Mr President, I wish to begin by saying that my Group supports much of what is in Mr Turco's report and is certainly wholeheartedly behind the general thrust of the report. However, I have chosen to speak in today's debate because some of the issues discussed in the report are at the core of what must be addressed if the European institutions themselves are to lift the cloud of mismanagement and waste which hangs over them from previous times. The only way we can hope to change the public's perception of what we are doing here is not only to achieve better value for money but also to be seen to be doing it. It is only if we can clearly show that the Commission's use of money is managed in a sound and prudent way that we can hope to win back the trust that has been lost over recent years. The report with which we are concerned is, of course, retrospective to 1998. Many positive changes have taken place since that time, not least since the new Commission took over. It is crucial, therefore, that we flag up the inadequacies that were inherent in the system and ensure that we go further in our aim to make better use of European taxpayers' money. This is especially so in the Structural Funds, which directly touch the lives of so many of our own citizens. We have before us an opportunity to concentrate the minds of both the Commission and the recipients – Member States and others – of this valuable EU assistance, on the criticisms identified in the report in many areas concerning the allocation of funds and the lack of monitoring of their use. A key remedy for addressing this very real problem is the effective use of exit strategies as a prerequisite to the awarding of funding. None of us here would personally enter into a business or private financial agreement without being sure of how and when that obligation would come to an end. All too often that is what has happened in the past. Until clearly defined, planned and effective monitoring of the success or failure of a funded scheme is introduced, it remains all too easy for ill-thought-out and badly managed projects to waste precious resources, to continue to throw good money after bad. Failure to act will result in the particular problems highlighted in this report. It will also result in the problems we have seen over the allocation of ever-scarcer resources within the Member States. Nowhere is this better highlighted than in the current delays, obfuscation and confusion in the United Kingdom over where to put this valuable money. This is particularly so in my home region, the West Midlands, where this delay is causing a great deal of uncertainty to local communities and the local taxpayers, who are having to underwrite the projects to the tune of many millions of pounds, pending the resolution of the problems I have outlined. Therefore, what is required is a simple benchmarking of projects to compare and contrast their effectiveness, to be undertaken perhaps by an independent auditor and used in conjunction with a clear and well-planned end-programme which will allow the termination of poorly operated projects and put an end to on-going waste – in essence, to introduce private-sector disciplines into this system. Only when the European institutions and the Member States adopt ideas such as these, will we again gain the reputation for financial probity that we desire and which the public demands.

Political group: PPE-DE