Audit report covering a few tens of millions of pounds of public money seriously enough to make sure they get it sorted out within two or three years, what on earth are we to make of the fact that the European Commission appears far more blase about failing to get a clean audit report for billions of pounds of public money for nineteen consecutive years?
One of the few things the European Commission have said in their defence which contains some element of reality is that national governments also need to do more to ensure that EU money is properly accounted for. This is entirely true, but should not get the Commission off the hook.
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of this sorry saga is that when researching it you have to look carefully at the date of any of your sources because when you do a search for a particular speech, report or article on one year and you'll find similar speeches, reports or articles making almost exactly the same points in multiple previous years.
Equally depressing is the sign that the Commission is trying to get the Court of Auditors to moderate their comments, though fortunately they do not appear to be succeeding.
Ingeborg Gräßle, a senior German MEP who is close to Angela Merkel, Ingeborg Gräßle, an EPP parliamentarian and respected member of the European Parliament’s budgetary control committee, has accused the European Commission of trying to influence the Auditors' report and said that "numerous questions arise" about this.
It's not just the Commission who are doing this either.
A couple of months ago, Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council (e.g. the representative of member governments) was caught on film asking the European Court of Auditors to tone down their reports so as to permit more “nuanced reporting” of misspending.
“Your reports are not released into a void but into the rough and tumble of political life and media reporting,” he said. “Every year, they generate headlines that ‘yet again the EU’s accounts have not been signed off’, with deceptive allegations of fraud and mismanagement. You and I know that such headlines can be misleading.
“Given this media handling of information, and its impact on public opinion in some countries, the court might want to give some further thought as to how it can encourage more nuanced reporting.
“In the end we are all responsible for Europe and its image… In times of crisis, it is more vital than ever to foster confidence. We should also be teaching, to convince Europeans and demonstrate clearly that Europe is not the source of problems, but the solution.”The Brussels correspondent of the Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield, asked Vitor Caldeira, the president of the European Court of Auditors, about Mr Van Rompuy’s comments and whether his auditors would be more biddable in the interests of polishing up the EU’s rather tarnished image.
“We have not nuanced our report,” he replied. “The duty of the ECA is to speak the truth.”
Pleased to hear it, but it is the duty of the Commission and the Council to listen when the ECA speaks the truth, and I'm worried about whether they are paying enough attention.
You can read Waterfield's article on the subject here.
In March 1999 the European parliament got so upset with the failure of certain members of the Santer commission to correct a culture of financial mismanagement and obstruction of auditors that they threatened to use their power to sack the entire commission. The Santer commission jumped before they were pushed and resigned en masse.
The ECA report for last year found an "Error rate" of money not adequately accounted for of 4.8% of the European Union's £117 billion budget. That is far too high to be acceptable.
Does the European Parliament have to threaten to sack the Barroso Commission to get the matter taken seriously?
0 comments:
Post a Comment