Letter from Lord Grenfell to Hubert Weber,
President, European Court of Auditors
Thank you for your letter of 15 December 2006
regarding our report on Financial Management and Fraud in the
EU. We are grateful to you for setting out the Court's views on
the three issues you discuss and they are indeed of use to the
Committee ahead of the debate on the Report, currently scheduled
for early March.
I suspect that the Committee and the Court largely
agree on most points, but wish to clarify our thinking on four
issues:
(a) In paragraph 17 we wished to emphasise
the difference in philosophical approach between the statement
of assurance, which will make a judgement on the soundness of
the accounts as a whole, and the detailed annual report which
provides the detail of the financial management of the spending
programmes. The Committee accepts that proving separate statements
of assurance for all programmes in all Member States would be
onerous but we had in mind only sector DASs which as your letter
notes are allowed for by Article 248 of the Treaty;
(b) The Committee accepts your argument that
the Court would have difficulty distinguishing between fraud and
irregularity;
(c) We support your multi-source methodology,
although we still argue for an increased sample size. We agree
with your suggestion that there should be some way of summarising
the Commission's examinations and proposed corrections, and publishing
these in the Annual Accounts;
(d) Regarding national declarations and their
role, the Committee still believe that there is benefit to be
gained from these and we are pleased to hear that the Court takes
note of existing SAI findings. We do not believe we have yet reached
a point where the cost of additional audit work outweighs the
potential benefits, although we note your point that these costs
and benefits have not yet been quantified.
21 February 2007
|
