Proceeding contribution from Julia Goldsworthy (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 19 November 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on European Communities (Finance) Bill.
European Communities (Finance) Bill
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that other Members have mentioned the problems with the European Union audit process, and Ministers made it clear, when the draft documents were debated earlier last year, that tougher audit trails and constraints needed to be in place. We support them in their intent, but that will mean national Governments, as well as the EU, taking on responsibilities. Perhaps it will mean taking more responsibility down to national level, as some of the problems are caused by centralising too much of the detail at EU level. This issue was highlighted in the past week or so, when we learned that the EU auditors had refused to sign off the EU's financial accounts for the 13th year in a row. One of the issues identified by the report was poor knowledge of complex rules. The applications for structural funding in my constituency involved an incredibly complicated process, but the layers of complication often came not from Europe but from the regional body administering the structural funds. One of the most frustrating things was the fact that the goalposts were moved during the application process. The example that always springs to mind relates to industrial buildings and work spaces, for which funds were available. Because there were a lot of applications going in, however, the Government office for the south-west decided to raise the environmental standards required. That was great, but unfortunately there was no one available to assess those standards. We can see from that example how these complications can arise. The fact that the Department for Work and Pensions has failed to have its accounts signed off for the past 13 or 14—or is it 17?—years shows us that it is not just the European Union that has difficulty in dealing with these issues. The Government must sort themselves out as well as demanding improvement in Europe. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned at national and Europe-wide level. If we can do that, we shall achieve greater clarity and help to inspire confidence. The Government should concede where they failed in this set of negotiations. They should admit that it would have been better to have had no agreement under Blair's presidency, rather than an agreement that was nothing but a bad deal for the UK. If, like us, they want the European project to succeed, aspects of the Union must be fundamentally reformed. They should accept that the greatest failure in this whole process was not on the part of the EU, but on the part of our then Prime Minister in giving up part of the rebate without securing fundamental CAP reform. Achieving that reform would have been a legacy to be proud of, but it is one that this Government have failed to achieve.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 467 c1017
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Audit Common fisheries policy Contributions British overseas territories EU countries EU enlargement EU budget Job creation EU grants and loans National income Common agricultural policy Eastern Europe Balance of trade Treaties Republic of Ireland
- Legislation
- European Communities (Finance) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-09-18 07:36:41 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_422794
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_422794
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_422794