EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS' ANNUAL REPORT
(8630/06)
Letter from Ivan Lewis MP, Economic Secretary,
HM Treasury to the Chairman
I am pleased to enclose a copy of the UK's response
to the European Court of Auditors' (ECA) Report on the 2004 EC
Budget, including responses to specific UK references therein.
These responses may be analysed in the Commission's follow-up
report on the financial year 2004. As Member State's responses
are not published in full, your committee may find it opportune
to have the UK response in full at this stage.
31 January 2006
Annex A
CHAPTER 3: REVENUE
3.9-3.18 Electronic customs clearance
The Court carried out an audit in the UK from
10-14 May 2004 and notified its findings in PF 1568 dated 16 December
2004. The UK replied on 16 March 2005. The Commission followed-up
the findings in BUDG 58350 dated 22 September 2005. All the points
are closed except 23-27 Temporary storage and 43-45 Supporting
documents missing.
On the first point, the ECA discovered 77 items
for which no customs approved treatment or use had been assigned
within the time limits. On the second point, the ECA discovered
7 entries for which no certificates of origin were held by Customs
although preferential duty rates were applied. Customs are in
the process of obtaining the additional information requested
by the Commission and will reply when the details are available.
3.23 Amounts established but not vet made
available to the Commission (B Accounts)
The Court carried out an audit in the UK from
1-2 February 2005 and notified its findings in PF 1809 dated 15
July 2005. The UK replied on 5 September 2005 but we have not
yet received any follow-up from the Commission.
The B Accounts have been centralised and `significant
progress has been made with the transfer of cases from the regional
offices. The central site will monitor the progress of cases referred
to the central Debt. Management Unit. A new form has been introduced
to support cancellations. Procedures for write-offs will be reviewed
to ensure that they are justified in terms of own resources and
that accounting action is correct and timely. Systematic checks
will be introduced on the aggregation and production of the B
statements. These measures should produce improvements in the
accuracy and completeness of the B Accounts.
CHAPTER 4: COMMON
AGRICULTURAL POLICY
Paragraph 4.20—Footnote 13
The ECA noted that the Commission intends to
make corrections based on financial errors detected in a further
four paying agencies (including Forestry Commission and SEERAD).
The Commission's findings are in line with UK
expectations which related to observations made by the Commission
in respect of under-declared interest in the Forestry Commission's
Table 104 and unidentified corrections for SEERAD's in the Table
105. Both observations relate to findings made by the Certifying
Body during the 2004 Certification of Accounts.
For the Forestry Commission, the necessary under-declared
interest has already been repaid in the February 2005 Table 105:
no further financial adjustment is required. The Commission have
also formally reported that the appropriate corrective action
has been taken to avoid any future reoccurrence and, as such,
no additional corrections are to be proposed.
For SEERAD, the Commission have proposed a financial
correction of £497,130.69 (ie the full amount of the unidentified
corrections included in the Table 105). As these cannot be identified
against specific budget postes, it is not feasible to repay the
Commission via the Table 104. The total sum concerned will therefore
be included as a single correction in a future ad hoc compliance
clearance decision. Again no additional systematic correction
has been proposed.
CHAPTER 5: STRUCTURAL
MEASURES
Paragraph 5.21—The Scottish Executive
accept that the MA and PA work within the same division and that
they both report to the same head of division. However the procedures
for processing claims and the IT system have been developed to
ensure that we have a full and proper separation of both functions.
The responsibilities of each area are, we believe, fully defined
in the desk instructions. Access to IT functions that relate tgo
MA are restricted to the staff working in the MA and the same
is true of PA functions. Access rights can only be changed by
an IT support team based outwith the division and only if authorised
by branch heads.
The Scottish Executive also accept that the
unit responsible for the 5 per cent sample checks (VAC) operates
within the same Division. Here again, they believe that the desk
instructions can demonstrate a clear separation of the respective
responsibilities. However, when the Division relocated to Glasgow
in 2004 a conscious decision was taken that the VAC team should
remain in Edinburgh close to internal audit services. Although
they believe that the separation of duties was always clearly
defined it was felt that locating the units in different locations
would serve to further underline this separation and to stress
the functional independence of the VAC team.
The UK would agree with the Commission's reply
for Western Scotland under paragraph 5.21, ie the view that "It
considers that for the 1997-99 Western Scotland programme the
structure met the minimum requirements laid down for the 1994-99
period".
Paragraphs 5.22 to 5.30—further documentation
has been produced by the government Office and they are updating
internal systems and procedures including the findidngs of audits.
Paragraph 5.24—The control environment
applied to the programme was monitored by the independent bodies
throughout the period and in particular during the closure process.
The independent body considered the control environment to be
sufficient to comply with the requirements of the regulations
applying to this programme.
Since the closure of the 94-99 programme significant
enhancements have been made to the control checks being undertaken
on expenditure. These have, in part, resulted from feedback from
ECA and DG audits and from regular contact with the independent
Article 15 body. As an example of the changes that we have made
we have widened the number, scope and depth of checks pre-payment
and introduced post payment checks on a sample of claims. In addition
the timelines we have set for closure of the current problems
will prevent the claiming of expenditure incurred after the final
date allowed for this programme.
Paragraphs 5.25 and 5.29—The Scottish
Executive accept that the VAC Team only visited 11 out of 345
projects but would stress that they did achieve the 5 per cent
target in compliance with Regulation 2064/97. However, this analysis
does not provide the full picture. The 345 projects were sponsored
in total by 90 applicants, the VAC Team carried out 11 visits
to individual projects/applicants with a further eight project
sponsors visited on other programmes, resulting in approximately
20 per cent of project applicants being the subject of an on-the-spot
inspection.
There appears to be some confusion regarding
the risk analysis and the selection criteria for the West of Scotland
visits. In the past the criteria was set at all projects over
£1(m) but following a visit by the ECA (in March 2000) the
system was reviewed and a more robust risk analysis was put in
place. The 11 projects visited were all subject to the revised
risk assessment and selected as appropriate. As is rightly pointed
out, only projects over £1(m) were selected but this is clearly
one of the restrictions of the risk analysis, especially when
you are trying to ensure that foremost you achieve the 5 per cent
target.
The comment that there is a need to cover a
wide range of projects and you will wish to note that risk analysis
for the current programme has been rationalised and now ensure
that we do get a more appropriate mix of types and size of operations.
The Scottish Executive accept that the audit
does not cover 100 per cent of the expenditure declared but would
like to point out that although it does not carry out a sampling
methodology, once it has been presented with a transaction listing
it tries to cover as much of the expenditure as possible and select
invoices covering all contracts and all aspects of the project.
On the issue of extrapolation, it is not normal policy to count
extrapolated expenditure on ERDF projects towards the 5 per cent
target. However, if they do identify what would be described as
a systemic error they would calculate the total error and record
this in their Management Information System. This ineligible expenditure
would be compared against the actual expenditure substantively
checked and not the total project value when calculating the error
rate.
Paragraph 5.29—sample selection was based
on a mixture of risk and randomly selected checks. The use of
randomly selected checks allowed the calculation of more representative
error rate. The sample selection process was then audited by the
Article 8 body and found to be satisfactory. On the statements
selected mention is made at Section 5 that "a number of Government
Offices adopted a risk-based approach" and these were not
included in the error rate calculation.
In addition, the issue of sample selection should
be taken in the context of the size of the programme and the level
of sampling carried out. One of the programmes selected was a
very small programme and 97 per cent of the programme spend was
checked.
Also on paragraph 5.29, we agree with the Commission's
comment that "they had sufficient information to close
the programme".
5.3—The Scottish Executive accept that
the closure process took longer than expected and a lot longer
than desirable. This was caused, at least in part, by pressure
of other work at MS level and at the Commission. In particular
the diversion of resources to the operation of the 2000-006 Programmes
meant that they were unable to respond to requests from the Commission
as quickly as they would have liked. They have identified this
as a risk to closing the current programmes. They have already
started planning for closure of the 2000-06 programmes so that
they can ensure that resources are sufficient to support an efficient
closure process.
Paragraph 5.36—a guidance note on the
preparation of Article 9 declaration of expenditure to the Commission
is being prepared. A new directive on procurement comes into effect
in January 2006 and will form part of UK guidance to Government
Offices and grant applicants. The UK recently issued a guidance
note on the method to be used for the calculation of overhead
expenditure to projects.
Paragraph 5.36—The Scottish Executive
provide guidance to all their project sponsors to ensure that
the rules of state aid are fully respected. They consider charitable
organisations engaged in economic activity to be analogous to
public organisations, as they are neither profit making nor profit
distributing. The areas targeted by such organisations are those
which have suffered severe and persistent market failure and only
public sector agencies are prepared to engage there. The services
supplied by such organisations are vital when the market fails
to address the often acute lack of economic prospects.
In respect of comment 52 to paragraph 5.36,
referring to expenditure incurred outside the eligible period;
the eligible period aspect was a matter of discussion at an article
48 committee which gave a verbal instruction that quite probably
was interpreted differently by Member States or even regions within
Member States.
GENERAL POINTS
As regards programme closures in general the
closure process was hampered by the invoking of additional requirements
for information above and beyond that contained in the Regulations.
However, the UK have a working group to assess and try to resolve
problems as quickly as possible in respect of the 1994-99 programmes.
It is also working on a closure package development to aid in
closing the 2000-06 programmes in a timely manner.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
accepts the general feel of the report and agree that there are
still areas within the management of the fund where improvements
are necessary both at the managing/paying authority level and
at project level. The Government Office for the North East together
with ODPM and the Government Office Audit Team have responded
to the findings of the ECA visit to the NE Objective 2 ERDF programme,
agreeing to some of the findings and providing additional information
(which was not readily available during the visit) to clarify
others. There are other areas which are under discussion with
officials from the Commission, including interpretation of the
publicity requirements for retrospective projects.
ODPM officials have formed similar views to
the ECA from monitoring of the quarterly Article 10 reports on
the 5 per cent inspection of total eligible expenditure. Further
guidance notes have either been issued or are under preparation,
to address the issues raised by the ECA.
The UK would ask that consideration be given,
especially to avoid confusion within the media circle, to the
ECA report specifying that their findings were totally about the
management of the fund and recommendations were being made for
improvement, rather than anything fraudulent. The current style
of reporting could be damaging for the programme, the region and
affect the moral of those associated with it.
Also the ECA should perhaps consider organising
"open days" similar to those being organised by the
Commission, or make a series of visits to Member States, explaining,
for example, what they do and what they expect to see during their
visits to Member States. This should include their interpretation
of the regulations.
With regard to audits in general, we would like
to make the following observations. While we are in agreement
with may of the aspects of a roadmap, we also feel that
there should be some emphasis on simplyfying Regualtions rather
than clarifying which seems to result in additional and more complicated
Regulations. In addition, if audits could be set more as system
and benefit cost audits rather than transaction tracing audits
this would help enormously. Transaction tracing audits bring up
specific timed errors, often of minor amounts, which they extrapolated
can make it look as though the whole programme is in error. These
errors are also often corrected later but this is not recognised
when checks take place within a specific period.
CHAPTER 7: EXTERNAL
ACTIONS
We welcome the Court's recognition that External
Actions performance continues to improve in line with the Court's
recommendations in its 2003 report. It confirms other evidence
that the Commission's reforms are feeding through into improved
practices and procedures which has greatly improved the effectiveness
of the EC. However, as in previous years, the report continues
to raise concerns over recurrent weaknesses in the system. Steady
progress is being made by both EuropeAid and ECHO but more need
to be done to improve their internal controls, adherence to contracting
procedures and strengthening their monitoring and reporting standards.
These are essential elements in improving accountability and transparency.
EuropeAid is managing billions of Euros and pursue relations with
all kinds of partners across the globe, clear and strong procedures
are paramount to making sure funds are used for their intended
purposes. We share the Court's concern about getting the right
level of staff and the appropriate skills mix in Delegations.
We acknowledge the Commission is working on this but they are
still understaffed compared to other donors, and at times lack
the skills needed. On paragraphs 7.26 and 7.27 we would urge the
Commission to continue action to introduce standardised documentation
to tighten the implementing organisations terms of reference for
external auditors in Delegations. Also, more needs to be done
on the segregation of duties between the authorisation and accounting
systems (7.31 and 7.32) to provide protection against misuse of
funds. We welcome the Commissions actions to take corrective steps.
With the transfer of the CARDS work to DG Enlargement,
the need to look more carefully at implementing organisations
are just as valid for Enlargement as for EuropeAid. We accept
that much will have changed but the Court should consider, in
future audits, looking at the effectiveness of expenditure in
terms both of project delivery meeting project objectives and
of project design reflecting Regulation goals.
CHAPTER 8: PRE-ACCESSION
AID
Overall, we support this report. It was reassuring
to see that the general conclusion of the Court findings on the
supervisory and control systems for all pre-accession instruments
at the level of the Commission's central services and delegations
and certifying authorities were basically sound, and worked in
practice. However, paragraphs 8.9, 8.31 and 8.32 show the inconsistency
in the decision to substantially increase assistance to Bulgaria
and Romania for 2004 when there were reservations about the capacity
to manage and implement increasing amounts of aid. According to
the Commission this was a political decision and the increase
is dependent on improvements. We would like to see more on how
the Commission plan to help with improvements. Extended Decentralised
Implementation System (EDIS) is a clear test for progress in this
area. A significant part of Phare's objectives are to increase
administrative capacity in preparation for Structural funds post-accession,
and a key part of this is the implementation of EDIS in candidate
countries to allow them to implement their own structural and
regional funds post-accession. Achievement of EDIS provides a
clear benchmark for the efficiency of candidate countries in handling
funds. Although of the 2004 accession countries, only Hungary
achieved EDIS before accession, paragraph 8.18 notes that Romania
and Bulgaria aim to have EDIS in place by 2006.
EDF
We note that the Court has issued a Statement
of Assurance on Activities funded by EDFs 6-9 but that there are
still a number of areas for improvements. We were concerned at
the Court's report on the lack of key information and explanations
in the Commission's financial reporting, the continuing slow pace
of Stabex clearance, the persistent weaknesses in the supervisory
and control systems and the non-compliance with the Court's definition
of legality and regularity. Progress on follow up activities on
observations from previous reports has also been slow. However,
we note that the Commission does not disagree with any of the
Court's findings, and we welcome actions being taken to correct
some of these concerns, such as improvements in the Stabex inventory
and identification of recoverable amounts. We would expect to
see marked improvements in the Court's report for 2005. The devolution
of responsibilities to Delegations should further improve the
Commission's capacity to fully address the Court's concerns. There
is evidence that this is already happening.
UK RESPONSE TO
THE EUROPEAN
COURT OF
AUDITORS' REPORT
ON THE
2004 BUDGET
ERRORS NOTED
BY THE
COURT IN
THE STATEMENT
OF ASSURANCE:
SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS
|
| DAS error reference | Nature of error
| UK Reply | Remedial measures taken
|
|
04.P.R2.DOR 2107-01
04.P.R2 DOR.2107-02
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-05
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-06
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-07
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-08
| Error In sample: Legality and Regularity |
UK Reply of 9 August 2005 | The UK has accepted a number of the errors and put remedial meausres in place. The ECA has agreed with some of the observations made by the UK and withdrawn some of its opinions.
|
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.01
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.02
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.05
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.06
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.07
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.09
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.11
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.12
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.13
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.14
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.15
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.17
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.19
| Error In sample: Legality and Regularity |
Scottish Executive Rely of 11 August 2005 | The Scottish Executive has accepted a number of the errors and put remedial measures in place, They have also given explanations as to why they disagree with other findings. The ECA has agreed with some of the observations made by the Scottish Executive and withdrawn some of its opinions.
|
04.P.RI.FIA.1081
04.P.RI.FIA.1084
04.P.R1.FIA.1085
04.P.R1.FIA.1086
04:P.RI.FIA.1087
04.P.RI.FIA.1133
| Error In sample: Legality and Regularity |
Reply from Derek Lee UK Co-Ordinating Body, dated 26 August 2005
| The UK have accepted most of the findings and taken steps to either recover monies incorrectly paid or to change procedures to avoid errors occurring in future. In those cases where they do not agree, or do not fully agree, they have provided explanations as to why this is
|
|
FORMAL ERRORS
|
| DAS error reference | Nature of error
| UK Reply | Remedial measures taken
|
|
04.P.R2.DOR 2107-01
04.P.R2 DOR.2107-02
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-05
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-06
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-07
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-08
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-09
04.P.R2.DOR.2107-10
| Error IN sample: Legality and Regularity |
UK Reply of 9 August 2005 | The UK has accepted a number of the errors and put remedial measures in place. The ECA has agreed with some of the observations made by the UK and withdrawn some of its opinions.
|
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.01
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.04
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.05
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.07
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.08
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.09
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.10
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.11
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.12
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.14
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.17
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.20
| Error In Sample: Legality and Regularity |
Scottish Executive Reply of 211 August 2005 |
The Scottish Executive have accepted a number of the errors and put remedial measures in place. They have also given explanations as to why they disagree with other findings. The ECA has agreed with some of the observations made by the Scottish Executive and withdrawn some of its opinions.
|
04.P.R1.FIA.1087
04.P.R1.FIA.1133
04.P.R1.FIA.1143
| Error In sample: Legality and Regularity |
Reply from Derek Lee, UK Co-Ordinating Body, dated 26 August 2005
| The UK have accepted most of the findings and taken steps to either recover monies incorrectly paid or to change procedures to avoid errors occuring in future. In those cases where they do not agree, or do not fully agree, they have provided explanations as to why this is.
|
|
NON-OPINION
|
| DAS error reference | Nature of error
| UK Reply | Remedial measures taken
|
|
| 04.P.R2.DOR 2107-01 | Error In sample: Legality and Regularity
| UK reply of 9 August 2005 | The UK has accepted a number of the errors and put remedial measures in place. The ECA has agreed with some of the observations make by the UK nd withdrawn some of its opinions.
|
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.01
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.07
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.08
04.P.R2.DOR 2205.10
| Error In sample: Legality and Regularity |
Scottish Executive Reply of 11 August 2005 |
The Scottish Executive have accepted a number of the errors and put remedial measures in place. They have also given explanations as to why they disagree with other findings. The ECA has agreed with some of the observations made by the Scottish Executive and withdrawn some of its opinions.
|
| 04/SYS/RD/TOR.0082 | System Weaknessses
| Reply from Sarah Connor, HM Revenue & Customs, dated 5 September 2005
| The UK authorities have accepted the opinions expressed by the Court and changes have been implemented or will be implemented to meet the necessary requirements.
|
| N/A | Electronic Customs Clearance
| Reply from Sarah Connor, HM Revenue & Customs, dated 16 March 2005
| The UK authorities are taking steps to meet the points made by the ECA.
|
|
Letter from the Chairman to Ivan Lewis MP
Thank you very much for your Explanatory Memorandum dated
19 December 2005[10]
regarding the European Court of Auditors' Annual Report for financial
year 2004; and your letter of 31 January regarding references
to the UK in this report. Both of these documents have been considered
recently by Sub-Committee A. The Sub-Committee have decided to
hold the original Explanatory Memorandum under scrutiny and to
launch an inquiry into the reasons behind a lack of a positive
Statement of Assurance on the annual accounts for the last 11
years.
In due course we will be looking to arrange a mutually convenient
time to meet you formally to discuss the situation. However, in
advance of this session, do the Government consider that the mechanisms
already suggested by the Commission to improve the management
of the budget are adequate and likely to lead to a positive DAS
on the accounts by the end of the tenure of the Barroso Commission?
In addition, do the Government consider that the working methods,
staffing and organisation of the Court of Auditors is appropriate
and effective? Do you have any suggestions for improvement?
For your information I enclose a copy of the Call for Evidence
(not printed) which the Committee has recently published.
8 February 2006
Letter from Ivan Lewis MP to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 8 February. I am pleased that
Sub-Committee A has decided to launch an inquiry into the reasons
behind the lack of a positive Statement of Assurance on the EU's
accounts for the last 11 years, and will be happy to meet you
formally to discuss this.
You asked two questions in advance of my session. First,
whether the mechanisms suggested by the Commission to improve
the management of the budget are adequate, and likely to lead
to a positive DAS on the accounts by the end of the tenure of
the Barroso Commission. The Commission's strategic objective to
achieve a positive DAS by 2009 is indeed an ambitious and challenging
target and will require considerable effort by itself and by Member
States. It is encouraging that the 2004 report gives assurance
on a greater proportion of the budget than ever before, because
of improvements on financial management and control in key areas
of expenditure, but there is still a long way to go. The Commission's
Action Plan[11], in response
to the November ECOFIN conclusions on the "roadmap to an
integrated internal control framework"[12]
does offer the prospect of further progress towards the achievement
of a positive DAS, perhaps most significantly through the launching
of an inter-institutional dialogue between the Council and the
European Parliament on the risks to be tolerated in the underlying
transactions. The continuing efforts to simplify complex legislation
are also likely to have a beneficial effect on the level of assurance
achieved. But ultimately it is for the Court of Auditors to consider
how any proposed changes impact on its approach and the level
of assurance it can give. I do not think that anyone could say
definitely that a 100 per cent positive DAS will be achieved by
2009, although I would be very happy to be proved wrong. But I
do think that we will have made much more progress towards providing
the kind of assurance that the Court is looking for.
Secondly, you asked whether the Government considers that
the working methods, staffing and organisation of the Court of
Auditors' are appropriate and effective. Concerning the ECA's
organisation, I am reminded of Sub-Committee A's earlier inquiry
into this[13], the findings
of which played a major part in the Government's efforts to introduce
reform of the ECA during the last Inter-Governmental Conference
(IGC). As you know, there was little support for the Government's
proposal that the ECA should be re-organised in the form of a
9-member Executive Board supervised by a part-time 25-member Governing
Committee. The Government still considers that the ECA's current
organisation in the form of a Court of 25 members is unwieldy
and inefficient, and there may be scope for reviving the reform
proposal in the future.
The ECA, like other independent audit bodies, works to international
auditing standards. But I am also reminded that the Committee
of Public Accounts drew attention to the effectiveness of the
ECA's work in its report last year on "Financial Management
of the European Union"[14].
They suggested (as has the European Parliament) that it should
consider arranging a peer review of its approach and work to test
the quality and relevance of what it does and to demonstrate its
willingness to learn from others. The Government agreed that there
would be benefits in carrying out a review, or in introducing
systems for ongoing external review. Processes of ongoing review
and feedback similar to those recently agreed for our own National
Audit Office could also be considered for the ECA. The ECA has
since decided to submit to a peer review, and we await the outcome.
Finally, you explained that Sub-Committee A intended to keep
the Explanatory Memorandum on the European Court of Auditors'
Annual Report for the 2004 financial year under scrutiny, pending
its inquiry. As you know, the Council recommendation on discharge
for 2004 will be considered by the ECOFIN Council on 14 March,
and all Member States should have completed their Parliamentary
Scrutiny of the ECA report by then. I should therefore be very
grateful if the Sub-Committee would consider whether they could
clear the Explanatory Memorandum in advance of the inquiry.
28 February 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Ivan Lewis MP
Thank you very much for your letter of 28 February regarding
EM OJC 301, the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors
concerning financial year 2004. Sub-Committee A considered this
at their meeting on 7 March.
The Sub-Committee noted your assurances that you will be
happy to attend a formal evidence session in the near future as
part of our inquiry into the audit and management of European
funds; and, in response to your request in the penultimate paragraph
of your letter, have agreed to clear the document from scrutiny.
At the same meeting, the Sub-Committee also considered EM
5509/06 on the Commission's Action Plan towards and Integrated
Internal Control Framework and decided to hold this under scrutiny
pending your oral evidence session.
8 March 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Ed Balls MP, Economic Secretary,
HM Treasury
Thank you very much for your Explanatory Memorandum 8630/05
on Member States' replies to the European Court of Auditors' 2004
Annual Report. This was considered by Sub-Committee A at their
meeting on 20 June.
The Committee found this information extremely useful and
valuable in relation to its current inquiry into the management
and audit of EC expenditure and accounts. Therefore, we have decided
to continue to hold the document under scrutiny as part of this
inquiry.
22 June 2006
10
(OJC 301, Volume 48). Back
11
5509/06, COM (2000) 9 final of 17 January 2006: Commission Action
Plan towards an Integrated Internal Control Framework, EM submitted
on 7 February 2006. Back
12
10326/05, COM(2005)252 final of 15 June 2005, Communication from
the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the
European Court of Auditors on a roadmap to an integrated internal
control framework, EM submitted on 20 July 2005. Back
13
12th Report, Session 2000-01 "The European Court of Auditors:
the case for reform". Back
14
18th report, Session 2004-05. Back
| 
