|
|
|
|
|
|
'Whistleblower' Robert
Dougal Watt
responds to HM
Treasury letter
Ms Janet Thomas
Corruption in the European institutions and the
role of the National Audit Office
Thank you for your letter of 6 February 2003
regarding the above.
I record below my detailed response to your
letter. However, my most important observation is of a general nature:
regrettably, most of the matters which I presented in my letter of 17
December 2002 are ignored by your reply. For example, my evidenced
allegation, endorsed by 205 of my colleagues, that all Members of the
European Court of Auditors have benefitted from corruption, directly or
indirectly – has elicited no response. Given the key role which the
Court plays in protecting taxpayers’ money spent by “Europe”, I should
have thought this information would interest HM Treasury. Especially
so, since the British Member of the Court, Mr David Bostock, is himself a
former senior civil servant of HM Treasury’s Cabinet Office European Unit.
The paragraph references below correspond to the
paragraph numbers in your letter.
Paragraph 2
I am aware that the European Anti-Fraud Office,
OLAF, has carried out many successful investigations into serious frauds.
But I regret your reply does not address the specific matter which I have
raised: OLAF’s investigation of the “Quatraro Case”; and the
implications thereof. That case, the initial poor handling of which by
the Commission led to the establishment of OLAF’s predecessor, UCLAF, in
response to an outcry from the European Parliament – may be considered as
the most important in the history of OLAF.
A major and documented fraud was perpetrated on
EU funds: for which no-one has ever been prosecuted. A man died:
probably by suicide, but possibly murdered. The extent of the fraud
was covered-up: it has now been publicly revealed by an OLAF inspector that
Dr Quatraro admitted, just before he died, that others in the Commission
were involved in his corruption. But this evidence was not followed up
by UCLAF in 1993: instead, the investigation was closed upon the death of Dr
Quatraro. Neither the European Parliament, nor the European Court of
Auditors, was informed of Dr Quatraro’s testimony. Worse still;
UCLAF then actively misled both Parliament and the Court, by omitting key
facts from its subsequent enquiry report – facts which, had they been
presented, would have suggested to any reader that others in the Commission
should be investigated. As late as 2001, OLAF continued to maintain
the UCLAF “line”, despite its internal knowledge of Dr Quatraro’s
admission. Consideration of UCLAF/OLAF’s handling of the case
therefore reveals an apparently deliberate endeavour to conceal wrong-doing;
and this must cast material doubt on OLAF’s general performance of its
mandated tasks. Even more worryingly; neither the Court nor the
European Parliament have expressed any interest in these serious and
manifest failures by OLAF.
Paragraph 3
As you letter observes, “It is right that the
payments from weighted salary transfers have now ceased for those who were
not entitled according to the rules”. I note your reply does not
acknowledge that it was my “whistleblowing” which initiated this
cessation – and for which I am now being punished. The lack of
entitlement to which you refer had been known about amongst auditors of the
Court for years; but nothing was done, until I “blew the whistle”.
On 22 April 2002, I referred to this issue; on 18 June, I spelled it out in
detail. On 1 July 2002 – just thirteen days after I presented the
relevant information to MEPs – the European Court of Auditors suddenly
announced that such payments had no legal basis. The “Telegraph”
of 8 July reported that Commissioner Kinnock was thus deprived of £30,000
income per annum. Furthermore, your letter goes on to inform me that,
“Member States, including the UK, are looking closely at the continuing
appropriateness of the entitlement to weighted salary transfer for all
staff”. Since I myself am a fortunate recipient – and thoroughly
entitled, under the current rules, I might add – of this benefit, I find
it rather regrettable, in the context of the issues raised in my letter of
17 December 2002, that you should consider it pertinent to inform me in your
reply of Her Majesty’s Treasury’s position on this particular issue.
The phrase which springs to my mind is, “insult added to injury”.
Paragraph 4
I am perplexed by the inclusion of such a stout
defence of MEPs’ entitlements in your letter. I did not condemn, nor
call into question, such proper entitlements. On the contrary, my
letter criticised both the nature and the timing of the attack on MEPs’
entitlements which featured in the “Observer”.
Paragraph 5
With regard to the future of the European Court
of Auditors, I feel sure HM Treasury will indeed, “take a keen interest in
how its efficiency can be improved”, in discussions in the European
Convention. But for the national authorities of Europe in general, and
for HM Treasury in particular: to expect the current fifteen Members of the
Court to efficiently track down irregularity, even in the distant corners of
an enlarged Europe, when they failed to act upon irregularities taking place
along the corridor, in their own building – I suggest that such an
expectation represents the triumph of hope over experience. I
submit the best forum for obtaining real and lasting improvement in Court
efficiency, would be a transnational public enquiry into Court corruption
and cover-up.
If I can provide any further information, please
do not hesitate to contact me. I do hope HM Treasury will re-examine the
matters which I have raised. I am obliged to conclude, that the
absence to date of any meaningful and substantive response to the evidence
which I have presented of OLAF failure and Court corruption, and of cover-up
by both, represents a disregard by HM Treasury of real and evidenced losses
of British taxpayers’ money, which is in itself scandalous.
Yours sincerely,
R Dougal Watt, CPFA
30 April 2003
1A, Rue de Kirchberg, Weimerskirch, Luxembourg,
L-1858. Telephone: ********
Note: This letter was published for the first time as part of an exclusive report by JUST Response on May 7 2003.
|
