Angelo Canale: “Limiting the Court of Auditors is bad for democracy

“The controls on the expenditure of the Pnrr are a European obligation, and we are a garrison of democracy, in the interest of the citizens”, says Angelo Canale, attorney general of the Court of Auditors.

What do you think of the extension of the “shield” that limits liability for tax damage?
“It puzzles me a lot. It seemed to me that I understood, even with informal reassurances, that our arguments, expressed repeatedly, had been understood. Obviously it’s my limit, I wasn’t clear enough.

What are these topics?
«A technical one: the rule is problematic, it creates problems both in the reconstruction of the fact and in the juridical interpretation. Uncertainty is the enemy of doing, and the effect is an already noticeable decrease in the effectiveness of our activity».

Is there also an argument, so to speak, political?
«I say it simply: the perimeter of responsibility is not restricted when there is a need to raise one’s guard. In fact, the exact opposite should be done.”

How?
«History provides us with examples, without going back to Cavour. At the beginning of the 1990s, the Court’s regional prosecutors were established to supervise the territories with a strong mafia presence in the field. I myself opened the one in Catanzaro, overnight. We didn’t even have an office. In the suitcase a stamp and blank letterhead. I also collaborated with a young Gratteri».

Is the Pnrr an emergency like that?
“This is an unprecedented public investment, and within a short time frame. For this reason it is the same European architecture of the plan that requires the States to adopt all the measures both to supervise the correctness of the expenditures and to promote remedial actions in the event of waste or embezzlement. We didn’t invent anything, it’s a precise obligation».

What do you think of the dreaded legislative initiatives, both on control and on accountability?
“I wonder if all this is consistent with European rules.”

With such tight deadlines, the fear of signing risks blowing up the Plan.
«I talked about it until I lost my voice: the fear of signing is determined by other factors. First of all, the regulatory uncertainty and inadequate training of management with spending powers. Both depend on the government and parliament, not on the Court”.

Administrators fear your investigations, the risk of damage to be compensated.
«The data speak for themselves. We archive 98% of complaints. Last year in matters of public works contracts throughout Italy there were 30 summons for tax damages and 50 sentences, against tens of thousands of complaints from citizens, associations and parties of every color, depending on whether they are in the majority or in opposition’.

What does this data say?
«That we carry out a careful and prudent filtering activity, contesting only cases of gross, evident and inexcusable negligence, detectable in good faith. And that with 30 summons a year in the matter of tenders on over 150,000 negotiation procedures we cannot scare anyone».

Isn’t there the risk, however, that the simple denunciation blocks the works of the Pnrr?
«We have never blocked a work. We don’t have the legal power. I also said it during the pandemic, when the shield was born. It seemed improper to me, in the face of emergency expenses. Given what happened with the masks, I don’t think I was wrong”.

Do you already have feedback on Pnrr spending?
«I have given indications that we consider it our priority. It’s early, for shopping times. But we are working to be ready.

Do you think there will be a conflict with the government?
“I don’t want to believe it. Up to now the undersecretaries Mantovano and Fazzolari have had a very institutional and open attitude».

What would you like to say to those who want to reduce spending controls?
“We act in the interest of citizens who pay taxes but cannot control how their money is spent. We do it for them, because the Constitution makes us autonomous and independent. We are not pain in the ass, but an instrument of legality. It is a question of democracy. Without us who controls? Who guarantees that public money is not wasted?».

Do you feel an urge to corner you?
«There is unease in the Court. For decades, the reduction of controls has been thought to be the panacea for public administration. It doesn’t seem to me that it works: holes continue to be opened in a system which, I won’t deny it, is in any case a bit dated».

This concurrent control jammed right away.
«It seems an invention of eccentric judges, but it was introduced by governments in a collaborative key. Expected since 2009, revitalized in 2020 during the pandemic, addressed on the Pnrr in line with what was requested by Europe. Many countries have a Court of Auditors. We talk to each other with our European colleagues, we make protocols. We are not an exception.”

So what went wrong?
“I think there was a communication problem. The Court works on government data, it does not have a duplicate of the Accounting Department. I’m not sure if the information flow is perfect, timely and complete. Therefore, if the data does not add up, the fault lies with whoever supplied it ».

Can the tear be mended?
“Misunderstandings need to be cleared up. But from here to pick on the Court, a judiciary that in a century and a half has never exceeded other powers, seems to me exaggerated. We don’t do witch hunts.”

Are there precedents of limitations of powers by decree?
«It is one thing to delimit competences; another resort to forcing».