Activities of James ELLES related to 2011/2042(BUD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Preparation of 2012 budget (debate)
Amendments (20)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Title before paragraph 1
Title before paragraph 1
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Notes with interest the approach taken in the Fernandes report setting out the framework for the budget for 2012, other sections, believes that the Commission should follow a similar approach in preparing its 2012 budget, which should include the priority principles of good management, including: - economy, efficiency and effectiveness - transparency, accountability and accuracy as well as - investments in technology which would result in long term savings - the need for cost cutting plans;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Acknowledges the Council’s concern about economic and budgetary constraints at national level, but recalls, first and foremost, that under Treaty provisions the EU budget can not run a public deficit; recalls that, in 2009, the accumulated public deficit in the EU as a whole amounted to EUR 801 billion,elieves that Europe should show budgetary responsibility and restraint in times of ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts but recalls that under Treaty provisions the EU budget can not run a public deficit; and that the EU budget represents a mere 2% of total public spending in the EU;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is of the opinion that the EU budget can brings added value to national public expenditure bywhen initiating, supporting and complementing investments in those policiey areas which are at the core of Europe 2020; believes, moreover, that the EU budget has an instrumental role to play in helping the EU to exit the current economic and financial crisis through its capacity as a catalyst to boost investment, growth and jobs in Europe; takes the view that the EU budget could at least mitigate the effects of current restrictive national budgetary policies; stresses also that, given its redistributive nature, any attempt to limit the level of the EU budget will be detrimental to European solidarity and to the pace of economic development in most Member States; takes the view that the ‘net contributor’/’net beneficiary’ approach has no economic rationale, since it disregards spill-over effects between EU countries and therefore undermines common EU policy goals;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy’s seven flagship initiatives will require a huge amount of future-oriented investment in the short, medium and longer term; stresses that the main objective of the Europe 2020 strategy – namely, to promote growth, jobs and high-quality employment for all Europeans – will be achieved only if the necessary investments in education, research and development, innovation, SMEs and green technologies are made now and not delayed any longer; calls for a renewed political compromise combining the reduction of public deficits and debt with the promotion of such investments; expresses its willingness to explore improveing and widening existing instruments to enhancinge the synergy between the EU budget and EIB actions, in order to support long-term investments;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly opposBelieves, therefore, any attempt to limit budget appropriations in those sectors linked to the delivery ofat advancing the Europe 2020 sStrategy’s headline targets and seven flagship initiatives; notes that such an attempt would be counter- productive, most likely resulting requires judicious selection of policy instruments and objectives, such as promoting trade, strengthening the failure of Europe 2020, as was the case for the Lisbon Strategy;single market and providing a supportive framework for innovation, takes the view that the Europe 2020 strategy can be credible only if adequately funded, and recalls that the EP has on numerous occasions raised this serious political concern;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view, moreover, that 2012 budget appropriations, including in those areas not directly linked to the achievement of the Europe 2020 strategy, need to be kept at an appropriate level to ensure the continuation of EU policies and the achievement of EU objectives well beyond the duration of the current economic crisis should be based on a careful analysis of recent payment appropriation outturn with a view to savings on lines where problems have arisen in implementation;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recognises that there is an acute shortage of funds in the EU, both at member state and European Union levels, stresses that through attaching real importance to the concept of value for money that all programmes and expenditure should be carefully analysed for viability, efficiency and effectiveness;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. DeplorNotes the absence of any parliamentary dimension to the first European Semester exercise, despite the role that the European Parliament and the 27 national parliaments play in their respective budgetary procedures; is, instead, firmly convinced that stronger parliamentary involvement would significantly improve the democratic nature and transparency of such an exercise; supports the initiative of its Committee on Budgets to organise, as a first step, a meeting with national parliaments in order to discuss the general outline of the 2012 budgets of the Member States and of the EU;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Title after paragraph 10
Title after paragraph 10
2012 EU BUDGET: budget responsibility should not automatically entaildiscipline and responsibility leads to an approach of budgetary austerity
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Points out that the 2012 budget is the sixth of seven under the current MFF; believes that the two arms of the budgetary authority now have, therefore, a clearer view of the shortfalls and positive developments associated with existing multiannual programmes; emphasises in this connection that the EP is determinprepared – should it prove necessary in order to support EU political priorities, and in close cooperation with its specialised committees – to make full use of, inter alia, Point 37 of the IIA (allowing a 5% margin of legislative flexibility);
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Does not shareNotes the Council’s view that leaving sufficient margins below all MFF headings is a proper solution in order to address unforeseen circumstances; points out the recurrent under-financing of certain headings of the MFF as compared to the needs and EU political priorities endorsed by the Member States; is worried by the short-term approach underpinning the Council’s budget guidelines for 2012, which would jeopardise existing actions and programmes should unforeseen events or new political priorities arise;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses, in this connection, that keeping commitment appropriations under strict control would require not only significant redeployments and reprioritisation, but also the joint identification of possible negative priorities by the institutions; highlights, however, Parliament's willingness to identify such priorities, however, also highlights the fact that, to this end, greater budgetary flexibility (mainly between the headings of the current MFF) wouldmay be needed in order to align budgetary resources with evolving circumstances and priorities;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Underlines that the strengthening of a number of policies at EU level following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty shcould logically imply additional financial capacity for the EU, which was hardly the case for 2011, the first year after its entry into force; reminds the Council and the Commission of the political declaration annexed to the 2011 budget, whereby the Commission undertakes to consider ways to strengthen the Lisbon Treaty priority areas and thoroughly to assess the needs when preparing the draft budget for 2012; expects the Commission to follow suit by, for example, proposing to transform successful Lisbon-related pilot projects or preparatory actions into multiannual programmes;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers the Commission’s approach to determining EU decentralised agencies’ subsidies from the EU budget to be reliable and to provide the right incentives; stresses that EU agencies’ budget allocations are far from being confined to administrative expenditure alone, but instead contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 goals and EU objectives in general, as decided by the legislative authority; takes the view, therefore, that their budget allocations should be preserved; reaffirms the need to examine requests for new posts carefully in relation to newly assigned tasks; calls for a specific approach in respect of the recruitment of specialised scientific staff with professional experience, especially when these posts are financed exclusively by fees and are thus budget-neutral for the EU budget; supports the work carried out by the interinstitutional working group on the future of agencies, which was set up in early 2009, and looks forward to its conclusions, notably on the above mentioned points;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Emphasises the urgent need to address the issue of the growing level of outstanding commitments (RAL) at the end of 2010 (EUR 194 billion, see table in annex); highlights that the level of RAL is particularly high under Heading 1b; does not consider the Council’s option of reducing EU budget commitments in order to decrease the level of RAL to be a sustainable solution, since this would be detrimental to the achievement of previously agreed EU objectives and priorities;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Shares the Council’s view that realistic budgeting should be promoted; calls on the Commission to ensure that its draft budget is based on this principle, notes, however, that past implementation, which has improved in recent years, doesin some cases may not constitute a very accurate indicator of 2012 needs, since for some programmes implementation shcould accelerate in 2012 and payment needs increase accordingly; endorses the Council’s call for the Member States to provide better implementation forecasts, notably with a view to avoiding under- implementation, and takes the view that the bulk of the effort in this respect should be undertaken by the Member States themselves, since the level of the Commission’s draft budget is determined mainly by their own forecasts (particularly under Heading 2) and their implementation capacity; recalls that the Member States co-manage, together with the Commission, more than 80% of EU funding; reminds the Member States of their legal responsibility in defining and enforcing financial rules applicable to the recipients of EU funding;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Is aware that the level of payments finally implemented every year sometimes entails a significant so-called ‘surplus’ compared to the level of payments originally agreed by the budget authority, meaning that Member States’ national contributions to the EU budget are therefore decreased accordingly and their fiscal positions improved; does not consider the Council’s concerns as to the level and timing of this ‘return’ relevant in addressing the sensitive underlying political issue of the financing of the EU budget; strongly urges the Commission, therefore, to make proposals for the establishment of new and genuine own resources so as to provide the EU with real and autonomous financial resources;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. Notes that no major reform of the staff regulations has been carried out over the past decade, requests the Commission to assess whether last reforms achieved their objectives, thinks that new impetus should be given to updating the regulations for the 21st Century, in particular concerning pensions, requests that the Commission submit a detailed report to the European Parliament by 31st July 2011;