For years, one of UKIP's main lines of attack has been that "the European Commission is so corrupt that its books have not been signed off by the auditors for the last 12 years".

With this in mind I'm looking forward to them giving a statement on this week's report from the House of Lords, which finds "no evidence to support this suggestion".

According to the Lords, the problems that have prevented the auditors from signing off the books, comes not from corruption but from other problems and an inadequate system of auditing that gives an inaccurate, negative impression.

Sir John Bourn, head of the UK National Audit Office, stated that he would not be able to sign off the accounts of the UK Government should he have operated the same system here.

The Lord's report calls upon the European Court of Auditors to:

- Make a clear separation between the audit of the Commission's accounts - which has always been positive - and the statement of assurance on the regularity and legality of underlying transactions - which has always been qualified in certain specific fields

- Give separate verdicts on each different category of spending, instead of one overall verdict

- Make a clear distinction between fraud and other kinds of irregularity, giving separate figures for each

- List member states which demonstrate poor management of EU funds


Far be it from me to contradict an in-depth report from the national parliament of a sometimes sceptical Member State. But I would expect UKIP to rubbish it. Yet maybe even they are backing off: only one UKIP MEP was present in the Parliament this morning to hear the President of the Court of Auditors present its report - usually something UKIP focusses on - and even he didn't stay to hear the reply to his question.

Is UKIP backing off? Are they running out of genuine things to criticise? Has even their vivid imagination deserted them?