Activities of Luigi MORGANO related to 2015/2154(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Discharge 2014: EU general budget - European Commission
Amendments (10)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with appreciation that in its first year the Erasmus+ programme has achieved its intended aim of creating closer links between Union programmes and policy developments in education, training and youth, and structured Union action in such a way as to respond better to the lifelong learning paradigm; points out, however, that there are a number of problems relating to the Youth section of Erasmus+, whereby youth associations and NGOs in many Member States are complaining of difficulties in gaining access to funding, compared to the previous Youth in Action programme;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Takes the view that even though the increased decentralisation of funding disbursements for Erasmus+ is better able to meet some of the programme’s national and local requirements, depending on the Key Actions, such decentralisation needs to be evaluated in order to prevent it from being an obstacle to the achievement of the strategic goals of Erasmus+, particularly as regards Youth;
Amendment 8 #
1b. Expresses deep concern about the de facto suspension of Erasmus+ Youth funding disbursements in Greece, as highlighted in the 2015 report of the European Youth Forum on the implementation of the programme;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Looks forward to the coming years when the Erasmus+Notes the difficulties reported by DG EAC and the EACEA in the initial implementation phase of the Erasmus+, Creative Europe and Europe for Citizens programmes, in particular with regard to some delays in the opening of the calls for proposals and the disbursement of the funding; hopes that these are exceptional circumstances and looks forward, therefore, to the coming years when these programmes will enter into a phase of greater stability compared to this first year of implementation;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the steps towards funding models based on lump-sums and unit costs which both simplify financial management for beneficiaries of EU funding as well as for the EU itself; points out, however, in particular in the Youth section of Erasmus+, that these lump-sums are also insufficient to finance the key operational expenditure of youth associations and NGOs;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses concern that the European Schools have not addressed the issues raised by the Court of Auditors and it has therefore needed toPoints out that the Court of Auditors has reiterated its recommendation to the Board of Governors of the European Schools to implement a rotation system for sensitive posts and other weaknesses, which may put at risk the basic principles of sound financial management; welcomes the adoption in 2014 of the new Financial Regulation for the European Schools in response to the critical issues identified by the Court and calls on the European Schools to implement the provisions set out therein;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Board of Governors of the European Schools to consider responding to the recommendation of the Court of Auditors by following the action already taken for the services of the Commission, centralising some posts that are currently decentralised, such as the post of accountant, and fostering a separation of the roles of authorisation, execution and control of financial transactions, so as to minimise the risk of error and fraud;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that the mismatch between the seven-year programming of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the ten-year programming of the political and strategic priorities of the EU could adversely affect the consistent evaluation of the results achieved by Union programmes; notes that the upcoming mid-term review of the 2014- 2020 multiannual financial framework is a key point in the management of EU spending.;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Is concerned about the Commission’s payment backlog, which amounted to EUR 26 billion in 2014 - half of which was considered ‘abnormal’, i.e. not determined by invoices generated at the end of the financial year, as evidenced by the European Parliamentary Research Service - and for Erasmus+ alone the backlog was EUR 202 million; notes that this backlog is caused in part by an excessively inflexible MFF, which does not allow funding to be reallocated and has tight margins, partly due to the failure by the Member States to meet their commitments with regard to payment appropriations;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls on the EU institutions to continue their work to reduce the payment backlog, while respecting payment appropriations and firmly supporting the work of the inter-institutional high-level group on own resources;