Activities of Bernd KÖLMEL related to 2016/2047(BUD)
Plenary speeches (4)
2017 budgetary procedure: joint text (A8-0353/2016 - Jens Geier, Indrek Tarand) DE
2017 budgetary procedure: joint text (debate) DE
General budget of the European Union for 2017 - all sections (A8-0287/2016 - Jens Geier, Indrek Tarand) DE
General budget of the European Union for 2017 - all sections (debate) DE
Shadow reports (1)
Report on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017 PDF (809 KB) DOC (162 KB)
Amendments (21)
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that the Union is currently facing a number of serious emergencies and is convinced that the necessary financial resources need to be deployed from the Union budget, in order to meet the political challenges and allow the Union to deliver answers and effectively respond to those crises as a matter of utmost urgency and priority; considers that a strong political commitment is needed to secure fresh appropthe Union must undertake a thorough re-evaluation of its prioriationes in 2017 and until the end of the programming period for this purposeorder to redeploy necessary resources to the areas of most urgent need;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that whilst Parliament has supported the Commission’s actions in the tackling of the migration and refugees crisis, it has always insisted that this challenge not take precedence over other important Union policies, for example in the field of jobs and growth; notes that the Heading 3 ceiling is vastly insufficient to provide for appropriate funding for the internal dimension of the migration and refugee crisis as well as priority programmes, such as culture programmesnd believes further consideration ought to be given to readjusting the ceilings in each heading to meet this challenge, provided that the overall spending limits agreed in 2013 are respected;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its position that requests for additional funding needed for addressing the migration and refugee crisis must have a clear implementation strategy and should not be deployed to the detriment of the Union’s existing external action, including its development policy; repeats that the setting-up of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRT), Trust Funds, and any other ad-hoc instruments cannot be financed by cuts to other existing instrumentshave been undertaken will little input from one arm of the budgetary authority; notes that the Heading 4 ceiling (Global Europe) is vastly insufficient to provide a sustainable and effective response to the current external challenges, including the migration and refugee crisis;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. RestoresNotes Parliament's restoration of all cuts proposed by the Council to the Commission’s Draft Budget (DB); fails to understand the reasoning behind the proposed cuts and contestsnotes also Council’s declared intention to recreate artificial margins in some headings such as subheading 1a (Competitiveness for Growth and Jobs) and Heading 4 (Global Europe), particularly considering that margins would in any way be too small; considers margins to be the most fiscally prudent way of creating flexibility in the budget in order to react to unforeseen circumstances or crises;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Announces that, for the purpose of adequately financing those pressing needs, and considering the very tight MFF margins in 2017, Parliament will finance theBelieves that Parliament's reinforcements above the DB by the exhaustion of all margins available and an increased recourse to the Contingency Margin, to be offset against the remaining margins of 2016 and 2017, leave very little room for manoeuvre to cope with unforeseen circumstances next year;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. SetsRegrets the proposed increase of EUR 4,13 billion above the DB in commitment appropriations, as a result of setting the overall level of appropriations for 2017 at EUR 161,8 billion and EUR 136,8 million in commitment and payment appropriations respectively;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Disapproves ofNotes the Council's proposed cuts of EUR 3 million in commitments and, more importantly, EUR 199 million in payments under subheading 1b, including on support lines; calls on the Council to explain how these cuts are compatible with its objective of providing “necessary appropriations enabling the smooth implementation of the new programmes in the fourth year of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020”; notes that the cuts in payments go further than the already significant cuts proposed by the Commission, who suggested a decrease by -23,5 % compared to the 2016 EU budget; believes however, that the lack of absorption capacity and difficulties caused by slower than expected implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes make these cuts regrettably justified;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that the Commission has not proposed any commitment appropriations for the Youth Employment Initiative in 2017 as a result of its frontloading in the years 2014-2015; decidesnotes that, in line with the Regulation on the European Social Fund7 which foresees the possibility of such a continuation, to increase the Youth Employment Initiative with additional EUR 1 500 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 500 million in payment appropriations to provide an effective response to yParliament’s requests, the Commission has proposed an additional EUR 1 billion for the Youth Employment Initiative until the end of 2020 in the context of the MFF mid-term review; believes the forthcoming mid-term evaluation of the Youth uneEmployment; notes that, in line with Parliament’s requests, these new appropriations should be financed by the use of all financial means available under the current MFF Regulation and through the MFF mid-term revision; urges the Member States to do their utmost to speed up the implementation of the Initiative on the ground, for the direct benefit of young Europeans; __________________ 7Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 470). Initiative will ultimately determine the agreed level of funding; urges the Member States to do their utmost to speed up the implementation of the Initiative on the ground, for the direct benefit of young Europeans;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Underlines that Parliament continues to put the current migration challenge at the top of its agenda; welcomes the Commission’s proposal for an additional EUR 1,8 billion to tackle the migration crisis in the Union, above what had initially been programmed for 2017; notes that the big deviation of the original programming shows the need of a full revision of the current MFF; is disappointed that the Commission did not use the opportunity to adjust the ceilings accordingly, particularly of Heading 3; stresses that the Commission proposes to finance this reinforcement through the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument (for EUR 530 million, thereby fully exhausting the funding available for this year) and the Contingency Margin (for EUR 1 160 million); given the unprecedented level of funding for migration-related expenditure (totalling EUR 5,2 billion in 2017) and the proposals for applying flexibility on the table, does not request further reinforcements for migration-related policies; at the same time, will resist any attempts to reduce funding for Union actions in this field;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Reiterates, that budgetary flexibility has its limits and can only be a short-term solution; is strongly convinced that a forward-looking and brave answer in the face of a crisis that involves the entire continent and shows no signs of abating, is an upwards adjustment of the ceiling of Heading 3, provided there is an equivalent downwards adjustment across other headings, as well as a clear implementation strategy of how such additional funding would be used most effectively; insists that such an adjustment is indispensable and urgent and is disappointed that the Commission forewent the opportunity to propose it at the occasion of the MFF mid-term revision;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. WelcomesBelieves that similar levels of transparency and evaluation should apply to the Commission’s proposal, as part of the MFF mid-term revision, to establish a new European Union Crisis Reserve, to be financed from de-committed appropriations, as an additional instrument to react rapidly to crises, such as the current migrant and refugee crisis, as well as a wider set of events with serious humanitarian or security implications;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. CondemnNotes the Council’s cuts to numerous programmes in the areas of culture, the media, citizenship, fundamental rights and public health by a total of EUR 24,3 million in commitment appropriations; considers it a detrimental sign by the Council to cut culture programmes in order to free funds for the refugee and migration crisis; deplores that many of these cuts seem applied in an arbitrary manner and disregard excellent implementation rates; is of the opinion that even small cuts risk jeopardising the achievement of programme outcomes and the smooth implementation of Union actions; therefore restores all cuts to the level of the DBnecessary for the Council to free funds for the refugee and migration crisis by reassessing Union priorities in this manner;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)
Paragraph 32 b (new)
32 b. Welcomes the creation of a new budget line to provide funding for the victims of terrorism; supports resources being made available to tackle the broad areas of need of victims, including physical treatments, psycho-social services and financial support; believes that too often the needs of innocent victims of terrorism are either forgotten, or considered secondary, when measures to tackle the terrorist threat are proposed;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that, in the light of the ongoing refugee crisis, the Union’s external action is faced with ever growing funding needs which largely exceed the current size of Heading 4; therefore, underlines that the Heading 4 ceilings are vastly insufficient to provide for appropriate funding for the external dimension of the migration and refugee crisis; is disappointed that the Commission did not use the opportunity to adjust the ceilings, particularly of Heading 4 accordingly; deplores, that in order to fund new initiatives such as the FRT, the Commission chose in its DB to cut other programmes such as the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP) which is against the principle that humanitarian distress must go in parallel with the development processes,; regretnotes also that appropriations for humanitarian aid and for the Mediterranean strand of the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) are below those approved in the 2016 budget, despite their obvious relevance in tackling the large number of external challenges; disapprovnotes, finally, the irresponsible cuts made by the Council, in particular on DCI and support expenditure lines;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Lends its full supportUrges caution with regard to the FRT and proposes to frontload to 2016 part of the Union budget contribution planned in 2017 due to its good implementation record and the large margins still available inhold in reserve the EUR 750 million envisaged for the Facility from the 20167 budget; calls, therefore, for reinforcing IPA II by EUR 400 million via an amending budget for 2016 and to mobilise the Contingency Margin accordingly; puts the same amount in reserve in the 2017 budget pending a comprehensive agreement , which will be released incrementally on the basis of independent UN evaluations in how the funds are being spent, and a full impact assessment from the Commission aon alternative financing for the FRT, which would alleviate the unprecedented pressure put on other external financing instrumenthe effectiveness of the scheme, the quality of the detention facilities, and the impact on fundamental rights;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Notes with concern that, despite their topical nature and significant size, EU Trust Funds as well as the FRT are virtually invisible in the Union budget; calls for them to be incorporated in a way that is more transparent and more respectful of the unity of the Union budget and of the prerogatives of the budgetary authority, and creates new budget lines to that end; also calls on the Commission to provide evidence that the use of financial instruments under the Trusts Funds does not result in diverting appropriations from the objectives under their initial legal bases; notes that the objective of leveraging national contributions on top of the Union budget has so far notoriously failed; highlights in that respect that, in future calls for an EU budget contribution to the Trust Funds, the Parliament will only agree to them once a comparable amount o, and that this objective will only be successful if Member States’ agree to contributions has been deliverede such funding in advance, as occurred with the FRT;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Looks forward to the Commission’s budgetary proposals to finance the new Migration Partnership Framework and the External Investment Plan; expects to have a favourable approach to mobilising further flexibility in order to endow them with fresh appropriations, but warns against undermining Parliament’s amendments;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Reiterates its disagreemensupport for the Commission's and the Council's approach to agencies' staffing, and therefore modifies a substantial number of establishment plans; underlines once more that each agency should cut 5 % of posts over 5 years as agreed in the IIA, but that in some agencies new posts that are needed to fulfil additional tasks due to new policy developments and new legislation since 2013 have to be accompanied by additional resources and may need to be counted outside the IIA staff reduction target; emphasises therefore again its opposition to the concept of a redeployment pool amongst agencies, but reaffirms its openness to free posts by means of achieving efficiency gains between agencies through increased administrative cooperation or even mergers where appropriate and through pooling certain functions with either the Commission or another agency;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Restores the DB for Reserves forConsiders the average annual use of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Union Solidarity Fund does not justify a restoration of the DB for reserves in order to ease the mobilisation of these special instruments;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Voices concern over the severe decrease in payments appropriations in the 2017 Draft Budget as compared with the 2016 budget; notes that this reveals implementation delays which are not only worrying for the delivery of Union policies but also entail the risk of rebuilding a backlog of unpaid bills at the end of the current programming period, unless a satisfactory agreement is found as part of the MFF revision; regretnotes, furthermore, the Council’s cuts in payments, despiprimarily related the comfortable margins available below the ceilingso absorption and implementation difficulties in subheading 1b;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 80
Paragraph 80
80. Is convinced that the Union budget, with a clear implementation strategy, can contribute to addressing effectively not only the consequences but also the root causes of the crises that the Union is currently facing; takes the view, however, that unforeseen events with a Union-wide dimension should be tackled by pooling efforts and putting additional means at Union level rather than by calling past commitments into question or reverting to the illusion of purely national solutions; stresses, therefore, that flexibility provisions are there to enable such a joint and speedy response and should be used to the full in order to make up for the tight constraints of the MFF ceilings;