An anodyne tone cannot, however, disguise the appalling image of EU financial management that leaps from the facts. In the ten years since the independent Court of Auditors was asked to vet annual EU accounts produced by the European Commission, it has not once given them a “positive statement of assurance”, equivalent to a clean audit report.

Things have improved a bit. Last year, after reforms, the court found that the accounts did at least report accurately how much had been spent, except in counting money the EU was owed. However, the court qualified its report on the legality and regularity of spending on the Common Agricultural Policy, structural aid, internal policies, external policies, such as aid to poor countries, and pre-accession aid. Together, these dodgy areas account for 94 per cent of EU spending.

The simplest way to minimise fraud and error is to simplify the CAP and regional aids so that there is far less scope for fiddling, a lesson that would also help the UK benefit system. Member states, whose administration of the funds leads to most of the mistakes, should at least have to sign up to the best practice elsewhere in the EU.

The court itself could also help. It should break down the reasons why it is failing the EU accounts, so that the areas of weakness can be pinpointed. It could also break its opinions down department by department so that commissioners have a stronger incentive to clean up their act.

Mr Leigh also wants a review to see whether the Court of Auditors is doing enough to improve value for money in the EU. This sounds like an opportunity for the Commission to put the heat on the court to give it an easier time. Without being chauvinistic, however, this is a task that the upcoming UK presidency of the EU might deliver in a positive way. Tony Blair or his successor would doubtless also like to reform and simplify the CAP, but to think that this could happen is to believe that Mr Blair’s good intentions are often realised.

Any attempt to focus the EU on getting right what it does already, instead of trying to accrue more powers, would be a relief for Europe’s citizens, but the next government would probably spend its energies more effectively by trying to improve the way that the UK vets and influences the directives that are being hatched, drawn up and delivered as required legislation from Brussels.

A paper on UK scrutiny of EU legislation from the Foreign Policy Centre argues that the UK Parliament and Government are not structured to influence and vet EU laws properly. Yet EU initiatives account for half the legislation that the UK government of the day pretends is its own and a higher proportion of laws affecting business. There is no minister for Europe in the Cabinet. More importantly, there is no continuous, initiative-taking liaison and influence-seeking between Whitehall departments and Commission directorates.

Britain should make more use of its own MEPs. Select committees should look more often to Brussels. Every department of state should have its own designated minister for Europe, probably one with no task but to relate both ways to what is going on in Brussels and Strasbourg. Just waiting till others push daft ideas and then having to cope with them is not a tenable way to work.

King-sized challenge

JUST as Justin King was beginning to get up from the floor, Tesco and Asda have kicked him again. The price cuts that the pair announced yesterday will make life harder for the Sainsbury chief executive.

Mr King was clear when he took over at Sainsbury that the company had to return to the fray in the pricing war, with significant cuts on key items. Although it would not attempt to match its rivals on the entire contents of the shopping trolley, he was determined that there would be headline prices that he could boast about.

However, he does not have the clout to match Tesco and Asda without decimating his margins. They are both global businesses that can negotiate the most competitive terms with their suppliers; Sainsbury is now only a British business. Mr King, however, does have a 16 per cent market share, compared with only 12.6 per cent for Morrisons, including Safeway. He should be able to offer prices, and quality, that might win over former Safeway customers.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive