Activities of Marco VALLI related to 2015/2052(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
European Structural and Investment Funds and sound economic governance (A8-0268/2015 - José Blanco López) IT
Amendments (20)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the clarification of the application of specificExpresses concerns that the Commission's guidelines about the application of macro-economic conditionality to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 6 of ArESI funding is incompaticble 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013with the aims of cohesion policy, as it may unreasonably impair its effectiveness;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses the importance of the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in providing urgently needed investment for jobs and growth for regions in the EU, also including those which are suffering most from the financial, economic and social crisis; recalls their crucial role in strengthening the economic, social and territorial cohesion as well as in reducing the economic and social disparities within EU countries; welcomes the objective of making the use of these funds more effective and efficient by strengthening their link with the EU's economic governance framework; urope 2020 strategy's goals;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. AgreBelieves that a stable macroeconomic environment, incluanctions-based system will very unlikely increase the level of compliance of Member States with the economic governance framework; highlights that, on the contrary, a Member State that is unable to meet its fiscal obligations has an even stronger need for ESIF support in the interest of its regions and citizens; warns that suspending thigh-quality governans form of funding under macro-economic conditionality will unfairly affect the provision of public services at the local and regionall levels, is conducive to the successful implementation of the ESI Fundwhich has no direct responsibility in the implementation of the country's specific recommendations;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that objective criteria must be used for assessing what constitutes ‘effective action' on the part of a Member State; underlines the importance of respectingRecalls that the EU payments under ESIF programmes are based on specific eligibility criteria linked to the level of development of EU regions; believes therefore that decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of payments based on other criteria related to deficit and debt levels contradict the principles of proportionality and equality of treatment when applying the provisions of Article 23, as well as the need for a timely and comprehensive dialogue with the Member State concernedas well as the rationale behind these funds;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the National Reform Programmes (NRPs) are instrumental for delivering on the Europe 2020 Strategy at Member State level and thfrequent budgetary cuts decided by Member States in a context of widespread fiscal consolidation have significantly impaired the capability of local and regional authorities to autonomously provide basic public services and have led to a drop in public investment at they should be taken into account before requesting a Member State to review and amend its Partnership Agreement and relevant programmesubnational level; believes that making the provision of ESI funding conditional on Member States' compliance with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact will inevitably result in imposing an additional penalty on regional authorities and EU citizens, which have already been largely affected by the austerity measures adopted at the central level;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that the EU payments under ESIF programmes are based on specific eligibility criteria linked to the level of development of EU regions; believes therefore that the decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of payments based on other criteria related to the deficit and debt levels contradicted the principles of proportionality and equal treatment as well as the rationale behind this funds;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Expresses concerns that the Commission's guidelines about the application of a macro-economic conditionality to the provision of ESI funding is incompatible with the aims of the cohesion policy, as it may unreasonably impair its effectiveness; believes moreover that a sanctions-based system will very unlikely increase the level of compliance of Member States with the economic governance framework; highlights that, on the contrary, a Member State who is unable to meet its fiscal obligations has an even stronger need for ESIF support in the interest of its regions and citizens; warns that suspending this form of funding under macro-economic conditionality will unfairly affect the provision of public services at the local and regional level, which has no direct responsibility in the implementation of the country's specific recommendations;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Believes that the decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of ESI funds may worsen the economic and social situation in those countries who are already facing difficulties, by hindering the capability of the local and regional authorities to provide public services and raise investment for jobs and growth;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recalls that the EU payments under ESIF programmes are based on specific eligibility criteria linked to the level of development of EU regions; believes therefore that decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of payments based on other criteria related to deficit and debt levels contradict the principles of proportionality and equal treatment as well as the rationale behind these funds;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to use the procedure under the first strand of Article 23 as a last resort and only in exceptional situations where the benefits of the proposed changes clearly outweigh their costsStresses that using ESI funds as a threat to achieve a better enforcement of the economic governance framework by Member States may unreasonably jeopardise the achievement of the EU goals for regional development and social cohesion, especially in times of economic crisis; believes that the decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of ESI funds may worsen the economic and social situation in those countries who are already facing difficulties, by hindering the capability of the local and regional authorities to provide public services and raise investment for jobs and growth;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Recalls that the frequent budgetary cuts decided by Member States in a context of widespread fiscal consolidation have significantly impaired the capability of local and regional authorities to autonomously provide the basic public services and have led to a drop in public investment at the subnational level; believes that making the provision of ESI funding conditional on Member State's compliance with the SGP rules will inevitably result in imposing an additional penalty on regional authorities and EU citizens, which have already been largely affected by the austerity measures adopted at the central level;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights the fact that reprogramming or suspension as regulated in Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) could undermine social and economic convergence between regions and jeopardise goals pursued by ESI funds, especially in countries with deep macroeconomic and social imbalances; asks the Commission to use the mechanism only when Member States have persistently failed to take effective action to address its requests to reprogramme funding and giving due consideration to the unemployment rate or the impact on the economies of the Member States concerned; stresses that local and regional authorities shall not be punished for the mistakes made at the national level of administration;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Stresses that using ESI funds as a threat to achieve a better enforcement of the economic governance framework by Member States may unreasonably jeopardise the achievement of the EU goals for regional development and social cohesion, especially in times of economic crisis; believes that the decisions regarding reprogramming or suspension of ESI funds may worsen the economic and social situation in those countries who are already facing difficulties, by hindering the capability of the local and regional authorities to provide public services and raise investment for jobs and growth;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses the need for a stable and predictable investment environment, not least with a view to attracting private investment; underlines the role of sound economic governancea proper incentives-based mechanism in the creation of this kind of favourable investment environment; emphasises the need for an overall investment f and the need to encourage effective actions to stimulate aggregate demand as well as to fight unemployment and inequalities; emphasises the need for a EU governance framework favourable to investment; calls on the Commission to introduce a broader investment clause with the aim to exempt co-financing under ESIF programmework in the EUs as well as public productive investments from the deficit and debt calculations;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Insists on the need to keep ESI funding clearly separated from the economic governance framework; stresses that local and regional authorities shall not be punished for the mistakes made at the national level of administration;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers it regrettable that Parliament is not involved in the decision-making process regarding the reprogramming or suspension of funds; requests that the budgetary aspects of any reprogramming and suspension cases be also part of the structured dialogue with the Commission on the application of Article 23 and that this dialogue take place before the Commission adopts a proposal to suspend fundingcalls on the Commission to urgently reconsider the proposal to link the effectiveness of ESI Funds to sound economic governance under Article 23 CPR, in light of the negative impact that these sanctions may have on the investment and cohesion policies goals;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Commission to establish a timescale for the lifting of the suspension under Article 23(8) of the CPR;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission to take into due account the disproportionate administrative burden and financial costs of reprogramming for the local and regional authorities; insists on the need to give careful consideration to the economic and social effects on the regions affected by a suspension of payments; underlines the importance of the principles of proportionality and effectiveness when the Commission proposes such a suspension of payments except if there is a clear evidence of fraud, corruption, criminal infiltration and terrorism financing;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Insists on the need to keep ESI funding clearly separated from the economic governance framework; stresses that local and regional authorities shall not be punished for the mistakes made at the national level of administration;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that Parliament will carefullythe number of concerns posed by the Commission's guidelines cannot be properly solved solely by granting the Parliament the right to apply its scrutiny rights ion the decision- maks regarding reprocess via the structural dialogue.gramming or the suspension of payments; calls on the Commission to urgently reconsider the proposal to link the effectiveness of ESI Funds to sound economic governance under Article 23 CPR, in light of the negative impact that these sanctions on the investment and cohesion policies goals;