Activities of Richard ASHWORTH related to 2015/2353(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal PDF (834 KB) DOC (333 KB)
Amendments (43)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the agreement on the MFF 2014-2020 was the outcome of a long and strenuous process of negotiations which took place in a very difficult social, economic and financial context; whereas as a consequence the overall level of the MFF was effectively reduced compared to the previous programming period; considers that the first ever real-terms cut of the EU's multiannual budget was an important signal of solidarity with Member States facing difficult choices with regard to their national budgets;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that a clear distinction between a mid-term review and a revision of the MFF is an important determinant of the future direction of the current MFF; considers that any legislative proposal for the revision of the MFF Regulation must be on the basis of the mid-term review, and only if the conclusions of this review deem a legislative proposal to be appropriate;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that Article 311 TFEU states that the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies; considers, therefore, that should the review arrive at the conclusions that the current ceilings weare too low, it would be a primary law requirement tois imperative that all possible means of reallocating expenditure between programmes and within the existing ceilings must be explored, before an increase in the ceilings is considered;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Considers that a review of the MFF in 2016 should take stock of a number of serious crises and new political initiatives, together with their respective budgetary consequences, which were not anticipated at the time of the MFF’s adoption; notes, inter alia, the migration and refugee crisis, external emergencies, internal security issues, the crisis in agriculture, the funding of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), the persistent high level of unemployment, especially among young people, and the payment crisis in the EU budget; observes that, in order to finance the additional pressing needs, an unprecedented recourse to the MFF’s flexibility mechanisms and special instruments was deemed necessary, as the MFF ceilings proved to be too tight in some headings; considers that, over the past two years, the MFF has essentially beenbeen unnecessarily pushed to its limits; due to a lack of sufficient reprioritisation within the budget to meet these new challenges;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers that the mid-term review of the MFF should also take stock of the performance of funds allocated, in order to ascertain whether they are achieving their objectives and whether appropriations are being under-utilised; suggests that the review should evaluate whether the EU has an optimum number of objectives and consider prioritisation in this regard;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that the conflicts in Syria, the Middle East and several regions in Africa have had humanitarian, security and migratory consequences on an unprecedented scale; recalls that the EU has been directly impacted, with more than one million refugees reaching Europe in 2015 alone and more expected in the coming years; recalls that this crisis has led to a major financial response on both the EU’s part and hence hadthat of the Member States, with the former's contribution having a significant impact on the EU budget, notably on headings 3 (Security and Citizenship) and 4 (Global Europe);
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes also with great concern that that the success rate for Horizon 2020 has dropped to a level of 13 % from the 20-22 % enjoyed by its predecessor (FP7) in the previous programming period; regrets the fact that as a result fewer high-quality projects in the field of research and innovation are receiving EU funding; notes, similarly, the rejection of many high-quality applications relating to the CEF owing to insufficient budget funds; regrets that the portion of the EU budget dedicated to research and innovation has often been the first to be adversely affected by any rationalisation of the budget; notes that research and innovation programmes have the potential to generate EU added value, and therefore considers that necessary savings ought to be made elsewhere;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Is particularly concerned, however, at the lack of new commitment appropriations for the YEI as of 2016, given that its entire original envelope was frontloaded in 2014-2015 (Article 15 of the MFF Regulation); stresses that in supporting this frontloading Parliament never intended that the initiative should be terminated after only two years of funding and that other MFF mechanisms, such as the Global Margin for Commitments, were put in place with the purpose of ensuring its continuation; also notes the frontloading of appropriations, on the basis of the same article, for Erasmus + (EUR 150 million), this being another EU programme that makes a major contribution to improving the employability of young people, which was fully implemented Notes that the YEI's entire original envelope was frontloaded in 2014-2015 (Article 15 of the MFF Regulation) and that other MFF mechanisms, such as the Global Margin for Commitments (Article 14), allow for unused margins in the years 2014 to 2017 to be used from 2016 to 2020 for policy objectives related to growth and employment, in particular youth employment; also notes the frontloading of appropriations, on the basis of the same article, for Erasmus + (EUR 150 million); highlights that a report on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee and the operation of the YEI is due later this year, following a request from the European Council in June 20131a ; considers it necessary to await the outcome of this report in order to determine the first two years of this period; appropriate level of funding for the YEI in the years ahead; __________________ 1a http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/c ms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/137634.pdf
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls the recent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium and the increased threat levels in other Member States, which call for more coordinated and reinforced action at EU level; underlines that the Union already has the Internal Security Fund as an appropriate instrument and has several agencies operating in this field; considers that more European action, and therefore funding,increased coordination between Member States is necessary to address the current security situation in the EU, and therefore, adequate resources will be needed in this area in order to provide an adequate response to this threat;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 20 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Member States' fiscal positions
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Welcomes the fact that a number of the programme countries have exited their relief programmes; notes, however, that Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Italy and Portugal remain in the excessive imbalances category without triggering the Excessive Imbalances Procedure and Finland, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Slovenia are found to experience imbalances1b; __________________ 1b http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eco nomic_governance/macroeconomic_imba lance_procedure/index_en.htm
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20b. Notes that the United Kingdom, Spain, Slovenia, Ireland, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Portugal and Greece are in Excessive Deficit Procedure1c ; __________________ 1c http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eco nomic_governance/macroeconomic_imba lance_procedure/index_en.htm
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)
Paragraph 20 c (new)
20c. Notes that approximately 70% of the EU budget is made up of Own Resources based on GNI; underlines that Member States who are struggling to reduce their deficits are prioritising spending on essential services, such as welfare, healthcare and defence; believes that all institutions must take this into account during the mid-term review, particularly before considering any increase the MFF ceilings from the amounts agreed in 2013;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 7 a (new)
Subheading 7 a (new)
Public Opinion
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 d (new)
Paragraph 20 d (new)
20d. Believes it to be essential that the views of EU citizens are taken into account during the mid-term review, and possible revision of the MFF; highlights that a plurality of EU citizens are both opposed to an increase in the Union's budget, and believe the budget gives poor value for money1d ; notes that in the Czech Republic, Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, France, Finland, Italy, Spain, Slovenia, Belgium, and Austria more people are opposed to increasing the size of the Union's budget than are in favour; __________________ 1dEurobarometer, Spring 2015: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archiv es/eb/eb83/eb83_budget_en.pdf
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Underlines that reprioritising funds from poorly performing programmes to better performing programmes, or to areas where there is a genuine need, should be the first consideration when identifying new areas of spending;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Highlights Point 8 of the 2013 Interinstitutional Agreement1f , which emphasises that the institutions should ensure sufficient margins are left available beneath the ceilings for the purposes of sound financial management; considers maintaining suitable margins under the budget headings to be the most fiscally responsible means of ingraining flexibility within the budget, enabling the EU to better react to unforeseen circumstances; __________________ 1f OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 2.
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Anticipates that any further needs thatcould arise within relation to the migration and refugee crisis in 2016, including the tranche of EUR 200 million for the new instrument to provide emergency support within the Union, should result in the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin as soon as necessary; recall; considers the mobilisation of the Contingency Margin to be an instrument of last resort, and that its mobilisation should be fully offset against the margins in one or more headings for the current or future financial years in accordance with Article 13(3) of the MFF Regulation1g ; furthermore, considers its mobilisation should only be considered after all other avenues or reallocation and redeployment from existing budget lines have been explored; regrets that no more margins are available under Heading 3, while the Flexibility Instrument has already been used up in its entirety for this year; __________________ 1g OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls that the legislative flexibility, as enshrined in Point 17 of the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA), allows for an increaseadjustment in the overall envelope of programmes adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure of up to 10 % over the seven-year period; notes that ‘new, objective, long-term circumstances’ allow the budgetary authority to depart even further from the original envelope; welcomes the fact that this provision has already been used to allow the Union to respond to unforeseen events by considerably increasing the original annual allocations of programmes such as AMIF; , with account being taken of the results obtained from implementing the programme, in particular on the basis of assessments1h, allow the budgetary authority to depart even further from the original envelope; welcomes the fact that this provision stipulates that any increase resulting from such variation shall remain beneath the existing ceiling for the heading concerned; __________________ 1h OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 3.
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading II
Subheading II
II. Mid-term revision of the MFF – an imperative requirement
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Is convinced, on the basis of the above analysis, that the review of the functioning of the current MFF entails the conclusion that a genuine mid-term revision of the MFF as provided for in the MFF Regulation is absolutely indispensable if the Union is to effectively confront a number of challenges while fulfillingBelieves that the mid-term review of the functioning of the current MFF will provide the basis for deciding whether a legislative proposal on a revision of the MFF its political objectivesappropriate; recalls that delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy remains the main priority to be supported by the EU budget;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Urges the Commission, when preparing itsif it decides that a legislative proposal on revision is appropriate, to take into consideration the following demands of Parliament regarding changes to the MFF Regulation, with respect both to the figures and to several provisions relating to the functioning of the MFF which need to be applicablboth Council and Parliament as the budgetary authority regarding changes to the MFF Regulation, in particular, the need to respect the ceilings which were algready for the current MFFed to in 2013;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Is convinced that, while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing Union programmes and policies, except in cases where such programmes and policies have a demonstrably poor rate of implementation or performance; intends to deliver on its commitment to fully offset the EFSI-related cuts affecting Horizon 2020 and CEF, in order to allow them to accomplish their objectives as agreed only two years ago;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Strongly supports the continuation ofNotes the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), as a meancomplementary means to national policies of ensuring an urgent response in the fight against youth unemployment, following the necessary adjustments brought about by the ongoing evaluation; considers that this can only be achieved through the provision of an adequate level of commitment appropriations; considers it necessary to await the outcome of the report on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee and the operation of the YEI in order to determine the appropriate level of funding for the YEI forin the remaining years of the current MFF; notes that this should entail an upwards revision of the ceilings ofyears ahead; believes that due consideration should also be given to the restricted room for manoeuvre in Subheading 1b, as no margins are available;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Considers that the magnitude of the migration and refugee crisis goes to show that additional needs with significant budgetary consequences may be expected to arise in the coming years; underlines, moreover, that the need for internal security in the EU and the fight against terrorism are expected also to necessitate additional funding to back up reinforced action at EU level; is of the firm opinion that, even with the mobilisation of the small margins available under Heading 3 (Security and Citizenship) and existing flexibility provisions, the resources available will not be sufficient to tackle the increased needs under this heading; calls, therefore, for significant reinforcements for the AMIF and the Internal Security Fund, as well as for the Union agencies operating in the field, as well as other initiatives that can be undertaken; considers that an upward revision of the ceilings under Heading 3 is requiredwho have undertaken new responsibilities; considers that the severity of the current situation may require an upward revision of the ceilings under Heading 3, provided that the raising of this ceiling is offset by the lowering of another ceiling, in accordance with Article 17(4) of the MFF Regulation;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Expects, therefore, that new reinforcements in commitment appropriations will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in payment appropriations, including an upward revision of the annual payments ceiling if necessary; believes that a thorough evaluation of existing commitment appropriations should take place before new commitments are entered into; considers, moreover, that the mid-term review/revision of the MFF provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of payment implementation and updated forecasts for the expected evolution of payments up to the end of the current MFF; believes that a joint payment plan for 2016-2020 should be developed and agreed between the three institutions;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Is determined to settle in an unequivocal way the issue of budgeting the payments of the MFF special instruments; recalls the unresolved conflict of interpretation between the Commission and Parliament on the one hand, and the Council on the other, which has been in the forefront of the budgetary negotiations in recent years; reiterates its long-standing position that payment appropriations resulting from the mobilisation of special instruments in commitment appropriations should alsbelieves that the mid-term review of the MFF provides an opportunity to examine institutional differences and for a resolution to be cfounted over and above the annual MFF payment ceilingsd in the interests of budgetary stability and predictability;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Believes, therefore, that the mid- term revision of the MFF Regulation should provide for the lifting of a number of constraints and limitations that were imposed by the Council on the flexibility provisions at the time of adoption of the MFF; considers, in particular, that any restrictions on the carry-over of unused appropriations and margins, either by setting annual ceilings (Global Margin for Payments) or by imposing time-limits (Global Margin for Commitments) should be revokedan opportunity to evaluate the flexibility provisions included in the current MFF, including the constraints and limitations of these provisions; considers that constraints and limitations on flexibility provisions are entirely consistent with the principles of budgetary discipline and sound financial management, ensuring that the EU budget lives within its means;
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Stresses, in particular, the mobilisation of the full amount of the Flexibility Instrument in 2016; notes that this instrument allows for financing clearly identified expenditure that cannot be financed within the ceiling of one or more headings and is not linked to a specific EU policy; considers, therefore, that it provides genuine flexibility in the EU budget, especially in the event of a major crisis; recalls, accordingly, for a substantial increase in its financial envelope up to an annual allocation of EUR 2 billion, pointing out that the Flexibility Instrument is not linked to a special policy field and can be mobilised for any purpose that this amount is budgeted only in the event of a decision of the budgetary authority for mobilisation of this instrument; recalls that the Flexibility Instrument is not linked to a special policy field and candeemed necessary; highlights both an increase in the annual appropriations available and an increased carry-over possibility of unused appropriations from the previous MFF; notes that over EUR 3.7 billion is available in the current MFF, of which EUR 1.53 billion has been mobilised for any purpose that is deemed necessthus fary;
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Points to the role of the Emergency Aid Reserve in providing a rapid response to specific aid requirements for third countries for unforeseen events, and stresses its particular importance in the current context; calls for a substantial increase in its financial envelope up to an annual allocation of EUR 1 billhighlights an increase in the annual appropriations available from the previous MFF, with the additional possibility of carry-over of unused appropriations;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Notes the different rules in force as regards the time-span for carrying over unspent appropriations for the MFF special instruments, namely the Flexibility Instrument, the Emergency Aid Reserve, the EU Solidarity Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund; calls for the harmonisation of these rules so as to enable a general N+3 rule to apply to these instruments;
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Attaches particular importance to the Contingency Margin, as a last-resort instrument for reacting to unforeseen circumstances; stresses that, according to the Commission, this is the only special instrument that can be mobilised only for payment appropriations and thus to prevent a payment crisis in the EU budget as in 2014; deplorrecognises the fact that, contrary to the previous period, a compulsory offsetting of the appropriations is stipulated in the MFF Regulation; is of the firm opinion that this requirement creates an unsustainable situation with regard to the MFF ceilings of the last years of the period; stresses that the Contingency Margin is in any event a last-resort instrument, whose mobilisation is jointly agreed by the two arms of the budgetary authority; calls, therefore, for the rule of compulsory offsetting to be lifted immediately with retroactive effectinstils a sense of budgetary discipline;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 a (new)
Paragraph 42 a (new)
42a. Believes that the Commission should consider creating a mechanism based on the principle of Article 17(4) of the MFF Regulation; suggests that in order to increase flexibility, funding could be re-allocated between headings by offsetting any increase of the ceiling in one heading by an equivalent decrease in the ceiling of another heading, on agreement from both arms of the budgetary authority; underlines that this tool should be limited to a relatively small percentage of the headings in question order to achieve budgetary stability;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Acknowledges the increased role of financial instruments in the Union budget as a complementary form of funding as compared to subsidies and grants; recognises the potential of these instruments in terms of increasing the financial, and therefore the political, impact of the Union budget; underlines, however, that a shift from traditional financing to more innovative instruments is not advisable in all policy areas, as not all policies are entirely market-driven; underlines that increasing use of financial instruments should not lead to a reduction in the Union budget; recalls Parliament’s repeated calls for greater transparency and democratic scrutiny regarding the implementation of financial instruments supported by the Union budget;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45 a (new)
Paragraph 45 a (new)
45a. Considers that the key priority to be addressed should be the future needs of the Union; suggests that the Union carefully consider the merits of every cent spent and prioritise spending on the most value generating areas or areas with proven EU added value;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Considers that the key prioritifurther issues to be addressed must include adjustments to the duration of the MFF, a thorough reform of the own resources system, a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, and more budgetary flexibility; is furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy and comply with the provisions of the Treaty;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Underlines that an essential element of the difficulties in agreeing on a multiannual financial framework between Member States is their primary focus on net balances, which is understandable given that national contributions from the Member States constitutes the vast majority of the EU's budget; reiterates its position that the Union budget is not a simple zero-sum game but, rather, the expression of common policies which can create collective added value; urges the Member States, therefore, to change their perception of and approach to the Union budget in order to ensure that the outcome is not another stalemate that will only further disconnect the Union from its citizensbelieves it is incumbent on all participants in future MFF negotiations to act on the basis of sound financial management and budgetary discipline;
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 52
Paragraph 52
52. Underlines the need for a fully- fledged reform of the oNotes that the High Level Group on Own rResources system, with simplicity, fairness and transparency as guiding principles; is therefore expectis due to report by the end of 2016; remains open to proposals on own resources; nevertheless, believes that a convincing can ambitious final report from the High Level Group on Odidate for possible new own Rresources by the end of 2016, as well as an equally ambitious legislative package on own resources as of 2021 from the Commission by the end of 2017has yet to be formalised; in addition, is strongly opposed to any new measure that would increase the overall tax burden on EU citizens or disproportionately affect a minority of Member States;
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 56
Paragraph 56
56. Underlines that according to the Treaty, Parliament and the Council establish the Union budget on an equal footing as the two arms of the budgetary authority; considers, moreover, that full parliamentary control over allscrutiny of expenditure is an essential element of all EU spending; calls on the Commission to preserve the unity of the budget and to consider it a guiding principle when proposing new policy initiatives;
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Stresses that the rigid structure of the Union budget deprives the budgetary authority of the possibility of reacting adequately to changing circumstances; calls, therefore,notes that an extensive array of flexibility provisions were built in to the current MFF; believes, however, that there is scope for greater flexibility in the next MFF, in particular through more flexibility between headings and years with the aim of fully exploiting the MFF ceilings; believes that the Commission should further consider creating a mechanism to allow funding to be re-allocated between headings, provided any increase of the ceiling in one heading is offset by an equivalent decrease in the ceiling of another heading;
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Underlines that in addition to the ability to react flexibly to changing circumstances without prejudice to the agreed programming, there is also a necessity for the Union to be able to react quickly to developing crises; calls, therefore, for the establishmentan evaluation of the added value and utility of a permanent EU crisis reserve within the Union budget over and above the MFF ceilings, in order to avoidminimize the use of ad hoc solutions like the setting-up of trust funds;