Cardiff controversy sidestepped by court

EUROPEAN COURT of Auditors president Vitor Caldeira has sidestepped the controversy surrounding the nomination of Department of Finance secretary general Kevin Cardiff to the Luxembourg-based institution.

While Mr Cardiff’s nomination has generated resistance within the Coalition, Mr Caldeira would not say whether any of the criticism levelled at him after the department overstated the national debt by €3.6 billion was justified.

“That is a decision for the member state to take. Then there is a procedure of appointment by the European Council that is based on a previous consultation by the European Parliament.

“Those are the responsible institutions within the EU to assess the merits and the profiles of the candidates for membership of the Court of Auditors, not to the president of the court or to the court itself,” Mr Caldeira said.

The outgoing Irish member of the court Eoin O’Shea adopted a similar stance, but wished Mr Cardiff well in his confirmation hearing before the parliament. “I believe this is a very credible appointment by Ireland to the European Court of Auditors,” he said.

The two men were speaking after the publication of the court’s annual report, which highlighted a litany of spending errors by the European Commission.

The report estimates that some 3.7 per cent of the total expenditure of €122.2 billion was not spent according to the rules. It also cites a €2.45 billion restatement in the commission’s accounts for 2009 and a consequent €3.2 billion restatement in the 2010 accounts.

“There are no negative spending or income references to Ireland and none of the examples of inappropriate spending relates to Ireland,” Mr O’Shea said.

Ireland was a net beneficiary to the tune of €676 million from the EU budget in 2010. The State contributed €1.39 billion to the budget but received €2.07 billion, 83 per cent of which was related to agriculture.

Even though the report said the European accounts fairly presented the financial position of the EU, it offered an “adverse opinion” on the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts. This generally means the auditors did not “sign off” on the accounts, an assessment the court itself disputes.