Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-04-Speech-1-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000904.8.1-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Committee on Budgetary Control unanimously supports the objectives of the EC Investment Partners programme. However, we do criticise the way in which it has been implemented. The first point to note is that the Commission is currently operating in a legal vacuum, because the proposal to continue the programme – which has after all already been extended twice – was only tabled at the end of January, that is, one month after the regulation had expired, and will not be able to be adopted until late autumn.
We endorse the legislative proposal as a stopgap measure until the end of 2001, because we do not deny that, according to the figures published, 34 000 firms have been involved as partners, creating over 1 300 joint ventures and 42 000 jobs. Nevertheless, the Deloitte [amp] Touche appraisal report highlights a series of grave shortcomings which need to be tackled. For example, procedures have become increasingly bureaucratic and cumbersome and therefore less business- and user-friendly, which has resulted in the accumulation of a backlog of payments and increasing discontent among financial institutions and enterprises because of delays in decisions and contracts.
Bad management and a lack of coordination between the ECIP Unit and the SCR also mar the Commission's reputation, as does the discrimination between financial institutions. For example, the state-owned development bank of Denmark receives 38% of funding while Spain's only receives 23%. As well as further points of criticism and three proposals for amendments, our opinion also contains questions which the Commission ought to take into account when it is deciding whether to continue operating the ECIP beyond 2001 or whether to incorporate it in a single investment facility, as Mr Dell'Alba has already mentioned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples