1998 REPORTS ON THE STRUCTURAL AND COHESION
FUNDS
(a)
(20605)
12011/99
COM(99) 467
(b)
(20606)
12012/99
COM(99) 483
|
Structural Funds — tenth annual Report by the Commission (1998).
Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund (1998).
|
| Legal base:
| — |
| |
| Department: |
Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 1 May 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| (Both) HC 23-viii (1999-2000), paragraph
10 ( 9 February 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| (Both) Cleared, (decision reported on 9 February)
|
Background
5.1 When we last considered these reports
(in February), we cleared them but asked to be informed of the
outcome of the next Cohesion Fund information meeting, at which
the UK intended to raise issues related to anti-fraud procedures
and the reporting of fraud.
The Minister's letter
5.2 The Minister for Trade (The Rt Hon Richard
Caborn) has now written to us about this meeting. He says:
"The first information
meeting since publication took place recently in Brussels and
my officials raised the points in the Select Committee's report.
"With regard to anti-fraud procedures, the Commission
said that they considered that the current level of controls were
sufficient. They emphasised that, when project inspections were
held, they were unexpected and also pointed to the levels of inspection
that were in place i.e. at Commission level, at National Authority
Level and at National Inspection Body level. In addition they
noted that the Fund was subject to the additional checks of the
Audit Directorate General and the Court of Auditors.
"The Commission went on to stress that there
had only been one irregularity in 1999. As a result of instructions
from the Portuguese Court of Auditors, a project had had to issue
its proposals for tender for a second time. The Commission stressed
that the value of the tender was small. We will expect full details
to be given in the Commission's Annual Report on the Cohesion
Fund for 1999."
Conclusion
5.3 We thank the Minister for his response.
We note that the replies his officials received at the meeting
were more about anti-fraud procedures than about the reporting
of fraud. Nevertheless, we are pleased that they raised the issues,
and the response appears, by and large, encouraging.
5.4 We have already cleared the documents.
| 
