Activities of Jean ARTHUIS related to 2018/2024(BUD)
Plenary speeches (1)
2019 budget - Trilogue mandate (debate) FR
Amendments (25)
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the proposed reinforcements to Horizon 2020, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), Erasmus+ and programmes contributing to increase the security of EU citizens; points, however, to the need to further reinforce support for SMEs, which are key to enabling economic growth and job creation, and to dedicated appropriate resources to the digitalisation of the EU industry and the promotion of digital skills and digital entrepreneurship, as well as for programmes supportive to young people, namely ErasmusPro; recalls its conviction that the 2019 Erasmus+ budget needs to be at least doubled in 2019;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Commends the role of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) in reducing the investment gap in the EU; reiterates its longstanding position that any new initiatives within the MFF must be financed by new appropriations and not to the detriment of the existing programmes; reiterates also that the cuts made to Horizon 2020 and CEF to finance the extension of EFSI should be reversed in the 2019 budgetits commitment to reinforce Horizon 2020 and CEF after the cuts made to the programs to finance the extension of EFSI;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Remains committed to the fight against unemployment and against youth unemployment in particular; believes in this respect that the YEI should be further strengthened, in spite of the complexities involved in reprogramming YEI and ESF programmes in case of modifications of the YEI envelope; stresses that the YEI funding should complement national and not to replace Member States' own policies and funding to fight youth unemployment; recalls that ECA Special Report No 5/2017 states that there is a risk that EU funding is replacing national funding in the sector rather than creating added value; calls for close monitoring of the performance and European added value of the YEI funding;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Remains committed to the fight against unemployment and against youth unemployment in particular; believes in this respect that the YEI should be further strengthened, in spite of the complexities involved in reprogramming YEI and ESF programmes in case of modifications of the YEI envelope; emphasises the fact that both vocational training and apprenticeship constitute efficient practices to tackle youth unemployment; recommends, therefore, the creation of a specific programme to encourage Europe’s most important investment for the future - our youth; stresses that the mobility through Erasmus Pro strongly stimulates benchmarking to implement the best practices;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that in 2019, cohesion policy programmes will be at cruising speed, and emphasises Parliament’s commitment to ensuring adequate appropriations for these programmes; welcomeregrets the fact that almost allsome of the managing authorities for the 2014-2020 programmes have still nowt been designated ; asks the Commission to analyse the reasons for the delays and, if it results from procedural difficulties, to review the whole designation procedure; points out that the unacceptable delays in the implementation of operational programmes have been to a large extent due to the late designation of those authorities; calls on the Member States to ensure that the implementation of the programmes is accelerated so as to catch up with the delays, and to seek the Commission’s assistance in this respect;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Takes note of reports on cohesion policy in the Union, that reoccuringly points out shortcomings in efficiency and results;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. CommendsTake notes of the fact that the Commission proposal would enable reaching the target of 20 % of the budget being dedicated to climate spending in 2019; regrets, however. that the Commission has not followed up on Parliament’s request regarding offsetting the lower allocations made during the first years of the MFF; considers this proposal to be insufficient since by allocating only 20% of the budget to climate protection in 2020, the target of 20% for the whole period 2014-2020 will not be achieved; regrets that the Commission has not been able to present draft budgets that are aligned with the commitments and targets set by the Union in this field; believes that more should be done through the development of an action plan within programmes with massive potential, as for example under Horizon 2020, CF, ESF , EAGF, EAFRD, EMFF or LIFE+;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. AgreBelieves that migrationensuring the security of its citizens and addressing the migration challenges remains a top Union priorityies in 2019; deems it crucial to maintain spending in thisese areas at a high and stable level;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Agrees that migration remains a top Union priority in 2019; deems it crucial to maintain spending in this area at a high and stable levellevel that is adequate to respond to the needs;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. DisapprovesTakes note of the Commission’s proposal for the funding of the second tranche of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRT); supports the continuation of the FRT, but maintains that, as also proposed by the Commission on 14 March 20186 , the EU budget should contribute to its financing to the sum of EUR 1 billion, with Member States contributing EUR 2 billion by means of bilateral contributions, in order to leave sufficient margins under the MFF special instruments for unforeseen events in the last two years of the current MFF, as well as the financing of other priorities; also maintains that as the FRT has been a new initiative within this MFF, it should be funded by fresh appropriations; _________________ 6 OJ C 106, 21.3.2018, p. 4. OJ C 106, 21.3.2018, p. 4.
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Stresses that Erasmus+ remains the leading programme to foster youth mobility at all levels of education and vocational training and to encourage young people to take part in European democracy; recalls that administrative efforts need to be done to increase access to Erasmus+ and that the volume of eligible applications is by far exceeding the current budget ; believes, therefore, that the envelope of Erasmus+ should at least be doubled in 2019 to meet the eligible demand for this programme, notably that linked to lifelong learning;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Recalls the crucial role of SMEs as an important driver of EU’s employment, economic growth and competitiveness, and underscores that their adequate funding must remain one of the top priorities of the EU budget; reminds that the EU programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME)is a successful programme, which have far more applicants than recipients of funding; regrets, in this respect, that the proposed allocation in commitments for COSME is not higher than 2.3 % in comparison with the 2018 budget and that the proposed allocation in payments is 0.6% lower in comparison with the 2018budget; calls, therefore, for COSME appropriations and payments to be reinforce in 2019, given the success of this programme;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Welcomes the amount of EUR 500 million allocated to the EDIDP for the years 2019 and 2020; takes note that, according to the European Parliamentary Research Service estimates, the lack of cooperation between national industries in this field costs to the EU EUR 10 billion per year; considers that defence is a clear example of how a greater effectiveness could be achieved by transferring some competences and actions currently performed by the Member States and the corresponding appropriations to the EU; emphasises that this would result in the demonstration of the European added value and allow to limit the overall burden of public expenditure in the EU;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Welcomes the fact that the implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes is reaching full speed, and reiterates that any ‘abnormal’ buildup of unpaid bills must be avoided in the future; also welcomeregrets the fact that the great majoritysome of the national managing authorities have still nowt been designated ; asks the Commission to analyse the reasons for the delays and, if it results from procedural difficulties, to review the whole designation procedure; calls on the Commission and the Member States to resolve any outstanding issues in order for the implementation to proceed smoothly;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Underlines that in times of rapid technologic development – such as AI – the divide between fast developing regions and lagging ones, might widen if the impact of the structural funds are not enhanced by conditionalities of efficiency;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Notes that some measures related to the Russian ban and included in the 2018 budget will not be extended (e.g. for fruit and vegetables where the market situation is still difficult), while market difficulties can still be found in the dairy sector; awaits the Commission’s letter of amendment, expected in October, which should be based on updated information on EAGF funding in order to verify the real needs in the agricultural sector; underlines that cases where market intervention is needed under the EAGF remain limited and represent only a relatively small part of the EAGF (around 5.9 %);
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that a total of EUR 3 728.5 million in commitment appropriations is proposed for Heading 3, which represents a 6.7 % increase over 2018, and that the total for payment appropriations is EUR 3 486.4 million, i.e. a 17 % increase over last year’s proposals; underlines, however, that these increases follow years of declining funding levels and that overall funding for different key areas such as migration, border management or internal security still represents only 2.3 % of total proposed EU spending in 2019; questions the proposed EUR 281.2 million in commitments for supporting legal migration to the Union and promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals and enhancing fair and effective return strategies, which represents a 14.4 %decrease over 2018 ; calls on the Commission to provide further explanations as to the reasons for this cut;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Expects the pressure on some Member States’ migration and asylum systems, as well as on their borders, to remain high in 2019, and urges the Union to remain vigilant regarding any future, unpredictable needs in these areas; calls in this regard for a reinforcement of the means of control at the external borders and reaffirms that tackling the root causes of the migration and refugee crisis represents a long-term sustainable solution, along with stabilisation of the EU’s neighbourhoods, and that investments in the countries of origin of migrants and refugees are key to achieving this objective ;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Notes that the instrument allowing the provision of emergency humanitarian support within the Union will expire in March 2019; invites the Commission, against the backdrop of persisting humanitarian needs of refugees and asylum seekers in certain Member States, to assess whether a reactivation and replenishment of this instrument would be appropriate; highlights the need for greater solidarity towards those countries in which arrivals and asylum seekers are concentrated; underlines, in the meantime, the importance of the continued availability of funding through the emergency assistance mechanisms under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF):
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32 a. Takes note of the fact that, in its financial programming for the year 2019, the Commission grants EUR 175 million of financial aid for Greece: considers this aid appropriate in the light of the situation in that country and in any case does not relieve this aid in question; considers, however, that financial support should also be granted to Italy and questions the lack of such support in the Commission's programming; calls therefore on the Commission to state the reasons which led it to take such a decision; recalls that Italy is the only country where a majority of its population considers that they have not benefited from membership of the European Union;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Believes that in the context of a wide range of security concerns, including changing forms of radicalisation, violence and terrorism that surpass individual Member States’ capacity to respond, the EU budget should encourage cooperation on security-related matters; in this context, questions how this high-risk security context is reconcilable with the proposed significant decrease of commitment appropriations (-26,6 %) for the Internal Security Fund (ISF); regrets that the Commission has still not presented a proposal which would provide for the expression of financial solidarity at EU level to victims of acts of terrorism and their families; recalls the commitments made by the Commission in this respect during the conciliation on the 2018 budget and calls on the Commission to do the necessary to ensure that such aid is put in place rapidly;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Welcomes the increased support for regional actions in the Western Balkans; is, however, of the opinion that support for political reforms should be further stepped up; noteregrets the increased support for political reforms in Turkey (IPA II), which is to be primari and questions its alignment to the budgetary authority’s decision to reduce the appropriations on this line for the current budgetary year; reiterates its position in which it called for funds destined for the Turkish authorities under the IPAII to be made conditional on improvements in the field of human rights, democracy and the rule of law; calls for the appropriations on this line, pending such improvements and being aware of the limited space for manoeuvre, to be entirely redirected to civil society actors with a view to implementing measures supportive of the objectives relating to the rule of law, democracy, human rights and media freedoms; supports the overall downward trend for political reforms in the allocations for Turkey;
Amendment 100 #
41 a. Reiterates its support for adequate financial means to the EU strategic communication, aimed at tackling disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks, as well as the promotion of an objective image of the union outside its borders;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Stresses the importance of pilot projects (PP) and preparatory actions (PA) as tools for the formulation of political priorities and the introduction of new initiatives that might turn into standing EU activities and programmes; intends to proceed with the identification of a balanced package of PP-PAs, reflecting the political priorities of Parliament; calls for and taking into account a proper and timely technical pre- assessment of its proposals submitted toby the Commission; notes that in the current proposal, the margin in some headings is limited, or even non-existent, and intends to explore ways to make room for possible PP-PAs without decreasing other political priorities;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Reiterates its position that the 5 % staff reduction target has been successfully reached and underlines that in the light of the Court of Auditors’ rapid case review, there isis practice did not need to continue this policycessarily meet the expected results; believes that the decentralised agencies need to be assessed using a case-by-case approach; welcomes the endorsement by all institutions of the recommendations of the Interinstitutional Working Group;