10 Amendments of Pirkko RUOHONEN-LERNER related to 2015/2132(BUD)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Believes the Commission Draft General Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016 is a welcome step towards helping Member States tackle structural challenges, especially the loss of competitiveness; believes the EU should prioritise programmes and funding that will deliver growth in the European Union;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Highlights the crucialneed stimulate investment in Europe and notes the role to be played by the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) in closing gaps not covered by the market and in attracting private investments; welcomes that the agreement reached by the co-legislators on the increase in contributions to the EFSI to EUR 3 billion, to be found from the overall budgetary margins in the period 2016 to 2020; reaffirms its determination to further reduce the budgetaryis within the current MFF ceilings; highlights the need to monitor the impact on Horizon 2020 and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) following the redeployment of budget lines from these programmes;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes the Draft General Budget 2016 is a first step towards achieving real focus, budget discipline and a concrete example of how the Commission is fulfilling its commitment to be ‘big on big things and small on small things’;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls for the Commission to continue to prioritise programmes that contribute to real growth, competitiveness and job creation and to identify areas within the EU budget where savings and efficiencies can be made in order to reinforce these priorities;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls that the European Parliament strongly supported the creation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and believes that the Union needs to further improve the quality of supervision across the Union; believes that the ESAs play an important part in the functioning of financial markets in the Union;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses that inflexibility in the ability to second national experts from the supervisory bodies of Member States, as well as strict adherence to language requirements and the Commission Staffing code, has been a contributing factor to difficulties faced by the ESAs in attracting high quality staff for short periods of high need;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes the large amount of work the ESAs have done and will continue to do; highlights that close cooperation with national authorities is mandated and should deliver strictly complementary work thus avoiding wasteful duplication;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Believes all bodies should seek to reduce administrative costs and a detailed rationalisation of any budget expenditure must be delivered; believes that decentralised agencies cannot be exempt from sound budgetary management and welcomes the efforts made to restrain spending on these agencies; calls on all the ESAs to exercise budgetary efficiency and discipline;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Believes that when additional task are delegated to the ESAs in the future that there should be a cost assessment made at a suitable stage during the legislative process, such as during trialogue negotiations, in order for MEPs and Member States to understand the cost consequences of the proposals they are making;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Notes that the Chair, Executive Director and the members of the Board of Supervisors and Management Boards should be in a position to act independently and only in the interest of the Union; believes that the current financing arrangements of the ESAs have not been fully utilised and do not allow enough flexibility for periods of high short term need that will not be necessary on an ongoing basis which would be best filled by seconded national experts;