[ritchiebaby]

But they didn't give it an adverse opinion which is what some are saying they are trying to hide. This 'they haven't had the accounts signed off in 20 years' is a total lie.

The most recent report gives a qualified opinion that “A significant part of the 2016 expenditure audited was not affected by a material level of error”.

They stress around 3% of their budget was not used according to the rules,but that is "not a measure of fraud, inefficiency or waste"

Jim, your selective quotes are accurate, but it doesn't alter the fact that my selective quotes are equally correct.

In fact the report says that "About half of 2016 expenditure is free from material error". What it conveniently omits to say is that just over half is not free from material error. The report also states that there is a materiality error of 4.8% (approx. 3bn Euros) in re-imbursement payments and it also goes on to give examples of such errors and the reporting of 11 fraud cases directly discovered by their audit.

That figure is lower than most national budgets ritchie. Perspective please.

Material error arises from things like a missing supporting document or the incorrect application of rules (these were the two main causes of material error noted by the auditors). Material error is an accounting term and it does NOT mean fraud or waste.

Oh, Jim.    Just a prime example of a typical dismissive reply by you.

Perspective is relative to your agreement or otherwise of my point of view, and a material error of 3bn Euros, more than the total annual expenditure on Security and Citizenship (2.4bn Euros) is definitely substantial.

Material error does NOT NECESSARILY mean fraud or waste. It might mean fraud, as the ECA did discover in 11 instances, and might mean inefficiency or waste, as shown by the ECA's examples quoted in their report.

However, you'll not need to be bothered by my perspective on this argument for some time to come.