Activities of Philip BRADBOURN related to 2012/2167(DEC)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, Section III – Commission and executive agencies PDF (698 KB) DOC (568 KB)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the 2011 discharge: EU general budget, Section III – Commission
Amendments (31)
Amendment 1 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011;
Amendment 3 #
Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2011;
Amendment 4 #
Proposal for a decision 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2011;
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a decision 4
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/(postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2011;
Amendment 6 #
Proposal for a decision 5
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the European Research Council Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2011;
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a decision 6
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the Research Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2011;
Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a decision 7
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants/postponesPostpones its decision on granting the Director of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2011;
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a decision 8
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ApprovesPostpones its decision on the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
(f) collect information from Member States concerning the degree to which national rules render Union legislation on budget management unnecessarily complicated (‘gold-plating’) and report to Parliament by October 2013; recalls that an infringement of those national rules represents an error in budget management and that the Commission is ultimately responsible for errors in implementing the Union budget (Article 317 TFEU);
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph under sub heading 'Revenues and traditional own resources'
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph under sub heading 'Revenues and traditional own resources'
In order to ensure proper protection of the Union's financial interests, and with a view to equipping the Union with sufficient own resources for growth, the Commission should:
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the amount of structural funds implemented through FEIs has continued to increase over the period 2007-2013, in particular for instruments targeting enterprises, and points out that more than 90% of the amounts actually disbursed to final recipients went to enterprises; asks the Commission to clarify what percentage of the amounts actually dispersed went to truly private enterprises as opposed to majority publicly owned enterprises;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Recalls the Parliament's proposal in the 2010 discharge resolution for a full- time Commissioner for Budgetary Control in the 2014-2019 Commission;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that errors should not necessarily be considered as fraud and considers that, in the vast majority of cases, errors stem from administrative mistakes which can be corrected; reminds the Commission, however, that the current error rate is still unacceptably high and that Parliament has a zero-tolerance approach to errors;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notices that there are differences of opinion between the Court of Auditors and the Commission with regard to the way in which errors should be calculated, in particular as to whether pre-financing should be included or excluded, as to the handling of quantifiable and non- quantifiable errors, and as to the way in which recoveries and financial corrections should be considered in the error calculation; is of the opinion that the differences of opinion mirror the different roles respectively played by the institutions, namely the role of auditor on the one hand and manager on the other;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls that the most likely error rate for payments in the financial year 2010 was estimated at 3,7% and in the financial year 2009 at 3,3%; is particularly worridismayed about this increase because it reverses the positive trend observed in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009; therefore calls on the Commission to take the necessary steps to achieve a trend that shows a consistent decrease in the error rate; underlines that Parliament is of the opinion that ‘(...) reaching this target is an essential part of getting full value for EU expenditure in the future and progressing towards a positive DAS’*1 ; 1Or. en Paragraph 4 of Parliament's above mentioned resolution of 5 May 2010 on the 2008 discharge.
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Notes, however, that neither the Court of Auditors nor the Commission considers the annual summaries at this stage to be a valuable source of information for the purposes of assessing compliance by, or the performance of, beneficiaries, reiterates its request that the Commission should analyse the strengths and weaknesses of national control systems on the basis of the annual summaries received; considers that this situation is unacceptable and demands that the Commission take immediate action to ensure that the next annual summaries are useful for assessing the performance of beneficiaries;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Urges all Member StatesAustria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland and Spain to follow the example of the 15 Member States that have included an ‘overall level of assurance statement’ in their annual summaries for structural actions in the European Social Fund (ESF) and the ERDF*1;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a Notes the details set out on the following scoreboard regarding the two initiatives relating to the contributions of Member States in improving the effectiveness of shared management: SCOREBOARD National management Declarations 'Overall level of assurance statement' in the Annual Summaries for structural actions Austria No No Belgium No No Bulgaria No Yes Cyprus No Yes Czech Republic No Yes Denmark Yes Yes Estonia No Yes Finland No Yes France No Yes Germany No No Greece No Yes Hungary No Yes Ireland No No Italy No No Latvia No No Lithuania No No Luxembourg No No Malta No No Netherlands Yes No Poland No No Portugal No Yes Romania No Yes Slovakia No Yes Slovenia No Yes Spain No No Sweden Yes Yes United Kingdom Yes Yes
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Regrets nevertheless that the Court of Auditors found weaknesses in those instructions and their implementation, in particular as regards the residual error rate, and calls onurges the Commission to adapt its guidance in consequence, as an immediate priority;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Is particularly worried byDeplores the fact that in 62% of the audited regional policy transactions affected by error, and in 76% of the ESF audited transactions, sufficient information was available for the Member State authorities to have detected and corrected at least some of these errors before claiming reimbursement from the Commission, and that in rural development, the Court of Auditors found that on-the-spot checks had not always been carried out properly; therefore calls on the Member States and the Commission to urgently reinforce first-level checks to address this unacceptably high level of mismanagement;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64
Paragraph 64
64. Urges the Member States to identify and report to Parliament, in coordination with the Commission and the Court of Auditors, those unnecessarily complex national rules in order to simplify them;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66
Paragraph 66
66. Once again requestires the Commission to name the Member States responsible for the cumulative quantifiable errors identified; understands the constraints imposed on the Court of Auditors by its statistical sample method, which effectively prevents the Court from naming Member States with the highest error rate; encourages the Court to compare its audit findings with those of the Commission in order to identify those Member States or regions most affected by the level and/or occurrence of errors;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Is worried about the significant increase in outstanding budgetary commitments from EUR 13 billion in 2010 to EUR 207 billion, mostly in cohesion policy, for the programming period 2007- 2013, and notes that this could be explained in particular by the introduction of the mechanism of prior approval of Member States' management and control systems before any interim payments is made;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78
78. Underlines that the Court's findings in its Special Report No 13/2011 were corroborated by the conclusions of the fact- finding mission of Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee to the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp, which took place on 19 and20 September 2012; notes that Rotterdam, the largest European port, attracts a lot of ships thanks to the simplified Dutch data processing system; stresses that simplification of customs procedures should not lead to less effective control systems in European ports and that ‘simplified procedures’ should be effectively controlled by the Member States; notes that reduced controls could translate into major economic advantages for a port, points out, however, that seeking such competitive advantages may seriously harm the financial interests of the Union and its Member States;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 90
Paragraph 90
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 120
Paragraph 120
120. NotDeplores that the Court estimated the most likely error rate in this spending area at 6%; underlines at the same timewhich is unacceptably high, but notes that this error rate remains below of those reported by the Court for the period 2006- 2008 due to reinforced control provisions and a strict policy of interruptions and suspensions when deficiencies were detected, in line with the Commission's 2008 Action Plan;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 156
Paragraph 156
156. WelcomesFollowing the creation of the European External Actions Service (EEAS); asks for a clear allocation and coordination of roles and responsibilities of the Commission and the EEAS as regards programming and implementation of the budget in third countries;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 184 a (new)
Paragraph 184 a (new)
184a. Calls on the Commission, in an annex to each annual Evaluation Report, to publish a detailed schedule of all planned performance audits and evaluations for the foreseeable future; calls on the Commission to ensure that during the course of a MFF period, all programme areas are evaluated and the results published as annexes to the Evaluation Report;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 184 b (new)
Paragraph 184 b (new)
184b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that evaluations are conducted independently; notes that the resulting reports should be shared as soon as possible with the relevant committees of Parliament;
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D