Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-15-Speech-4-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000615.4.4-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like to congratulate Mr Mauro Turco on his excellent work. His report states clearly that the results of the 1994-9 Structural Funds programming period, taking into account the assessments available at the end of 1998, have not met expectations on a number of fronts.
This is particularly true in the case of Italy. Suffice it to say that there was a considerable delay in the use of many of the appropriations, although improvement was apparent at the end of the programming period, obtained purely by mathematical calculation through transferring Objective 2 appropriations to Objective 1. Suffice it to say that, as far as Objective 4 is concerned, in 1998, Italy did not fulfil any of its undertakings and has only paid out 3% of the funding. The checking and assessment mechanisms have been decidedly inadequate.
There are essentially three reasons for this poor management and they were highlighted by the Court of Auditors: firstly, lack of planning and poor interaction between the measures funded and the various funding instruments, factors which prevented us achieving the expected added value; secondly, lack of global vision which meant that the projects defined were not ambitious enough; thirdly, delays in concluding previous projects and programmes, largely due to the absence of documents justifying the actual expenditure.
Now, considering the forthcoming 2000-2006 programming period, even though management has been simplified and the number of objectives and Community initiatives reduced, I cannot contain my concern and I sympathise with many regional council chairmen as they tackle the issue of the failure to use Community funds and the responsibilities of the Italian Government. Months after the rejection by the European Commission of the Objective 2 area map it had put forward on the grounds that the area definition criteria did not correspond, the Italian Government had still not presented a valid, compliant proposal, and this was not for lack of good will on the part of the European Commission. The result is certainly not outstanding.
We cannot afford to lose more time, and we cannot afford to decline ITL 10 000 billion either; neither the Italian economic situation nor the Italian taxpayer would allow it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples