I refer to the editorial entitled Managing EU Funds Deserves Constant Review (November 30), which was based on a report carried in The Times of November 11 entitled EU Auditors Lambast Malta Agriculture Paying Agency. Although on November 12 the government issued a statement to clarify matters, the editorial does not feature those replies.

The Times reported that “an inspection by the European Court of Auditors last year found the paying agency which dishes out millions of euros in aid to farmers was not up to standard and was classified as not effective” and “the ECA highlighted serious concerns with the standards of the agency after finding examples of insufficient audit trails, miscalculations of aid eligible to farmers and payments made before anomalies were solved. The audit team also found out there were some penalties applied incorrectly”.

In this regard it is important to point out the following facts:

In the report, Malta’s Administration actually received mixed reviews. It fared well in the implementation and control of agriculture and environment compliance (“effective” according to the Court of Auditors terminology), was found broadly compliant in on-the-spot inspection methodology, selection, execution, quality control and reporting of individual results with only the need to improve on application of measurement tolerances (“partially effective”) and was found to have a number of weaknesses in administrative procedures and controls to ensure correct payment including quality of databases (“not effective”). The overall assessment, however, was “not effective”; an assessment which was shared by Greece and Cyprus.

In its reactions to the Court of Auditors’ findings, also published as part of this report, the Commission has emphasised that, while there is room for improvement, the deficiencies do not render the systems ineffective and all deficiencies are followed up through conformity clearance procedures which ensure the EU Budget is safeguarded. Moreover, the assessment of the Court of Auditors focused on the implementation of the systems in 2007, with these systems, including IT systems, being improved and upgraded in 2008, allowing for payments to be issued in a correct and accountable manner. These systems have in fact been reviewed by the Commission which confirmed the validity of the systems and in the financial clearance for the year ending October 15, 2009, the Investigations and Audit Department certified in full the amounts paid.

The government has invested and introduced a new system which was acknowledged by various audit missions from the Commission. This has lead to a marked improvement in the operations and administrative controls of the Maltese Paying Agency that led the Commission to clear its accounts for the financial years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Furthermore, the Maltese Paying Agency was one of only eight agencies out of 27 on which the Commission did not impose a financial recovery. In fact, in the Agra Facts publication (no. 89-1, November 5) it is stated that: “In total, some €578.5 million of unduly spent funds will be recovered from 19 different member states – all except Belgium, Estonia, Malta, Latvia, Slovakia, Finland, Luxembourg and Austria.” This clearly shows the investment that is being carried out within the agency is giving results.

The improvement and results being achieved confirm that the Maltese Paying Agency has invested in the appropriate organisation and is operating structures that have the credibility and confidence of the Commission.