Activities of Derek VAUGHAN related to 2016/2045(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the European Union Solidarity Fund: an assessment
Amendments (3)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Draws attention to its resolution of 3 April 2014 on the Court of Auditors’ special reports in the context of the 2012 Commission discharge, which expressed support for the ECA’s finding that ‘around 30 % (EUR 144 million) of the EUSF contributions was earmarked for operations which were fully eligible under the EUSF Regulation; however, the CASE project (Italian acronym for ‘Complessi Antisisminici Sostenibili Ecocompatibiliti’, i.e. seismically isolated and environmentally sustainable housing), while relevant to the actual needs, did not comply with specific provisions of the EUSF Regulation; this was because it constructed new permanent buildings instead of temporary houses; the CASE project took 70 % of the funding – EUR 350 million; the strategy chosen for CASE project addressed the housing needs of 15 000 of the earthquake-affected population, but did not respond in a timely manner and with sufficient capacity to the actual needs of the population; the CASDE houses were more expensive than standard houses’; regrets that in many cases the quality of the CASE project has been found to be very poor and some houses have collapsed some projects, while relevant to the actual needs, did not comply with specific provisions of the EUSF Regulation; for example one project did not respond in a timely manner and with sufficient capacity to the actual needs of the population; asks the Commission to explain how, in the revised Regulation on the European Union Solidarity Fund that entered into force on 28 June 2014, the shortcomings identified by the Court of Auditors in the delivery of emergency aid to the Abruzzo region have been solved;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets the fact that in manysome cases a serious lack of transparency has been noted regarding the use and the destination of the EUSF; asks for an improvement in the ex post monitoring system for spending and strongly believes that the final reports provided by Member States should be public and accessible;