Turning the tables

Date: 10/10/1996

EuroSCEPTICS everywhere are probably already rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of being able to use the annual Court of Auditors' report on the way the Union spends its money to lambast 'Brussels' for wasting taxpayers' money.

Every year, the report captures headlines in newspapers across the EU and every year, the European Commission's efforts to cool the temperature of the debate it provokes come to nought.

This year is unlikely to be an exception. But before the Eurosceptics fire the opening shots in this autumn's war of words, they would be wise to remember just where much of the blame lies for the EU's failure to crackdown on fraud as effectively as it could.

After all, it is the member states - and not the EU's institutions - which are responsible for managing the vast bulk of the money handed out from Union coffers every year. And it is the member states which have failed to ratify the Convention on the Protection of the Community's Financial Interests which would make fraud against the Union budget a criminal offence in every EU country.

What are those intent on fleecing the Union's taxpayers by exploiting every loophole in the system expected to make of this? They will surely conclude that, whatever EU governments may say in public, they are not genuinely serious about tackling the problem.

Anti-Fraud Commissioner Anita Gradin has admitted that there is little she can do to get member states to speed up ratification of the convention, beyond exhorting them to show the necessary political will to do so. This has added fuel to the flames of the debate over the future of Union cooperation on justice and home affairs issues and underlined the inadequacy of the current arrangements.

But the Commission cannot escape its share of the blame. For years, the Court of Auditors has used its annual report to highlight weaknesses in the monitoring of EU spending by the Commission (as well as member states) which increase the risk of taxpayers' money being wasted through fraud or mismanagement. And every year, the Court gives examples of cases of both resulting from the Commission's failure to heed its warnings.

Since the new Commission team took office in January 1995, there have been welcome signs that it is finally learning the lessons of the past and moving to put its own house in order. This cannot be done quickly enough. Instead of devoting most of their energy in the run-up to the report's publication next month compiling detailed rebuttals of the criticisms it is almost certain to contain, Commission officials should admit their mistakes where they have indeed been made and concentrate instead on ensuring every possible measure has been taken to ensure such criticisms cannot be levelled at them again.

Only when that has been done will they be able to rebut the Eurosceptics' inevitable onslaught with real conviction - and turn up the heat on member states which pay constant lip-service to the need to ensure every ecu of taxpayers' money is spent wisely and well, and yet fail to introduce the measures necessary to ensure this is done.