Contrary to the expectations raised over the past few months, the European Commission has only partially lifted the suspension of two EU-funded education programmes as it is yet not satisfied at the way Malta is managing the programme funds. Only last October, Education Minister Dolores Cristina was reported saying her ministry had put all its efforts into ensuring compliance with the funding requirements. She specifically said: “We have done our best to meet the requirements and we believe the suspension should be lifted.”
Clearly, the minister’s “best” has not been considered good enough by the Commission, which now says that, following the recent visit to Malta by its officials to investigate the mismanagement of funds, it found shortcomings and deficiencies still persist at the European Union Programmes Agency and at the Ministry of Education, which is the national authority for the programmes. A Commission spokesman was quoted saying this meant “there remains insufficient assurance for the sound management of EU funds in Malta”.
This is a damaging assessment both for the agency and, even more so, for the ministry whose head is politically accountable for a matter that would not have arisen in the first place had there been serious monitoring of the funding procedures. A board of inquiry had remarked in its report, published in June last year, that had the EU secretariat and the Permanent Representation of Malta to the EU in Brussels been alerted in good time (at least after the letter from the European Commission of August 5, 2009), it would have been likely that, based on the action taken between March and May 2010 when, unfortunately, it was too late in the day, the suspension could have probably been avoided. This, too, was a most serious shortcoming.
The amounts involved in the funding of the two programmes may not be very large but the administrative weaknesses displayed in the running of the programmes suggest there is something intrinsically wrong in the way the system operates.
The first obvious question that arises following the Commission’s latest decision is: Why have the agency and the ministry been unable to fully conform to the programme funding requirements in 10 whole months? Three senior education officials had resigned over the issue but it seems that, despite the minister’s assertion that the ministry had put all its efforts into ensuring compliance with requirements, these still fall short of what the Commission has been calling for. Malta has now been told that calls can be launched within the framework of the two programmes – Lifelong Learning and Youth in Action – for this year but none of the successful applicants will receive EU funds if Malta does not introduce further reforms and assure the Commission on the 2010 accounts by the end of April.
The Commission will also be withholding €2.3 million in advance payments connected to this year’s programme. Furthermore, if, following the declaration of assurance, the Commission is still not satisfied with the measures taken to ensure compliance it will again suspend the funding for the programmes completely.
What does all this say of the way the problem was handled both before and, more so, after the suspension of the funds, when the deficiencies were pointed out and the remedial action required became evident? It is certainly not a flattering outcome. The three officials held accountable rightly paid the price but, evidently, there are others who have failed to deliver post-suspension. They too must be identified and held accountable.