482 Amendments of Derek VAUGHAN
Amendment 163 #
2018/2167(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Calls on the Secretary-General to ensure that a decision is taken by the Bureau without delay in order to improve the sustainability of the fundNotes that some proposals from the Secretary-General to improve the sustainability of the Fund were adopted by the Bureau on 10th December 2018;
Amendment 1 #
2018/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that, although ESIF resources for the regional implementation plan (RIP) have increased quantitatively during the last programming period, there are considerable gaps as regards monitoring and assessment ofmonitoring could be improved in order to assess the impact that this funding is having on the RIP;
Amendment 2 #
2018/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the EU to improve the monitoring and assessment of ESIF assistance under thematic objective 11 byWelcomes that proposals have been put forward in the next MFF inc orporating specific indicators to gauge progress in terms of meeting the EU targets and priorities for public administration reformsder to avoid programme overlaps and encourage further simplification;
Amendment 6 #
2018/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes continuous assessment to be necessary in order to ascertain that cohesion policies are complying with the principle of additionality in relationimentary to operations financed with ordinary resources and, not least, to ensure that cohesion policies do not become a substitute for regular policies;
Amendment 8 #
2018/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points to the need to determine the weaknesses of each Member State and, using the available resources, promote measures to overcome problems by tightening upimprove the criterion of ex ante conditionality;
Amendment 10 #
2018/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that, especially in regions lagging behind, it often proves difficult to gain access to, or use, funding, primarily on account of bureaucratic hiccups or the ramifications of corruption; hopes, therefore, that Member States will pursue internal reforms aimed at giving more tangible effect to the principle of sound administration and expediting judicial proceedings;
Amendment 13 #
2018/2086(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that, within public administrations, innovation processes should be promoted so as to make for better connectivity and digitalisation; calls, therefore, for funding to be providedwelcomes that the new CPR proposal provides funding for in future programming for operations to deploy e-government in keeping with the principles and priorities set out in the EU e-Government Action Plan;
Amendment 3 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 – point a – indent 1
Paragraph 9 – point a – indent 1
- further reducing the number of objectives and indicators it uses for its various performance reports and focusing on those which best measure the performance of the Union budgetsocial, environmental and economic performance of the Union budget, while avoiding however a one size fits all approach;
Amendment 4 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 – point a – indent 2
Paragraph 9 – point a – indent 2
- presenting financial information in a manner that makes it comparable with performance information, where applicable, so that the link between spending and performance is clear;
Amendment 5 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Committee on Budget of the European Parliament, in coordination with the sectorial committees of this Parliaments, to promote a real culture of “result orientation” aiming at optimizing the use of funds and consider reallocating funds from programmes showing low performancefostering social, economic and territorial equality;
Amendment 12 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses the unsustainable distructureibution of CAP expenditure: 44,7 % of all Union farms had an annual income of less than EUR 4000, and in 2016 on average the upper 10% of the beneficiaries of CAP direct support received around 60 % of the payments; notes that the distribution of direct payment largely reflects the concentration of land, 20 % of farmers also owning 80 % of the land;
Amendment 12 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomNotes the proposal to increase the budget of the Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) by EUR 80 million for 2019-2020, with EUR 40 million for the 2019 draft budget, bringing the overall envelope of the SRSP to EUR 222,8 million, cautions that any increase should be financed through the mobilisation of the special instrument and at no expense to cohesion policy;
Amendment 14 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to carefully analyse the causes of the overall decline in farmer income since 2013 and to perform a needs assessment and define a new key performance objective accompanied by outcome and impact indicators, aiming at mitigating the income inequalities between famers;
Amendment 23 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to build stronger coordination betweenintroduce a more balanced approach to ensure social, economic and territorial cohesion, for economic governance and the European semester.
Amendment 24 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 25 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Takes note that the Commission estimates that a total of EUR 2,3 billion will be required in 2019 under heading 3 Security and citizenship to address the challenges of migration and security but deplores the fact that the European Court of Auditors has noted in its last annual report that "the overall amount of funds mobilised for the refugee and migration crisis was not reported by the Commission and is difficult to estimate"(Court’s annual report 2016, paragraph.2.28); fears that this is still the case in the draft budget 2019, and may therefore complicate the identification of needs that might arise; welcomes the fact that the Commission is finalising a comprehensive overview of data on immigration;
Amendment 26 #
2018/2046(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls that the Commission considerexplained that it is “difficult if not impossible to provide an estimated cost paid for migrants/seeker country by country as the management of migratory flows comprises a wide range of activities”1 ; would therefor like to be informed on how the Commission had been able to draft precise estimates regarding this policy area; _________________ 1 Reply to written question 23- CONT hearing of Commissioner Avramopoulos of 29 November 2016.
Amendment 11 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls for a sufficient envelope for the ERDF and Cohesion Fund in 2021 - 2027 at least EUR 272 411 million, in 2018 prices; more concretely 226 078 million for ERDF and 46 333 million for the Cohesion Fund (12.8% of the allocation under the Investment for Jobs and Growth goal); calls for at least 100 861 million Euro, in 2018 prices, for the European Social Fund Plus (ESF +);
Amendment 33 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates its consistently held view of the importance of cross-border initiatives for growth; notes with regret that the Commission’s proposals provide for a significant reduction in the financing of Interreg in its share in the structural funds from 2.75% down to 2.5% and calls for a share of 3% instead; considers that a level of funding equal at the very least to the 2014-2020 envelope, in constant prices, needs to be programmed under the 2021- 2027 MFF;
Amendment 38 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for EUR 2017,5 billion, in 2018 prices, from the proposed financial allocation for the Reform Delivery Tool to Support Structural Reformsthe Reform Support Programme to be used instead, in order to increase the financial allocation for cohesion policy, and the Interreg envelope within it; calls for EUR 5 billion of this amount to be used to increase the budget of the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) programme;
Amendment 43 #
2018/0166R(APP)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that lower EU co-financing rates might result in difficulties for beneficiaries in the regions to access EU funding; calls therefore for a co-financing rate of 85 % for less developed regions, 60 % for transition regions, 50 % for more developed regions, 85 % for the Cohesion Fund and 85 % for the European Territorial Cooperation/Interreg;
Amendment 3 #
2017/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas EU cohesion policy in Northern Ireland operates through various instruments, including the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Regional Development, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the Northern Ireland Peace Programme and thePEACE Programme for Northern Ireland and the Border region and the cross- border Interreg programmes;
Amendment 4 #
2017/2225(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas it is clear that Northern Ireland is a region that has benefited greatly from the EU’s cohesion policy; welcomes the commitment to future funding in the Commission's draft MFF for 2021-2027.
Amendment 44 #
2017/2137(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Welcomes the revision of allowance rates for accredited parliamentary assistants (APAs) incurred in respect of their duty travel between Parliament’s three places of work; notes that for officials and other servants, the hotel ceiling for Strasbourg missions is set at EUR 180 and daily allowance at EUR 192, whereas APAs’ accommodation, meals and ancillary expenses for Strasbourg missions are respectively reimbursed at a flat rate of EUR 137, EUR 160 or EUR 183; calls again for the Bureau to fully align allowances between officials, other servants and APAs;
Amendment 46 #
2017/2137(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Reiterates calls to find a solution for those APAs who, having worked for two parliamentary terms in the end of the current term will not be entitled to access to the European pension rights scheme, when they will reach the pension age, since they will be lacking some time out of the ten years’ service required, due to early elections in 2014 and delays in the validation of APAs new contracts due to heavy HR workload after the elections of 2009 and 2014; suggests two legislative terms be considered ten years of active service;
Amendment 142 #
2017/2137(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Calls for the simplification of recruitment procedures and reimbursements for missions and travel costs for local assistants; regrets that these processes are often complex and lengthy resulting in significant delays; calls on DG Fins to address this issue as a priority;
Amendment 170 #
2017/2137(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 a (new)
Paragraph 47 a (new)
47a. Recalls Paragraph 109 of last year’s discharge resolution which calls for an assessment of the current situation of the voluntary pension fund; regrets that such an assessment has not yet been delivered; notes that Parliament is the guarantor for the payment of pension rights when and if this fund is unable to meet its obligations; calls on the Secretary-General to urgently present a comprehensive plan of action to avoid the exhaustion of the fund;
Amendment 175 #
2017/2137(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47 b (new)
Paragraph 47 b (new)
47b. Welcomes the creation of the Parliament’s Bureau Working group on the General Expenditure Allowance; recalls the expectations formulated by Parliament in its resolution on budget 2018, calling for of a greater transparency regarding the general expenditure allowance and a need to work on a definition of more precise rules regarding the accountability of the expenditure authorised under this allowance, without generating additional costs to Parliament. Reiterates its call on the Bureau to swiftly make the following concrete changes concerning the general expenditure allowance: -the general expenditure allowance should be handled in all cases in a separate bank account; -all receipts pertaining to the general expenditure allowance should be kept by Members; - the unspent share of the general expenditure allowance should be returned at the end of the mandate;
Amendment 5 #
2017/2136(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that as indicated in the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors, the estimated level of error in spending on ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ decreased from 5,2 % in 2015 to 4,8 % in 2016; notes the sustained improvement over the past three years; welcomes the fact that the Court issued a qualified opinion on the regularity of the transactions underlying the 2016 accounts; acknowledges that the error rate for the 2007-2013 programming period remains significantly below the rates reported for the previous period, which proves the overall positive impact of the corrective actions taken; underlines the need for constant clear communication with the public regarding the difference between fraud and error;
Amendment 30 #
2017/2136(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the average disbursement rate for financial instruments was only 75 % at the end of 2015, which shows that the potential of those instruments is not fully exploited; points out that the revision of the Financial Regulation which is due to enter into force in 2018 will significantly contribute to the simplification, improvement and optimisation of their use during current programming period; underlines the need for further improvement with regards to the absorption rate in cohesion policy;
Amendment 4 #
2017/2071(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the EIB’s important rolecomplementary role and the need for synergies in the implementation of cohesion policy through activities aimed at strengthening project preparation capacities, consultancy and analysis services and loans for national co- financing;
Amendment 13 #
2017/2071(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the EIB to present an additional special chapter in its annual report dedicated to EIB activities aimed at the implementation of cohesion policy by Member States, and to include detailed information on the use of loans in cohesion policy projects and programmes; in order to compare with other financial instruments and grants; underlines in this context also the EIB’s responsibility to provide sufficient data available for the European Parliament, the Court of Auditors and others;
Amendment 22 #
2017/2071(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises that the EIB, as an institution through which the EUwhich finances projects aimed at fulfilling EU policies, should contribute to economic, social and territorial cohesion; notices however that, according to the geographical breakdown of lending by country in which projects are located, five Member States received 54.11 % of the total loans granted in 2016;
Amendment 31 #
2017/2071(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights that the EIB’s role in cohesion policy is increasing, especially due to the increased use of financial instruments; emphasises that the level of use of financial instruments is still very low and that Member States point to the complexity of the procedures as one of the reasons for that and that Member States point to the complexity of the procedures, as laid down in the Financial Regulation and Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), as one of the reasons for that; however underlines that grants, being an effective form of support in manifold areas of public intervention, must be maintained as the main tool of Cohesion Policy, especially for smaller beneficiaries and financial instruments should be used as an additional tool only for those sectors where they have demonstrated they are more appropriate than grants for achieving CP objectives and where they bring value for money, limited to activities, which may generate profit such as promotion of start-ups, specific support for SMEs and other market-oriented measures; points out that the role of the EIB should be reconsidered with regard to financial instruments under CP and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI);
Amendment 53 #
2017/2071(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the fact that, in 2016, more than 50 % of the total approved loans were invested in the transport, energy, industry and water and waste management sectors, which indicates an appropriate thematic concentration; underlines that projects supporting the revitalisation of rural and other less populated, less accessible and underdeveloped areas should have priority in all sectorsmore focus in all sectors while the principle that every region has to profit from Cohesion policy continues; notes the role the EIB plays in supporting the objectives of the Urban Agenda;
Amendment 21 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph –1 (new)
Paragraph –1 (new)
-1. Confirms the high EU added value of cohesion policy, as it fulfils the Treaty’s objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion as well as of reducing disparities between the levels of development of various regions by: - bringing growth and jobs to the regional and local level, especially in territories lagging behind, which contributes to convergence, spill-over effects, enhanced economic cooperation, overall macroeconomic stability and the competitiveness of the Union as a whole; - providing public goods of a European dimension by supporting transnational infrastructure; - fostering cross-border cooperation and helping to create a stable ground for lasting peace and democracy in Europe; - using shared management and subsidiarity in order to bring together various stakeholders from different levels of governance and effectively address socio-economic risks and opportunities;
Amendment 25 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. SNotes that the European Parliament considers that cohesion policy is for all regions; states that cohesion policy should remain the EU’s main investment policy, but that more needs to be done to highlight the major role of cohesion policy in achieving the EU’s political objectives;
Amendment 49 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that regional funding should be protected and should continue to predominantly take the form of grants rather than financial instruments, which do, however, have an important role to play in certain cases; stresses that in the event of a reduction in the EU’s budgets, greater focus on the EU’s core goals is required; highlights the Commission's statement that financial instruments are only appropriate for revenue-generating projects; considers that grants and subsidies will therefore continue to be needed;
Amendment 78 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for the priorities of regional development programmes to be updated in order to take changing conditions into account and to benefit from new technology; also considers that more flexibility is required in the MFF to meet unforeseen challenges; underlines that the Commission's position is to strike the right balance between the stability and the flexibility of financing;
Amendment 95 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the Commission to look into the possibilities for greater synergies between the different EU funds, including cohesion policy, Horizon 2020 and EFSI, and to work towards the goal of setting up the same rules for similar projects, including when they are financed by different EU policies and instruments, as this would cut red tape and make the implementation of EU funds easier for beneficiaries;
Amendment 107 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that it is essential, in the context of the new MFF, to ensure that budgetary rules, and rules on cohesion policy spending, are at last simplified.;calls for the Commission to further explore the possibility of merging the current separate cohesion policy funds into a single fund, as this would provide an impetus to establish significantly clearer and lighter implementation rules and to ensure the integrated strategic planning of EU support;
Amendment 119 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Requests the Commission to build upon the positive elements of the ex-ante conditionality system, while reducing the corresponding administrative burden as regards to assessment and procedure;
Amendment 120 #
2017/2052(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Calls on the Commission to strengthen administrative capacity building actions in view of more efficient implementation of the funds;encourages a wider deployment of measures inspired by the Commission’s recent report ‘Competitiveness in low-income and low- growth regions - the lagging regions report’.
Amendment 323 #
2017/2052(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65
Paragraph 65
65. Believes, therefore, that the current presentation of the headings requires some improvements, but is against any unjustified radical changes; proposes, as a result, the following structure for the MFF post-2020; Heading 1: A stronger and sustainable economy Including programmes and instruments supporting: under direct management: - research and innovation - -digital transformation of European society and economy industry, entrepreneurship and - small and medium-sized enterprises - large-infrastructure projects - - transport, digitalisation, energy - -energy, space environment and climate change -mitigation and adaptation - agriculture and rural development - - maritime affairs and fisheries - - horizontal (financial) instruments - supporting investments in Europe (possible umbrella financial instrument at EU level, incl. EFSI) Heading 2: Stronger cohesion and solidarity in Europe Including programmes and instruments supporting: - economic, social and territorial - cohesion (under shared management): investments in innovation, research, digitalisation, reindustrialisa transition, SMEs, transport, climate change adaptation and mitigation, energy and environment employment, education, social affairs and social inclusion -, capacity building education, youth and life-long learning - -democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights culture, citizenship and - communication - health and food safety - - asylum, migration and integration, - justice and consumers - support to and coordination with national administrations - gender equality Heading 3: Stronger responsibility in the world Including programmes and instruments supporting: - human rights, democracy and the rule of law - international cooperation and development - neighbourhood - enlargement - humanitarian aid - trade - gender equality - contribution to EU trust funds and external relations facilities Heading 4: Security, peace and stability for all Including programmes and instruments supporting: - security - cybersecurity - crisis response and stability - common foreign and security policy - defence Heading 5: An efficient administration at the service of Europeans - financing EU staff - financing the buildings and equipment of EU institutions
Amendment 6 #
2017/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the youth unemployment rate and in particular the share of young people neither in employment nor in education and training remains unacceptably high in some Member States; welcomes, therefore, the extension of the YEI until 2020; is of the opinion that the youth unemployment should be taken into account in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) in order to ensure continuity, and that a cost- effectiveness analysis of the scheme should be carried out;
Amendment 8 #
2017/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes the fact that the YEI was frontloaded in the years 2014 and 2015 and that the increase inof the initial pre-financing was designed to ensure a swift mobilisation of resources; underlines that as of now YEI is the best performing among all ESI funds in terms of financial implementation;
Amendment 11 #
2017/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes the delay in the implementation of the YEI caused by the late adoption of the current MFF and the legislative framework and the consequent delayed appointment of the relevant managing authorities; considers this a shortcoming of the YEI legal basis that should be overcome by the Member States through speedy implementation of frontloaded financing;
Amendment 15 #
2017/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for a focus on results achieved by the YEI programme, by establishingthrough the definition of concrete indicators in the form of reforms carried ounew services and support measures on the labour market in the Member States, obtained from the programme, and the number of permanent contracts offered;
Amendment 17 #
2017/2039(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for funding to be ensured for the post 2020 period in the framework of the next revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework;
Amendment 118 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Title 1
Title 1
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) (Text with EEA relevance)
Amendment 134 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Following the conclusion of the European citizens' initiative on the right to water (Right2Water)71 , a Union-wide public consultation was launched and a Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) Evaluation of Directive 98/83/EC was performed72 . It became apparent from that exercise that certain provisions of Directive 98/83/EC needed to be updated. Four areas were identified as offering scope for improvement, namely the list of quality-based parametric values, the limited relianceinconsistent application onf a risk-based approach, the imprecise provisions on consumer information, and the disparities between approval systems for materials in contact with water intended for human consumption and the implications this has for human health. In addition, the European citizens' initiative on the right to water identified as a distinct problem the fact that part of the population, - especially amongst vulnerable and marginalised groups, - has no access to water intended for human consumption, which is alsoinconsistent with the recognition that access to water is a basic right essential for the realisation of all human rights. It is also inconsistent with a commitment made under Sustainable Development Goal 6 of UN Agenda 2030. A final issue identified is the general lack of awareness of water leakages, which are driven by underinvestment in maintenance and renewal of the water infrastructure, as also pointed out in the European Court of Auditors' Special Report on water infrastructure73 . _________________ 71 72COM(2014) 177 final COM(2014) 177 final 72 SWD(2016) 428 final SWD(2016) 428 final 73 Special report of the European Court of Auditors SR 12/2017: "Implementing the Drinking Water Directive: water quality and access to it improved in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, but investment needs remains substantial".
Amendment 200 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The Commission, in its reply to the European citizens’ initiative ‘Right2Water’ in 201483 , invited Member States to ensure access to a minimum water supply for all citizens, in accordance with the WHO recommendations. It also committed to continue to "improve access to safe drinking water […] for the whole population through environmental policies"84 . This is in line with Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is also founded upon Principle 20 of the European Pillar of Social Rights and UN General Assembly Resolutions No 64/292 and No 68/157, which explicitly recognise that access to drinking water is a basic right essential for the realisation of all human rights. This is also in line with UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 and the associated target to "achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all". The concept of equitable access covers a wide array of aspects such as availability (due for instance to geographic reasons,obstacles of geography, financial affordability, or a lack of infrastructure for the specific situation of certain parts of the populations), as well as quality, and acceptability, or. Concerning financial affordability. Concerning affordability of water, it is important to recall that, when setting water tariffs in accordance with the principle of recovery of costs and the polluter pays principle set out in Directive 2000/60/EC, Member States mayshould have regard to the variation in the economic and social conditions of the population and may thereforeshould either adopt social tariffs or take alternative measures to safeguarding populations at a socio- economic disadvantage. This Directive deal, such as through the provision of water banks, min particular,imum water quotas or water solidarity funds. This Directive deals with the aspects of access to water which are related to quality and availaccessibility. To address those aspects, as part of the reply to the European citizens' initiative and to contribute to the implementation of Principle 20 of the European Pillar of Social Rights85 that states that "everyone has the right to access essential services of good quality, including water", Member States should be required to tackle the issue of universal access to water at national level whilst enjoying some discretion as to the exact type of measures to be implemented. This can be done through actions aimed, inter alia, at improving access to water intended for human consumption for all, for instance with freely accessible fountaby ensuring a sufficient number of freely accessible designated refill points in cities, and towns and at promoting its use by encouraging the free provision of water intended for human consumption in public buildings and restaurants. _________________ 83 84awareness raising campaigns for the general public of the location of these refill points; at encouraging the free provision of water intended for human consumption in public buildings, restaurants, shopping and recreational centres, as well as, in particular, areas of transit and large footfall such as at train stations and airports. _________________ 83 COM(2014)177 final COM(2014)177 final 84 COM(2014)177 final, p. 12. COM(2014)177 final, p. 12. 85 Interinstitutional Proclamation on the European Pillar of Social Rights (2017/C 428/09) of 17 November 2017 (OJ C 428, 13.12.2017, p. 10).
Amendment 209 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The European Parliament, in its Resolution on the "follow-up to the European citizens’ initiative Right2Water"86 , "requested that Member States should pay special attention to the needs of vulnerable groups in society"87 . The specific situation of minority cultures, such as Roma, Sinti, and Travellers, Kalé, Gens du voyage etc., whether sedentary or not – in particular their lack of access to drinking water and sanitation – was also acknowledged in the Commission Report on the implementation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies88 and the Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States89 . The 2016 report from the Fundamental Rights Agency highlights that every third Roma household surveyed lives in a house without tap water and every other Roma family lives without a toilet, shower or bathroom inside their dwelling. A report from the European Roma Rights Centre shows that 40% of Roma surveyed have to climb over fences, cross highways or be confronted by stray dogs while trying to get daily water, which often has not been tested for safety and is exposed to contaminants. It is also of particular concern that a proportion of people in the EU in or facing poverty are at risk of losing access to water due to reasons of financial affordability. For example, the 2013 Report "Our Right to Water: Case Studies on Austerity and Privatisation in Europe"2a found that 5,000 people in Bulgaria are unable to afford their water bills, risking disconnection from the water supply. In light of that general context, it is appropriate that Member States pay particular attention to vulnerable and marginalised groups by taking the necessary measures to ensure that those groups have access to water. Without prejudice to the right of the Member States to define those groups, they should at least include people in or at risk of poverty, refugees, nomadic communities, homeless people and minority cultures such as Roma, Sinti, and Travellers, Kalé, Gens du voyage, etc., whether sedentary or not. Such measures to ensure access, left to the appreciation of the Member States, might for example include providing alternative supply systems (individual treatment devices), providing water via tankers (trucks and cisterns) and ensuring the necessary infrastructure for camps. _________________ 2aRight to Water for All: Case Studies on Austerity and Privatisation in Europe http://www.foodandwatereurope.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/06/FoodandWaterE uropeOurRightToWAter.pdf 86 P8_TA(2015)0294 87 P8_TA(2015)0294, paragraph 62. 88 COM(2014) 209 final 89 Council Recommendation (2013/C 378/01) of 9 December 2013 on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (OJ C 378, 24.12.2013, p. 1).
Amendment 252 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive concerns the quality of water intended for human consumption for all in the EU.
Amendment 254 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. The objective of this Directive shall be to protect human health from the adverse effects of any contamination of water intended for human consumption by ensuring that it is wholesome and clean. At the same time, this Directive shall promote universal access to water intended for human consumption.
Amendment 297 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 8
8. 'vulnerable and marginalised groups' shall mean people isolated from society, as a result of discrimination or of a lack of access to rights, resources, or opportunities, including people who are in or at risk of poverty, and who are more exposed to a range of possible risks relating to their health, safety, lack of education, engagement in harmful practices, or other risks, compared to the rest of society.
Amendment 304 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Without prejudice to their obligations under other Union provisions, Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure thatpromote universal access to water intended for human consumption and to ensure that this water is wholesome and clean. For the purposes of the minimum requirements of this Directive, water intended for human consumption shall be wholesome and clean if it meets all the following conditions :
Amendment 499 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Article 13 – title
13 AUniversal access to water intended for human consumption
Amendment 500 #
2017/0332(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph –1 (new)
Article 13 – paragraph –1 (new)
-1. The right to safe and clean drinking water is recognised as a basic right which is essential for the full enjoyment of life and the realisation of all human rights as set out in UN General Assembly Conventions No 64/292 and No 68/157;
Amendment 3 #
2016/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that inover the last few yeardecades cohesion policy has become the main EU investment policy and a tool for attaining the general political objectives of the Union in addition to the specific goals enshrined in the Treaties; is of the opinion that cohesion policy post 2020 should continue to serve this purpose andgoal, as well as remaining a policy for all Member States and regions; considers, therefore, that its share in the total EU budget should be maintained in the future and not weakened by siphoning off means to pay for new challenges;
Amendment 6 #
2016/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the shortcomings of the financial planning and implementation system that led to the accumulation of unpaid bills and the build-up of an unprecedented backlog that rolled over from the last MFF to the current one; is increasingly concerned about the slow start-up of the implementation of the 2014- 2020 operational programmes, which may lead to the same situation in the future; calls on the Commission to come up with a structural solution to solve such problems before the end of the current MFF and to prevent them from happening againspilling over into the next MFF;
Amendment 11 #
2016/2326(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines the increasing need for flexibility in the EU budget in general, including in cohesion policy; encourages the Commission to explore different solutions that would enable the policy to be readily adapted to new challenges during a programming periodimplementation of the EU budget as a whole, including in cohesion policy in order to address new challenges during a programming period; encourages the Commission to explore different solutions in this respect; considers the creation of a reserve at EU level an interesting option in this context; believes, however, that efforts in this regard should be made both at EU level and at national and regional levels; calls for more flexibility for Member States, while in supporting the shared management implementation method;
Amendment 53 #
2016/2242(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes with regret that most Member States have not established a definition of a ‘'quality offer’'; urges the Member States to use the existing networks to work on the development of commonly agreed characteristics of this concept taking into consideration the European Quality Framework for Traineeships, and the Joint statement of the European social partners "Towards a Shared Vision of Apprenticeships" and the CJEU case law on precarious employment; welcomes the ECA’'s recommendation in its Special report No 5/2017 that more attention needs to be paid to improving the quality of offers;
Amendment 54 #
2016/2242(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes with regret that most Member States have not established a definition of a ‘'quality offer’'; urges the Member States to use the existing networks to work on the development of commonly agreed characteristics of this concept based on an offer matching the participant's qualification level, profile, labour market needs, offering opportunities for work that allows them to earn a living income, social protection and prospects for development, and leading to sustainable, well-matched, integration in the labour market; welcomes the ECA’'s recommendation in its Special report No 5/2017 that more attention needs to be paid to improving the quality of offers;
Amendment 72 #
2016/2242(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recognises the significant efforts made by the Member States to implement the YG; observes, however, that most reforms have not yet been fully implemented, in particular in the forging of partnerships with social partners and young people in the design, implementation and assessment of the measures within the YG and in supporting those facing multiple barriers; concludes that considerable efforts and financial resources are needed in the long term to achieve the YG objectives;
Amendment 5 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the annual report of the internal auditor contains findings based on specific audit work but does not by itself provide a comprehensive picture of the Parliament’s budgetary and financial management; notes, similarly,; notes that the Court’s report only represents the results of a small sample (16 transactions) in respect of Parliament’s transactions;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 24 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 27 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Points out that four chapters accounted for 71 % of total of the commitments: Chapter 10 (Members of the institution), Chapter 12 (Officials and temporary staff), Chapter 20 (Buildings and associated costs) and Chapter 42 (Expenditure relating to parliamentary assistance); notes that this indicates that Parliament’s expenditure is characterised by a high level of rigidcontinuity for the major part linked to remunerations for MEPs and staff, adjusted according to the staff regulations and other contractual obligations;
Amendment 33 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Is concerned with the Court’s finding that of the 151 transactions examined for all the Union institutions, 22 (14,6 %) were affected by error; notes however that of these 22 transactions, only seven errors were quantified and thus had financial implications, resulting in an estimated level of error of 0,6 %;
Amendment 57 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Welcomes that this reduces considerably cash payments and introduces mandatory electronic transfers therefore reducing the risks of theft and reputation for the Parliament while still providing for considerable flexibility; takes note of the Bureau’s intention to evaluate the revised system after one year of implementation; regrets, however, that Parliamentary Assistants can be nominated to receive payments into their personal accounts and certify the group's expenses; is concerned this places unnecessary financial and legal responsibility and potential risk on APAs; urges the Bureau to reconsider this as a priority;
Amendment 64 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
Amendment 70 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls in this regard on the bureau to publish on the Parliament’s website the documents submitted to it by the secretary- general, as soon as they become available, unless the nature of the information contained therein makes this impossible, for example, for the protection of personal dwhere justified and appropriatae;
Amendment 79 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Believes that MEPs ought to be able to use the Parliament’s website to provide their constituencies with maximumthe greatest possible transparency on their activities and therefore calls upon the secretary- general to develop a system in which MEPs can indicate how they want their personal webpages to be organised; refers, in this respect, to the wish of certain MEPs to have their diaries and, in particular,publish their meetings with interest representatives, included on these webpages,; and urges the secretary-general to make this possible without further delays, as already requested in Parliament’s 2014 discharge resolution;
Amendment 80 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Calls on the bureau to make it Notes that it is already possible for MEPs who wish to do so, to have their accounts relating to the general expenditure allowance audited by the Parliament’s administration in a manner that is both efficient and effective (for example, by taking samples or by concentrating on expenditures over a certain financial threshold) and to publish the results on their personal webpages on the Parliament’s website; alternatively, to earmark a percentage of the general expenditure allowance for MEPs to hire an external auditclaim audit expenses as an eligible cost relating to the GEA;
Amendment 86 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36 a (new)
Paragraph 36 a (new)
36a. Notes the low awareness amongst MEPs of the possibility of returning general expenditure allowance surpluses; asks the secretary-general to publicise this as a priority; urges MEPs to return surpluses;
Amendment 98 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Calls on the secretary-general to ensureNotes that the accounts of the political groups are easilynd of NI are accessible on the Parliament’s website in a format that allows for quick and easy searches;
Amendment 112 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 – introductory part
Paragraph 42 – introductory part
42. Is concerned that the current code of conduct for MEPs does not offer sufficient safeguardmay require further improvements in order to avoid conflicts of interests and expresses the need for the establishment of a working group on the strengthening of the code of conduct in respect of, inter alia,paying specific attention to the following issues:
Amendment 121 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42 – indent 3
Paragraph 42 – indent 3
– oversight over the registration of declarations of MEPs’ interests;
Amendment 124 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Supports the various programmes aimed at facilitating visits by journalists and citizens at large who are interested in finding out more on Parliament’s activities;
Amendment 128 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Is, however, not convinced ofExpresses concern about the effectiveness of Pthe parliament’'s communication strategy; in respect of those who are not automatically interested in Parliament’s activities or are even sceptical about its functioning; invites the secretary-general to develop a new strategy to reach also thesvites the secretary-general to launch a comprehensive review of the current strategy to evaluate citizens and to concentrate in that respect less on “sending messages” than on facilitating access to information and on addressing unjustified prejudices againsts capacity to increase understanding and improve public perception of the Parliament;.
Amendment 134 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Is not convinced of the need to have iInformation oOffices of the Parliament in all Member States, especially in view of the fact that for effective communication physical presence may not always be necessary and can easily be replaced by effective and responsive internet facilities; is in particular sceptical about having an information office in the cities of Brussels and Strasbourg as in both cit are currently best serving the interests of the Parliament; calls on the secretary-general to reviesw the Parliament itself can be visited and in addition for interested visitors there is or will be a Parlamentarium at their disposalir effectiveness as part of the aforementioned strategy;
Amendment 190 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. Points out that in cases of harassment or whistle-blowing APAs are in a particularly vulnerable position, as their contracts are based on mutual trust between the MEP and the assistant; if this trust is lacking, that in itself is reason for terminating the contract; furthermore, if the MEP has to resign because of reputational damage as a consequence of harassment or other irregularities, this normally means that the contracts of all his/her assistants will also be terminated; calls therefore for the immediate strengthening of the representation of APAs in the advisory committee on harassment, as already requested in the context of the 2013 and 2014 discharge, ands; calls also for the possibility of financial compensatory measures, for example, by paying the APAs concAPAs to be considerned up to their salaries until the end of the term of Parliament, if their contracts are dissolved and the unemployment benefits do not offer full compensation of lost incomein the next revision of the Staff Regulation to ensure equal treatment of APAs and recognition of their particular vulnerability in cases of harassment or whistle-blowing;
Amendment 192 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 b (new)
Paragraph 67 b (new)
67b. Welcomes the intention of the administration to launch the process for adaptation of the flat rate allowances for Strasbourg missions received by APAs, which are significantly lower than those for permanent officials; emphasises that this adaptation should be based on transparent calculation methodology with a direct correlation to the recent upwards revision of allowances and accommodation ceilings for permanent officials; also emphasises that automatic indexation of the allowances for future revisions should be introduced;
Amendment 195 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 a (new)
Paragraph 67 a (new)
67a. Deeply regrets the fact that the employment period of an APA in the case of death or resignation of his or her Member ceases at the end of the calendar month; emphasises that this could mean that an APA would not have a single day of notice period if the Member's term of office happens to end on the final day of a given month; calls for this unacceptable situation to be resolved in the next revision of the Staff Regulation, by linking notice periods to a defined period of time, such as four weeks, rather than to calendar months; further calls on the Bureau to swiftly introduce temporary measures that could provide a provisional solution to this problem before the legal revision takes place;
Amendment 203 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
Amendment 217 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
Amendment 229 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Recognises that in accordance with the bureau decisions of 2013 and 2015, the new catering contracts do not foresee any direct subsidies from the Parliament’s budget; is concerned, however, that certain services are currentlywere offered at higher than market prices in 2015; refers in this respect to the coffee service during meetings, which comes at EUR 4 per cup; calls on the secretary-general to continue discussing the pricing policies of the caterers and to make sure that they do not charge higher- than-market prices for certain services; notes prices were revised in August 2016;
Amendment 234 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94
Paragraph 94
94. Welcomes the continuous efforts to work onguarantee the safety in and around the premises of the buildings of the Parliament; acknowledges that safeecurity within the Parliament representails a delicate balancinge between achievensuring safety with a number of measures, and avoiding transforming its buildings into fortresses, which, as a side effect, may lead to anxiety for its usersand maintaining Parliament's image as an open and transparent institution;
Amendment 257 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 107
Paragraph 107
107. Emphasises nevertheless that the current system of internal and external controls is clearly insufficimay require improvement to avoid major irregularities; takes note of the declarations of the external accountant, EY, that its audits are aimed at obtaining a reasonable assurance that the annual accounts are free of material misstatements and that the entity has complied with in scope rules and regulations, and that they include examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the opinion; also notes, however, that the examinations do not include investigations of possible fraudulent statements and documents; that, therefore, the audits provide only for a superficial insight in the dealings of European political parties and foundations;
Amendment 267 #
2016/2152(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112
Paragraph 112
Amendment 3 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Acknowledges that the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) for 2015 found that the estimated error rate in Cohesion Policy decreased from 5,7 % in 2014 to 5,2 % in 2015; highlights that the trend of the reduced level of error for the 2007-2013 programming period compared to the 2000-2006 period, which is a result of the strengthened management and control systems of Member States and the corrective measures taken by the Commission;
Amendment 10 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the main sources of errors are those found in the application of rules on eligibility, infringements of public procurement rules and state aid rules; underlines that for errors made in 2015 may also bethere is still a possibility of correctedion before closure; notes with satisfaction the significant improvements in audit authorities’ controls compared to the previous year;
Amendment 11 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Reminds that 2014 was a start of new programming period, however, most of the Cohesion Policy's payments in 2014 were related to the previous programming period;
Amendment 17 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. UrgeAsks the Commission through the 1 HLG to pay specific attention to national eligibility rules in its audit of national management and control systems, helping Member States to simplify them; urgescalls on the Commission through guidance to clarify the notion of recoverable VAT by providing guidanc; and further urges the HLG to rethink its recommendation as soon as possible to allow changes to be made; _________________ 1 High Level Group of Independent Experts on Monitoring Simplification for Beneficiaries of the European Structural and Investment Funds
Amendment 28 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses its concern that managing authorities presented a lower level of cost claims for reimbursement in 2015 than in 2014, which led to a fall in the level of unpaid cost claims from EUR 23,2 billion in 2014 to EUR 10,8 billion in 2015, of which EUR 2,8 billion had remained unpaid since the end of 2014; points out the risk that delays in the budgetary execution for 2014-2020 period willshould not be greater than those for the previous period;
Amendment 34 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes with concern the delayed start-up of the 2014-2020 programming period and(most of the Cohesion Policy's payments in 2014 being related to the previous programming period) and the fact that by the end of 2015 fewer than 20 % of the national authorities responsible for ESI funds had been designated; urges Member States to speed up this process and the Commission to provide assistance and clarifications;
Amendment 42 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes with concern that the average disbursement rate for 1 025 ERDF and ESF financial instruments was 57 % at the end of 2014, which represents only a 10 % increase compared to 2013; notes the Court’s observation on the extention of the eligibility period of disbursements made to final recipients within financial instruments by means of a Commission Decision rather than an amending Regulation; expresses concern that the Court might consider all disbursements after 31 December 2015 irregular;
Amendment 46 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to propose measures to achieve balance between greater simplification and strict application of rules and the good fiscal management and notes that the interruption and suspension of payments in case of irregularities should be the measures of the last resort;
Amendment 51 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Acknowledges the revised Financial Regulation recently proposed by the Commission with its supporting acts, as well as the proposed review of the MFF, aiming at simplification of procedures and more flexibility and synergies; urges the Commission, all institutions and stakeholders involved to reconsider the delivery mechanism for the ESI funds post 2020, taking into account the suggestions of the HLG;
Amendment 53 #
2016/2151(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Welcomes the Court’s approach to focus on performance and considers it good practice that managing authorities define relevant result indicators measuring the contribution of the projects to the achievement of the objectives set for the operational programmes.; asks for a strategy on capacity building in Members States in order to facilitate cohesion policy; stresses the need to intensify communication of results for European citizens to make the European added value more visible; and finally calls on the Commission to develop a limited number of relevant indicators which can help measure performance;
Amendment 16 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the major EIB shareholders, i.e. Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain, received more than 50 % of financing in 2015, while othe newr Member States received less than 20 %; asks the EIB and the Commission to provide more technical assistance to those Member States having a lower share in total EIB financing;
Amendment 29 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recognises that the quality of the loan portfolio remains high thanks to the prudent risk management policies pursued; requests the EIB, however, to increase its risk appetite while maintaining a high loan portfolio level; Points out that loans must not be allowed to replace grants;
Amendment 43 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is concernedSuggests that the SME Initiative is notshould be deliveringed as planned;
Amendment 53 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Requests the Member States to make full use of their allocation of ESI Funds and additionality, thus complementing EIB loans and financial instruments; asks, moreover, for greabetter blending of grants with EIB financing;
Amendment 59 #
2016/2098(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on the EIB to increase its financing of economic and social cohesion as well as of the urban objectives; calls, moreover, for the development of special financial instruments for macroregional strategies;
Amendment 22 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5a (new)
Paragraph 5a (new)
5a. Is of the opinion that decommitments - in particular underheading 1b - but also across all headings, resulting from justified total or partial non-implementation, should be re- injected into the annual budgetary procedure; calls on the Commission to make proposals to this regard already concerning the 2017 budget;
Amendment 26 #
2016/2047(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5b (new)
Paragraph 5b (new)
5b. Takes note of the Commission’s proposal on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme with a financial envelope of EUR 142 800 000 and underlines that this funding should be allocated with a view to strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion;
Amendment 1 #
2016/2045(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Draws attention to its resolution of 3 April 2014 on the Court of Auditors’ special reports in the context of the 2012 Commission discharge, which expressed support for the ECA’s finding that ‘around 30 % (EUR 144 million) of the EUSF contributions was earmarked for operations which were fully eligible under the EUSF Regulation; however, the CASE project (Italian acronym for ‘Complessi Antisisminici Sostenibili Ecocompatibiliti’, i.e. seismically isolated and environmentally sustainable housing), while relevant to the actual needs, did not comply with specific provisions of the EUSF Regulation; this was because it constructed new permanent buildings instead of temporary houses; the CASE project took 70 % of the funding – EUR 350 million; the strategy chosen for CASE project addressed the housing needs of 15 000 of the earthquake-affected population, but did not respond in a timely manner and with sufficient capacity to the actual needs of the population; the CASDE houses were more expensive than standard houses’; regrets that in many cases the quality of the CASE project has been found to be very poor and some houses have collapsed some projects, while relevant to the actual needs, did not comply with specific provisions of the EUSF Regulation; for example one project did not respond in a timely manner and with sufficient capacity to the actual needs of the population; asks the Commission to explain how, in the revised Regulation on the European Union Solidarity Fund that entered into force on 28 June 2014, the shortcomings identified by the Court of Auditors in the delivery of emergency aid to the Abruzzo region have been solved;
Amendment 4 #
2016/2045(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 17 #
2016/2045(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Regrets the fact that in manysome cases a serious lack of transparency has been noted regarding the use and the destination of the EUSF; asks for an improvement in the ex post monitoring system for spending and strongly believes that the final reports provided by Member States should be public and accessible;
Amendment 35 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
Amendment 96 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 125
Article 125
Amendment 253 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 60
Recital 60
Amendment 329 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 178
Recital 178
Amendment 538 #
2016/0282(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 125 – paragraph 1
Article 125 – paragraph 1
Amendment 20 #
2015/2319(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to set up ainvestigate whether a new complaints mechanism, is required if the definition of balanced composition is contested by interested stakeholders or whether current arrangements are adequate;
Amendment 9 #
2015/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Welcomes the guidelines for inter- agency procurement procedures and for agencies' participation in Commission-led procurement procedures; acknowledges the benefits not only for agencies but also for the Commission to create synergies and pool procurement procedures within the framework of the Common Approach; regrets in this context that the Commission has plans to introduce administrative fees to the agencies for its services; reminds the Commission that the agencies are paid from the same Union budget and that these fees could result in lower participation in joint procurement procedures; calls on the Commission to reconsider the introduction of fees to agencies for procurement procedures led by the Commission;
Amendment 23 #
2015/2205(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Reminds the Court of Auditors that the Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in paragraph 54 of the Common Approach that all aspects of outsourced external audits "remain under the full responsibility of the Court, which manages all administrative and procurement procedures required and finances these, as well as any other costs associated with outsourced external audits, from its own budget""; asks the Commission to clarify urgently whether or not this still applies; deeply regrets that the new audit approach involving private sector auditors resulted in an 85% increase in administrative burden on the agencies, equating to more than 13 000 additional hours or an average of 3,5 full time equivalents (FTEs) compared with the previous audit managed by the Court of Auditors; regrets that the time spent on the procurement and administration of audit contracts created more than 1 400 man hours of additional work for the decentralised agencies, and that the total additional expenditure on external private sector audits in 2014 amounted to EUR 550 000; reiterates its call to the Court of Auditors to follow the agreed Common Approach and contract and pay for agencies' external auditors andcalls on the Court of Auditors to provide better guidance to private auditors so as significantly to reduce the augmented administrative burden;
Amendment 14 #
2015/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Notes that the Office made publicly available its Consolidated Annual Activity Report on its website;
Amendment 15 #
2015/2186(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Acknowledges from the Office that the tender criteria for its on-going procurement procedures are published on its website, together with an annual overview of the completed contracts; takes note that the Office is to publish the procurement overview for the financial year 2015 by the end of June 2106 as required by the Financial Regulation;
Amendment 5 #
2015/2185(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas, according to its financial statements, the final budget of the Euratom Supply Agency (“the Agency”) for the financial year 2014 was EUR 104 000; whereas the entire budget of the Agency derives from the Union budget,, representing the same amount as in 2013;
Amendment 12 #
2015/2175(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes note that the Commission's Internal Audit Service (IAS) performed a review in 2014 and issued seven recommendations; observes that no findings classified as “Critical” were raised by the IAS during their audits and that four findings classified as “very important” were raised during three audits performed between 2009 and 2013; notes that the Agency took corrective actions related to the recommendations resulting from the IAS’ audits and marked them as “ready for review” in the preparation of the IAS follow-up audit; notes that in 2014 the IAS did not perform a formal assessment on the progress made by the Agency in the implementation of those recommendations; notes from the agency that in February 2016 the IAS reported that all four recommendations based on the findings classified as “very important” were marked as "implemented";
Amendment 15 #
2015/2171(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Takes note that in 2014, the Agency carried out an administrative procedure againstwith respect to its Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) managerDivision; notes that significant weaknesses in management control were reported, implying considerable operational and financial risks to the Agency; notes from the Agency that no considerable financial risks were reported in the administrative enquiry to the Agency’s Executive Director; observes that an action plan to address the issue was established and implemented; calls on the Agency to report to the discharge authority on the effectiveness of the measures taken after they have been evaluated;
Amendment 5 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes, that the Annual report of the Court of Auditors ("the Court") of 10 November 2015 on the implementation of the 2014 budget of the European Union found the error rate in Cohesion Policy to be estimated at 5,7%, which represents an slight increase as compared to 2013 (5,3%); expresses its concern at this increase, which is especially significant as far as errors with financial implications and serious negative effects on the budget are concerned;
Amendment 13 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considering that non-fraudulent irregularities result mainly from weak financial management and control systems, calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that appropriate, efficient and effective financial management and control systems are set up in accordance with the relevant rules of the regulatory framework; also recalls that all irregularities are not fraud and that non- fraudulent and fraudulent irregularities must be differentiated;
Amendment 25 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the implementation of Cohesion Policy in Member States involves substantial national and regional procedures and rules, which constitute an additional layer and in turn lead to, which can entail irregularities; calls on the Commission to contribute to simplification of implementation at the level of Member States and regions;
Amendment 35 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that administrative capacity is essential for regular and efficient use of European Structural and Investment Funds and; calls on the Commission and Member States to reinforce the exchange of knowledge and good practices by also organising and providing seminars and trainings;
Amendment 37 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to efficiently and effectively implement the data mining tool ARACHNE, a tool aimed at supporting the Management and Control Systems of the Operational Programmes in order to lower the error rate, to prevent and detect risks related to corruption in public procurement, conflict of interest, concentration of funding and suspicion of fraud;
Amendment 48 #
2015/2154(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. CNotes that the error rate could have been 3.3% lower, if Member States used all the information available and provided in order to avoid the errors; calls on the Commission to propose measures to achieve balance between greater simplification and strict application of rules and sound financial management; notes that the interruption and suspension of payments in case of irregularities could hinder the implementation of certain projects and programmes.
Amendment 5 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with concern the decrease of payment appropriations under heading 1b to EUR 49 billion (-4% as compared to 2015), and questions whether the amounts proposed in the Draft Budget (DB) 2016 for heading 1b are indeed sufficient to face the current unprecedented level of payments needed because of the backlog under this heading;
Amendment 13 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls the need for sufficient resources to ensure, on the intended impactone hand, the proper implementation of the programmes, and on the one hand, and ofther, their multiannual operation, on the other, which together call for appropriate and definitivemeans and measures in order to minimise the risk of recurrence of the backlog of payments in later stages of the cohesion policy implementation;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to thoroughly monitor, in close cooperation with the Member States and regions, and to prepare a detailed forecast on the evolution of payments under heading 1b related to the 2014-2020 programming period, using measurable and thus comparable key performance indicators which will account for the efficiency and effectiveness of the budget appropriations;
Amendment 24 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes note ofWelcomes the Commission's proposal for a preparatory action under heading 1b, which is open to all Member States, and is intended to finance capacity development and institution building to support the implementation of reforms identified as priorities in the lifecycle of the macroeconomic surveillance, and calls for further similar initiatives in the future.
Amendment 99 #
2015/2132(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 c (new)
Paragraph 67 c (new)
67c. Stresses that Parliament and the Council must address the need for a roadmap to a single seat, as requested by the large majority of this Parliament in several resolutions, in order to create long term savings in the Union budget;
Amendment 5 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Annual Report as the first by this Commission; stresses that the protection of the EU’s financial interests is at the core of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; stresses that not all irregularities are fraud; notes that through a number of measures the Commission and the Member States have increased their effectiveness in fighting the overall rate of fraudulent or non-fraudulent irregularities in order to ensure that EU funds are protected from fraud; notes a total of 1 649 cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent, this being 2 % more than in 2013 and representing EUR 538 million in EU funds;
Amendment 26 #
2015/2128(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that measures to detect irregularities continue to vary between Member States, mainly on account of differing definitions of irregularities; welcomes the preventive and corrective measures taken by the Commission to avoid fraudulent irregularities, including by interrupting 193 payments under the cohesion policy; encourages the exchange of good practices between Member States to prevent and detect fraud;
Amendment 5 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the cohesion policy represents the main EU investment policy in the real economy; highlights that in someeveral Member States it is the main source of funding for investments developing synergies and having a multiplying effect in economic growth and job creation;
Amendment 19 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is seriously concerned about the recurrent problem of the backlog of payments, which reached €24 billion at the end of 2014, especially under the cohesion policy, which creates a de facto debt in the EU budget, and stresses that there is a danger of perpetuating the ‘snow ball' effect of accumulating unpaid invoices at year's end unless a tangible and sustainable solution is found, as fast as possible, by the budgetary authority together with the Commission;
Amendment 28 #
2015/2074(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Demands that once the payment plan to be agreed between Parliament, the Council and the Commission is agreed, in line with the joint statement of December 2014 of the Parliament and of the Council in the framework of the agreement reached on 2014 and 2015 budgets, beit is implemented without any further delay; calls, to this end, for sufficient payment appropriations to be provided under heading 1b within the 2016 budget, with a view to decreasing the level of the backlog as much as possible by the end of the year; underlines the urgency of addressing this issue in a proper way, as the situation of outstanding payments undermines the credibility, effectiveness and sustainability of the policycohesion policy due to the backlog in payments negatively impacting on the budgets of Member States and ultimately hampering the funding of beneficiaries.
Amendment 19 #
2014/2248(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Requests that the Financial Regulation be updated in order to clarify the objectives of the discharge procedure and to clearly define the sanctions to be imposed for not respecting this procedureprovide measures to ensure the discharge process is respected, including possible enforcement measures to ensure appropriate follow-up, such as the use of sanctions; highlights that this should be done in order to hold the EU institutions accountable with the aim of protecting the financial interests of EU citizens; stresses that there should be no exceptions;
Amendment 61 #
2014/2245(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Reiterates the original role of cohesion policy to promote economic, social and territorial development and reduce regional disparities; underlines that by its nature and original set up, as stipulated in the Treaty, the policy contributes inherently to the objectives of the Union, in particular to the Europe 2020 goals of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; as well as the fundamental Treaty objective to strengthen territorial cohesion;
Amendment 130 #
2014/2245(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Emphasises that cohesion policy needs to be conducted within the spirit of properly functioning multi-level governance, combined with an effective set-up for responding to the requests of the public and businesses, and with transparent and innovative public procurement, all of which is crucial to enhancing the policy’s impact; stresses, in this regard, that, notwithstanding the importance of decisions taken at EU and Member State levels, local and regional authorities often have primary administrative responsibility for public investment, and that cohesion policy is a vital tool enabling these authorities to play a key role in the EU; stresses that thisMember States and Managing authorities should involve the local and regional levels of responsibility should be taken into consideration, in keeping with the partnership principle, detailed in the Article 5 of the Common Provisions Regulation;
Amendment 139 #
2014/2245(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Is convinced that the European Code of Conduct on Partnership will oblige Member States and Managing Authorities to strengthen participation in programming in the regions, in form and substance, and has a fundamental role to play in boosting the effects of cohesion policy and consolidating its impact; on the ground, increasing efficiency and absorption rates; furthermore asks the Commission to report to the Parliament on the state-of- play of the implementation of the Partnership Principle and how Member States are dealing with the involvement of associations of local and regional authorities, as well as of civil society organisations;
Amendment 762 #
2014/2228(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv
(xiv) to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances, which can be achieved withoutle benefiting from no greater rights than domestic investors; to oppose the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism; such a mechanism is not necessary in TTIP given the EU’s and the US’ developed legal systems; a state-to- state dispute settlement system and the use of national courts are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputin TTIP, as other options to enforce investment protection are available, such as domestic remedies;
Amendment 4 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Points out that the role of the executive agencies is to help the commission manage Union programmes on behalf of the Union itself;
Amendment 5 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) Calls on the Commission and the Network to improve their communication policies to ensure agencies communicate effectively with citizens, in order to raise awareness of productivity and achievements;
Amendment 6 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes from the Court of Auditors’ summary of the results of its 2013 annual audits of the European Agencies and other bodies (the ‘Court’s summary’) that the agencies’ 2013 budget amounted to some EUR 2 billion, representing an increase of 25 % compared to 2012 and about 1,4 % of the Union’s general budget; notes that this increase mainly results from the newly established agencies and new responsibilities for some agencies; observes from the Court’s summary that the agencies employ around 6 500 permanent and temporary officials representing 14 % of the total number of Union officials authorised under the general Union budget; notes furthermore that around 2 900 contract or seconded staff are working for the agencies;
Amendment 9 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that on the basis of the agencies’ contribution, the Commission elaborated guidelines with standard provisions for headquarter agreements between decentralised agencies and host Member States; notes with concern that 10 agencies6 still do not have a headquarter agreement; Urges these agencies to pursue headquarter agreements as a priority in order to save costs and increase efficiency; __________________ 6 CdT, CPVO, EASA, EMA, ERA, ESMA, eu-LISA, EU-OSHA, Eurofound, Frontex.
Amendment 13 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Ascertains that the Commission improved its service to agencies both in the form of general and specific recommendations by using the information and suggestions provided by the Network; notes that in the context of constrained financial and human resources, these improvements have led to the consideration of possible structural measures to rationalise the functioning of the agencies; notes that these measures already produced results such as sharing services between agencies and encourages agencies to continue these efforts;
Amendment 17 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Takes note that the high level of cancellations of carryovers from previous years was noted by the Court only in seven cases; observes that such carryovers indicate that the appropriations carried over were made on the basis of over-estimated needs or were otherwise not justified; acknowledges from the Network that the level of cancellation is indicative of the extent to which the agencies have correctly anticipated their financial needs, and is a better indicator of a good budgetary planning than the level of carryovers; therefore calls on the agencies concerned to implement better budgetary planning processes in order to avoid carryovers and calls on the agencies to inform the discharge authority on progress and results;
Amendment 20 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Performance 19 a. Welcomes that a common set of principles for efficient and effective results oriented management, as well as common guidelines on performance measurement systems, multi-annual and annual programming documents and reporting and evaluation tools have been agreed on; Emphasises that it is important that the Network becomes a member of the new Inter-institutional Working Group on Performance to encourage common understanding of the concept of a good and improved performance; Requests that the Court of Auditors provides an evaluation of the agencies' performance and results in time for the review in the 2016 Multiannual Financial Framework;
Amendment 23 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Acknowledges from the Network that some agencies are already facing serious difficulties in fulfilling their mandates with the limited resources put at their disposal; notes with concern that it will be difficult for the agencies to provide the same level of quality of work if this process of additional staff reductions continues, as the Union is entrusting an increasing number of tasks and responsibilities to them; calls on the Commission to review its plan regarding the additional staff reductions and to adapt it to the specific situation of well-functioning agencies which are successful in fulfilling their mandates and are valued for the work they doaccording to the workload and resource demands of each agency;
Amendment 30 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Takes note that 61 % of the agencies have already published the CVs and declarations of interests of their management board members, management staff and external and in-house experts on their website; acknowledges that the remaining agencies willhave agreed to publish the same information upon adoption of revised policies;
Amendment 43 #
2014/2139(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Amendment 16 #
2014/2077(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas direct budget support remains highly risky as money introduced into the general budget of the state/country cannot be sufficiently monitoredquires close monitoring and policy dialogue between the EU and the partner country regarding objectives, progress towards agreed results and performance indicators; whereas risks associated to budget support are subject to a systematic risk analysis and a risk mitigation strategy.
Amendment 70 #
2014/2077(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65
Paragraph 65
65. Regrets the weaknesses identified in thUnderlines the importance of maintaining a close coordination between donors and within the Commission's services; calls for a bettercontinuous articulation of humanitarian aid and development aid, with a stronger link between relief, rehabilitation and development by means of a permanent LRRD23 interservices platform; considers that integrated approaches with clearly stated coordination objectives and a coherent country strategy between ECHO and EuropeAid alongside with best practices sharing have to be set up wherever possible; invites the Commission to enter into a dialogue with Parliament; believes also that the involvement of local civil society non-governmental organisations can strengthen the use of the local knowledge base; __________________ 23 LRRD = Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development.
Amendment 2 #
2014/2075(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the Court of Auditors ('the Court') has concluded that regional policy remains one of the policy areas which is particularly error prone and that there is not much difference observed in 2013 as compared to 2012, as the most likely error rate for 2013 was set at 6,9 % (as compared to 6,8 % in 2012); underlines that there is a clear difference between error and fraud and that fraud represents 0.2% of the EU's total budget; highlights furthermore that simplification of rules is key to reducing errors;
Amendment 17 #
2014/2075(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. AcknowledgNotes the corrective actions taken by the Commission in terms of suspension and interruption of payments; recalls that these measures may hinder the smooth implementation of projects as they do not contribute to reaching the goals of cohesion policy, due to the short time required for the proper absorption of Union funds; urges the Commission to undertake interruption and suspension of payments only as a last resort in cases where serious deficiencies in management and control systems are identified; requests the Commission to repinfortm tohe Parliament on the real contribution of interruptions and suspensions of payments to reducing irregularities and errors;
Amendment 25 #
2014/2075(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that 80 % of funding is administered under shared management at Member State level and that the Court found that for the majority of errors identified there was sufficient information available for Member States to detect these errors themselves; points out, therefore, that measures such as assisting with audit procedures, improving administrative capacity on procurement, eligibility rules and state aid, and focusing on simplification and on a risk-based approach should be taken and implemented at Member State level;
Amendment 2 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls its deep concern about the fact that the Commission finds it increasingly difficult to honour all payments requests in the year within the limits of the payment appropriations originally voted and stresses that one reason for this situation is that commitment appropriations have been close to the ceiling defined while payment appropriations have been kept to a minimum during each period; calls on the Commission to provide information on when resulting delays in payments are likely to occur;
Amendment 2 #
2014/2040(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is of the opinion that the amounts entered in the Draft Budget (DB) 2015 for heading 1b to cover the minimum needs and objectives of cohesion policy as set by the Union in the Treaty and in the policy legislative framework for 2014-2020 are insufficientshould be restored;
Amendment 6 #
2013/2260(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Expresses its concern at the fact that none of the four agencies selected managesd conflicts of interest in a fully satisfactory manner at the time of the Court of Auditors' analysis;
Amendment 15 #
2013/2260(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 148
Paragraph 148
148. Deeply rRegrets that the Parliament is still waiting for answers fromto be informed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as to whether or not any irregularities were found to have taken place and if a further follow- up was required;
Amendment 3 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Commission discharge/Postpones its decision on granting the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012;
Amendment 9 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants 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 2012 / Postpones 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 2012;
Amendment 11 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (formerly the Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones 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 2012;
Amendment 13 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 4
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency (formerly the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones its decision on granting the Director of the Consumers, Health and Food Executive Agency (formerly the Executive Agency for Health and Consumers) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012;
Amendment 15 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 5
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the European Research Council Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones 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 2012;
Amendment 17 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 6
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Research Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones 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 2012;
Amendment 19 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Proposal for a decision 7
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Grants the Director of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (formerly the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency) discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2012 / Postpones 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 2012;
Amendment 23 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
- having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/20061a; _____________ 1a OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320.
Amendment 26 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the Commission’'s management should be presented fairly, along with that of the Member States responsible under shared management of funds, with a view to reinforcing public trust in the Institutions;
Amendment 32 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1
Heading 1
Amendment 44 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that, according to the Communication from the Commission on Protection of the European Union budget86 , eight only a limited number of Member States are responsible for 9080 % of the financial corrections in the fields under shared management; __________________ 86 COM(2013) 682, 26 September 2013.
Amendment 46 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point a
Paragraph 5 – point a
(a) step up supervision and control in those Member States with the most dangerous risk profile for the implementation of EUbiggest risk profile in terms of management and control of Union programmes,
Amendment 48 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point b
Paragraph 5 – point b
(b) continue to suspend payments and halt programmes, if legally possible, in cases where serious shortcomings have occurred,
Amendment 50 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point c
Paragraph 5 – point c
(c) continue to supply meaningful statisticsnecessary financial data, which facilitates a thorough analysis of Member States;
Amendment 55 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Welcomes the new rules for the 2014- 2020 programming period, decided through the co-decision procedure, including measures such as the designations of audit and certifying authorities, accreditations of audit authorities, audit examination and acceptance of accounts, financial corrections and net financial corrections, proportional control, ex-ante conditionalities that aim to further contribute to the reduction of the level of error; supports in this respect the growing results orientation and the thematic concentration of cohesion policy that should ensure high added-value of the co- financed operations; welcomes also the definition of serious deficiency and the anticipated increased level of corrections for repeated deficiencies;
Amendment 58 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that, in the new programming period 2014-2020, net financial corrections can be imposed in the event of serious shortcomingdeficiencies in the implementation of cohesion policy and will remain the standard in the area of agriculture;
Amendment 61 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 - Subheading 3 - Sub-subheading 1 a (new)
Heading 1 - Subheading 3 - Sub-subheading 1 a (new)
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Amendment 62 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. StressNotes that the application of netall financial corrections in the field of agriculture does not yet constitute the anticipated progress, as (a) the Commission’s existing internal rules already stipulate that the duration of conformity procedures must not exceedare net corrections; considers it necessary, however, for improvements two years and (b) the so-called ‘new’ criteria and methodology for applyingbe made in the criteria and methods of application of net financial corrections mentibeyoned in Annex I to the Communication refer explicitly to guidelines that will be based on the existing othe guidelines adopted by the Commission as long ago ason 23 December 1997;
Amendment 66 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 - Subheading 3 - Sub-subheading 1 b (new)
Heading 1 - Subheading 3 - Sub-subheading 1 b (new)
Cohesion Policy
Amendment 68 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that it depends on many factors whether the new instrument will lead to more net corrections and hence to a lower error rate in cohesion policy; considers it problematic, moreover, that there are ways in which Member States can avoid net financial corrections (no limit on the replacement of projects until 15 February of year ‘n+1’, no time limit on notification by Member States of their own past errors, protracted objection procedures);
Amendment 71 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the effectiveness of this instrument also cannot yet be assessed because its application depends on the drafting and adoption of a delegated actetail adopted in a delegated act expected in April 2014;
Amendment 74 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes furthermore that thsome audit reports of the Member States, on which constitute one of the elements feeding into the Commission’s risk analysis is based, are themselves often faulty and therefore unreliable; notes furthermore that the Court of Auditors only recently confirmed that ‘(…) the European Commission cannot unquestioningly rely on the results of audits performed by the Member States in relation to EU regional funding appropriations’88 ; __________________ 88 Press release ECA/13/47 of the Court of Auditors on Special Report 16/2013 on the ’single audit’, 18 December 2013.
Amendment 83 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 - Subheading 4
Heading 1 - Subheading 4
Amendment 93 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Amendment 96 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Is not prepared to accept the situationRemains very concerned that for years the majority of the errors identified by the Court ought to be have been identified by the Member States themselves; considers, therefore, that in some Member States the audit results and procedures constitute an inadequate basis for assessments and financial corrections by the Commission, and expects significant improvements in this regard in the funding period 2014- 2020;
Amendment 103 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Observes that the error rate in the field of rural development is 7.9 %; is concerned that the Commission does not anticipate , environment, fisheries and health is 7.9 %; regrets that due to the delay between payment claims, payments, controls and reported statistics, no significanyt improvemenact ion the situationerror rate can be expected before 2014, although an action plan was adopted in 2012t the earliest;
Amendment 107 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 111 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Points out in particular that, despite decisions on flat-rate corrections, the errors detected in 2006 in France and Portugal were still not fully remedied by the two Member States in 2012; stresses that from 2006 to 2013 direct payments were made whose legality and regularity were not fully guaranteed and highlights that European tax-payers’' money has been wrongly paid to final beneficiaries without recovery; notes that significant financial corrections have been imposed by the Commission on both Member States, and calls on the Commission to use further net corrections to cover the entire financial risk to the Union budget posed by these errors;
Amendment 120 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Heading 1 - Subheading 6
Heading 1 - Subheading 6
in the field of regional policy, energy and transport
Amendment 121 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Observes that there is no evidence that thaccording to the audits of both the Court of Auditors and the Commission, some audit authorities of some Member States are not carrying out their audits with the requisite thoroughness and that it is not sufficiently apparent whether and in what respect they are permanently improving their supervisory and control systems;
Amendment 132 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls, in the field of agricultural policy, for conformity clearance procedures in standard cases to be completed win less thain two years;
Amendment 135 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls, in order to remedy shortcomings in LPIS systems, for conformity procedures to be shortened and action plans to be implemented promptly; calls, in the event of failure to comply with the deadlines, for net corrections to be made in the action plans in the Member States concerned as part of the confirmity clearance procedureproportionate reduction and suspension of monthly or intermediate payments to the Member States concerned;
Amendment 151 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Is aware that forthcoming net financial corrections cannot entail automatic penalties, as this would be contrary to the rule of law; calls, therefore, on the Commission to do everything in its power to shorten the adversarial procedures preceding the imposition of net corrections or interruptions of payments; calls on the Commission to submit a report and a proposal on the subject; undertakes as of now that the European Parliament will support the Commission in this matter if Member States raise objections;
Amendment 172 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Regards the newly elected Parliament as being in a position to investigCalls on the Commission and all Member States to commit to implementing the actions called for in points [22-30] and to report on progress made; requires thate the reservations in the fields of agriculture and regional policy and lift tCommission presents its progress report to Parliament by the end of 2014; requests that the Council also reports on the implementation of the priority actions falling under Member States' responsibility whemn ift appropriate progress is madedopts its next discharge recommendation;
Amendment 174 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. CallRecommends that the relevant committees oin the newly elected Parliament to raise the issue of control measures to address the weaknesses in the fields of agricultural and regional policy indicated here at the hearings of the designatedwith members of the new Commission and to demand appropriate pledges in order to improvcontinue improvement in the protection of the EU budget;
Amendment 178 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls on the newly elected Parliament, in the spirit of the above, to probe all legal means of achieving further legislative improvements, if appropriate, in the context of the mid-term reviews of the Multiannual Financial Frameworkrelevant legislation;
Amendment 189 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recalls that the most likely error rate for payments in the financial year 2011 was estimated at 3.9 %, in the financial year 2010 at 3.7 % and in the financial year 2009 at 3.3 %; deplores this increase because it reverses the positive trend observed in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009; acknowledges, however, that the closing phase of programmes is associated with a rise in error rates;
Amendment 196 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Welcomes the fact that while the Commission succeeded in rapidly imposing a significant number of financial corrections in 2012 whilst many, some financial corrections are in general made manymade a number of years after the initial disbursement of funds; is critical of the fact that the EU budget incursoverly long procedures create additional administrative costs and losses of revenue and interest due to excessively protracted procedures;
Amendment 198 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Notes that the 2012 accounts record a EUR 1.8 billion financial correction on the 2000-2006 use of cohesion policy funds in Spain, which corresponds to 49 % of the total corrections in 2012; regrets that in acc and acknowledges this as an impordtance witht example of cuorrent rules, authorities in Spain were entitled to further funding amounting to EUR 1 390 millionctive action being carried out where deficiencies were identified;
Amendment 202 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Takes note that 142 directors-general and two directors of executive agencies made a total of 23 quantified reservations related to the expenditure and that the Director-General of DG Budget qualified his declaration on revenue;
Amendment 205 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64
Paragraph 64
64. Points out that, as the Commission quantifies the amount at risk at between 1.,9 % (EUR 2.,6 billion) and 2.,6 % (EUR 3.,5 billion) of total payments for the year, it acknowledg; notes that the level of error in expenditure is likely to be material, especially since the Commission itself states that amounts at risk in a number of areas, in particular rural development, are likely to be underestimated;variable due to the different quality of audit and control at Member State level,
Amendment 208 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65
Paragraph 65
65. ConsiderNotes that the comparison made by the Commission’s Synthesis Report of the total for ‘amounts at risk’ with the average level of financial corrections over the last years should be put into context (timing and impact of the financial corrections on Member States and beneficiaries, likely underestimation of the amounts at risk andumulative financial corrections implemented to end of 2012 for ERDF, Cohesion Fund and ESF programmes in the current programming period amount to 0,2%, and considers that the error rates in the Court of Auditors' Annual Report should be seen in the context of the EUR 4,5 billion in financial corrections implemented for 2012, for which there is no re-use of the funds);
Amendment 210 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66
Paragraph 66
66. Notes the cuts in payments brought by the Council, which have resulted in decreases in payment appropriations as compared to the adopted budgets; underlines that Council keeps following its strategy to artificially cut the level of payments, without taking into consideration real needs, and notes with concern that the substantial gap between appropriations for commitment and payment, coupled with a large amount of underspending at the start of the current2007-2013 programming period, has caused a build-up equivalent to two years and three months’' worth of unused commitments;
Amendment 211 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. NStresses that the recurrent shortages of payment appropriations have been the main cause of the unprecedentedly high level of RALs especially in the last years of the 2007 -2013 MFF; notes with deep concern that the Commission is finding it increasingly difficult to meet all requests for payments in the year within the budget appropriations for payment and that the cumulative total of appropriations available for payments over the period 2007-2013 has exceeded the cumulative total of payment appropriations available over the same period by EUR 114 million; notes that this is EUR 64 billion more than the difference of EUR 50 billion between the total of commitment appropriations and payment appropriations envisaged in the financial framework;
Amendment 212 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Expresses concern over the fact that the Commission’'s outstanding budgetary commitments for which payments and/or decommitments have not yet been made increased by EUR 10 billion to EUR 217 billion and that EUR 16.2 billion of claims for payment were outstanding at the end of 2012 (EUR 10.7 billion at the end of 2011 and EUR 6.4 billion at the end of 2010); is further concerned that 52 % of the payment appropriations requested in the draft budget 2014 are devoted to the completion of 2007 - 2013 MFF programmes;
Amendment 214 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68 a (new)
Paragraph 68 a (new)
68a. Deplores that the European Commission's DG for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection was unable to honour EUR 60 million of its payment obligations in a timely way in 2012 (and EUR 160 million in 2013) with grave consequences for both vulnerable people and those NGOs trying to support them; given the urgent lifesaving nature, rapid project cycle and modest budget (EUR 2 per citizen per year) involved in the Union emergency response, calls on the Commission and the budgetary authority to recognise the exceptional nature and specificity of these actions by ensuring matching levels of commitment and payment appropriations for humanitarian aid in the annual budgetary cycle;
Amendment 222 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Deplores the fact that for the majority of transactions affected by error in shared management areas (e.g. agriculture and cohesion), the Member State authorities had sufficient information to detect and correct the errors; calls, therefore, on the Member States and the Commission once again to urgently reinforce first-level checks to address this unacceptably high level of mismanagement; when weaknesses in the management and control systems in Member States are found, calls for the Commission to protect the Union budget by applying financial correction in these cases;
Amendment 226 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Notes that the lack of reliability of the first-level checks performed by somea limited number of Member States undermines the credibility of the annual activity reports drafted by the Commission services and the Synthesis Report adopted by the Commission, as they are partially based on the results of the checks performed by the national authorities; reiterates, consequently, its previous demand that the Commission establish reliable and objective annual activity reports;
Amendment 239 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 91
Paragraph 91
91. In particular, points out that the most frequent accuracy errors relate to over- declarations of land and to administrative errors, and that the larger accuracy errors relate mostly to excessive payments for permanent pasture; regrets that cross- checks of declared parcels with the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) in certain Member States failed to detect some over-declarations because the LPIS database is only reliable to a limited extentpartially reliable;
Amendment 242 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93
Paragraph 93
93. NWhile taking note of the Commission's view that cross-compliance triggers administrative penalties, notes that the Court of Auditors also takes into accounts of breaches of cross- compliance requirements i when calculating the error rate98 ; __________________ 98 Footnote 15, point 3.9 of the annual report of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2012.
Amendment 243 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98
Paragraph 98
98. Deplores the fact that the results of this new approach confirm that only limited assurance can be gained from thecertain Member States’' inspection statistics, from the declarations of the directors of paying agencies and from the work carried out by the certification bodies; calls for this new approach to extend to all CAP expenditure in DG AGRI's next Annual Activity Report;
Amendment 245 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 99
Paragraph 99
99. Deeply rRegrets that the Commission has not fully implemented theout of seven recommendations issued by the Court of Auditors in its annual reports for the financial years 2009 and 2010, only two were implemented in most respects and four in some respects by the Commission;
Amendment 247 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 102
Paragraph 102
102. Deplores in this regard that deficiencies were detected by the Court of Auditors and the Commission in the LPIS systems in Portugal and in France in the course of the 2006/2007 audits, whilst the Director- General of DG AGRI only entered a reservation accompanied by an action plan on these grounds as regards Portugal in his DG’s annual activity report of 2011 and as regards France in 2012;
Amendment 248 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103
Paragraph 103
103. Considers that this practice of delaye adverse effects on effective Union budget protection can result from any delay in making the reservation to be accompanied by an action plan does not fully guarantee that the budget of the European Union is well protected, request for an action plan and points out that the Commission bears particular responsibility in this regard;
Amendment 250 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 105
Paragraph 105
105. Shares the concern voiced by the Court of Auditors as regards the length of the conformity procedure leading to the financial corrections (paragraph 4.31 of the annual report of the ECA for 2012) and deeply deplores the fact that a sample of conformity procedures showed that in 2012 the actual time, more than four years, was twice that set downas long as in the Commission's internal guidelines, which resultinged in a considerable backlog and therefore ultimately substantial losses to the EU budget; calls on the Commission to take all possible steps to ensure that the duration of conformity procedures is reduced to a maximum of two years101 ; __________________ 101 See also the answer to Written Question No 12 to Commissioner Cioloş, hearing of 17 December 2013: average duration of audits with financial corrections after conciliation procedure 1124 days.
Amendment 253 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 112
Paragraph 112
112. Reiterates its regret that in 2012 the Commission followsed different methodologies to quantify public procurement errors in the policy areas of agriculture and cohesion, both of which furthermore are not in line with the Court of Auditors’' methodology, and calls on the Commission and the Court of Auditors to harmonise the treatment of public procurement errors in theseand to report two policy areas without delaythe discharge authority on the changes;
Amendment 256 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 120
Paragraph 120
120. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has increased the total amount of financial corrections in recent years whilst reducing the proportion of flat-rate corrections significantly in 2012; recognises that under certain circumstances flat-rate corrections can also be an appropriate means to protect the Union budget;
Amendment 259 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121
Paragraph 121
121. Shares nevertheless the concern expressed by the Court of Auditors that the use of flat-rate corrections does not sufficiently take into account the nature and gravity of the infringement and that the length of the procedure is a persi; considers that the criteria for imposing flat rate corrections should be strent problem with conformity decisiongthened in order to address this weakness;
Amendment 261 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 126
Paragraph 126
126. Calls on the Commission to draw up an action plan in order to reduce the error rate in rural development not only bycontinue to providinge guidance and assistance to the Member States by means of best practice but also by means of, through systematic interruptions of payments, imposition of financial corrections gearedaccording to the seriousnessverity of the errors, and also, in addition, by drawing up short- term and ad hoc action plans;
Amendment 266 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 128
Paragraph 128
128. Stresses that this assertion makes it difficult for the budgetary authority to reach objective conclusions as to whether or not to grant the dischargCalls on the Commission and Member States to formally pledge to the discharge authority that they will implement the actions referred to under points [22-30] in order to aim for a reduction of the error rates in the future;
Amendment 275 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 130
Paragraph 130
130. Consialls, in orders that the way in which the Commission addresses the deficiencies detected in the LPIS system (excessively long conformity procedures lo remedy shortcomings in LPIS systems, for action plans to be implemented promptly; calls, in the event of failure to comply with the deadling to the flat-rate corrections with delayed inclusion of action plans and reservations in the annual activity reports)es, for proportionate reduction and suspension of monthly or intermediate payments to the Member States concerned in order to avoid createsing a financial risk to the budget of the European Union;.
Amendment 276 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 131
Paragraph 131
131. Points out in particular that, despite decisions on flat-rate corrections, the errors detected in 2006 in France and Portugal were still not fully remedied by the two Member States in 2012; stresses that from 2006 to 2013 direct payments were made whose legality and regularity were not fully guaranteed and highlights that European tax-payers’' money has been wrongly paid to final beneficiaries without a legal basis and without being recovered; notes that significant financial corrections have been imposed by the Commission on both Member States, and calls on the Commission to use further net corrections to cover the entire financial risk to the Union budget posed by those errors;
Amendment 279 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133
Paragraph 133
133. Stresses nevertheless that these commitments concerning the application of net financial corrections do not represent considerable progress since (a) theNotes that all financial corrections in the field of Agriculture are net cuorrent internal rules of the Commission already stipulate that the duration of the conformity procedures should not exceedctions: considers it necessary, however, for improvements two years106 and (b) the so-called new ’criteria and methodology for applying financial corrections’ mentioned in Annex I to the Communication on the application of net financial corrections on Member States for Agriculture and Cohesion policy, COM (2013) 934, refer explicitly to new guidelines that will be based on the existing obe made in the criteria and methods of application of net financial corrections beyond the guidelines adopted by the Commission on 23 December 1997 107 ; __________________ 106 The Commission has set an indicative internal target by which it aims to complete the conformity clearance procedure. It provides for the entire procedure to be completed within 450 days after the audit took place (without conciliation) and 645 days if the Member State requests conciliation. See ECA special report 7/2010, ‘Audits of the clearance of accounts’, paragraphs 68 to 73 and 98. 107 The precise description for each CAP measure of the key and ancillary controls and the level of flat rates to be applied for each situation resulting from the criteria described in the annex should be fixed in Commission guidelines based on the existing ones which are solidly established and have allowed the Commission to obtain positive rulings from the Court of Justice on most of the cases contested by the Member States.
Amendment 281 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 134
Paragraph 134
134. Stresses in particular that the shortening of the conformity procedure leading to financial corrections announced by the Commission cannot be evaluated before mid-late 2016, which means that Parliament will engage with the matter in the course of the discharge procedure in 2017/2018; stresses that this makes it extremely difficult for the discharge authority to reach objective conclusions as to whether or not the discharge can be granted; acknowledges, however, that the Commission has devised a reliable approach, and recalls that the same conclusions should be drawn regarding the rural development situation;
Amendment 287 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 136
Paragraph 136
136. For this reason, reserves its position as regards the regularity of transactions and the effectiveness of systems in the common agricultural policy (direct payments and rural development); will lift this reservation only on the basis of a commitment to fully protect the budget of the European Union given by the relevant Commissioners-designate during the parliamentary hearing preceding their appointment as Members of the Commission in 2014 and on condition that convincing plans for doing so are presented;Calls on the newly elected Parliament to demand appropriate pledges from the Commission and Member States in order to improve protection of the Union budget
Amendment 293 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 140
Paragraph 140
140. Considers it unacceptable that, for years, errors of the same kind continue to be identified, often in the same Member States and acknowledges that the increasing level of suspension and interruption of payments by the Commission ensures that corrective actions are systematically carried out in cases where deficiencies are identified;
Amendment 295 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 142
Paragraph 142
142. Observes that the Court audited the supervisory and control systems of four audit authorities in four countries, finding the systems in Belgium (Wallonia), Malta and the United Kingdom (England, in the case of ESF) to be only partially effective, while it found the systems in Slovakia to be effective;
Amendment 297 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 143
Paragraph 143
143. AcknowledgWelcomes that, since 2009, 62 of the 112 audit authorities have been checked by the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy and the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion; observes that these audit authorities are responsible for 257 of the 317 ERDF/CF operational programmes and 48 of the 117 ESF operational programmes; observes, furthermore, that the audit authorities examined during the four-year period were responsible for 95 % of the ERDF/CF appropriations for the 2007-2013 programming period;
Amendment 298 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 144
Paragraph 144
144. ObservNotes with concern that the Court audited the reports by national audit authorities on 138 ERDF/CF and ESF operational programmes and in many cases found shortcomings in them; notes that the Commission stresses in this connection that in cases in which the Commission judged the reported error rate to be unreliable, flat- rate corrections were made where appropriate;
Amendment 299 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 147
Paragraph 147
147. Calls on the Commission, duringWelcomes the audit strategy for the 2014-2020 programming period, itself to audit, by means of random samples taken by itself, all operational programmes which will include random samples of all operational programmes, together with risk based audits of those which have attracted attention because of the level of funding, the frequency of errors or shortcomings in supervisory and control systems;
Amendment 300 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 148
Paragraph 148
148. Would consider it right for the guidelines for audits by the Commission itself to be laid down in the form of an obligation imposed on itself by the Commission; calls on the Commission already to present them in the run-up to the 2013 budget discharge procedure; callsRecognises that the new regulations place audit obligations on the Commission; calls on the Commission for clear indications, to this end, of the extent to which Member States and programmes which have attracted attention in the past are being subjected to a special audit approach and the extent to which net financial corrections can be accelerated; considers that this approach should also be reflected in forthcoming delegated acts;
Amendment 301 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 150
Paragraph 150
150. NotWelcomes further that between mid- 2010 and November 2013 the Commission performed additional checks on audit authorities, intermediate bodies and beneficiaries (77 audits on more than 70 operational programmes in 16 Member States) to verify the quality of administrative audits;
Amendment 307 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 153
Paragraph 153
153. Regrets, however, that, under the new ERDF Regulation too,Takes note that Member States macan only replace projects affected by errors which were identified in year ‘n’'n' with new projects, eliminating an essential incentive for the careful use of appropriations; considers that this arrangement should be restricted at the earliest opportunity and fundamentally only until 15 February of the following year and calls for this arrangement to be carefully monitored with a view to a possible re-regulatedion by 2020 at the latest;
Amendment 309 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154
Paragraph 154
154. Regrets furthermore that the term ‘serious deficiency’, the discovery of which would lead to netcriteria for assessing the systems and for establishing the level of flat rate corrections, wasere not conclusively defined in the Regulation, but left to be fleshed out by a delegated act; now, however, has great expectations of the formulation and implementation of this act;
Amendment 317 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – introductory part
Paragraph 157 – introductory part
157. Reserves its final judgment of this policy sector in the light of the above considerations, particularly forCalls on the Commission and Member States to commit to the following reasons:
Amendment 321 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point a
Paragraph 157 – point a
(a) it is not clear that the audit authorities of someall Member States should take their auditing task seriously and that they makein order to bring about lasting improvements to supervisory and control systems;
Amendment 322 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point b
Paragraph 157 – point b
(b) it is not clear that the Commission, on the basis of an independent audit procedure, is performing morethe Commission should continue to perform audits of final beneficiaries and granting authorities in year ‘n’ in those Member States which have attracted attention because of shortcomingsere shortcomings have been found in administrative and audit systems in year ’n-1’;
Amendment 324 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point c
Paragraph 157 – point c
(c) it is not clear that the Commission itselfthe Commission should continue to audits all operational programmes at least once in the course of a programming period;
Amendment 326 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point d
Paragraph 157 – point d
(d) the time limits in adversarial procedures are too long and should therefore be shortened, and
Amendment 327 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157 – point e
Paragraph 157 – point e
Amendment 335 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159
Paragraph 159
159. Calls oRecommends that the relevant committees in the newly elected Parliament to raise the issue of control measures to address the weaknesses in the fields of agricultural and regional policy indicated here at the hearings of the designatedin this resolution with members of the new Commission and to demand appropriate pledges in order to improvcontinue improvement in the protection of the EUnion budget;
Amendment 345 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 162
Paragraph 162
162. Observes that, of the 180 transactions audited by the Court of Auditors, 63 (35 %) were affected by errors; observes that, on the basis of the errors quantified by the Court in 31 transactions, it estimates the likely error rate to be 3.2 %, which means an increase of 1 % in comparison with the previous year; notes that the Commission observes that the error rates would have remained unaltered – i.e. close to the materiality threshold – if the Court had taken account of flat-rate corrections implemented in 2012, and which were especially high (a 25% flat rate) in one Member State;
Amendment 346 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 164
Paragraph 164
164. Supports the Commission in its objective of introducing across the board in accounts the ‘'simplified cost option’', which has existed since 2007, and calls on Member States to apply simplified costs wherever possible as projects will be less prone to error as a result, as the Court confirms;
Amendment 347 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 166
Paragraph 166
166. Considers that the Commission’'s plan to use the simplified cost option for 50 % of ESF transactions by 2017 is not ambitious enoughshould be regarded as a minimum and calls on all Member States to ensure that the figure is exceeded by implementing simplified costs ; calls on the Commission to report on progress in implementingation of the simplified cost option by Member States in the run-up to the 2013 discharge procedure;
Amendment 348 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168
Paragraph 168
168. Welcomes the submission of the ‘Overview Report on the Results of the Thematic Audit on Management Verifications Conducted by Member States’; observes that the report indicates that the audit authorities display substantial deficiencies: that the reporting lines of the administrative authorities and intermediate bodies display weaknesses, that audits are often purely formal, that public procurement rules are being breached, that the assignment of tasks is not accompanied by training and supervision and that administrative capacities and guidance are lacking, and welcomes the recommendations therein, including simplified cost implementation with simplification seminars in all Member States, enhanced management through dedicated cost verification teams, more on-the-spot controls of beneficiaries, better supervision of delegated bodies and management bodies limiting approvals to what can actually be managed, and action plans whenever deficiencies are found;
Amendment 350 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171
Paragraph 171
171. Regrets that the 2012 activity report of DG EMPL contains a reservation relating to EUR 68 million of the payments made for the 2007-2013 programming period, pertaining to 27 out of 117 operational programmes (Spain 9, Italy 4, United Kingdom 3) and notes that interruption and suspension procedures were adopted where required;
Amendment 353 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 174
Paragraph 174
174. Stresses that serious conflicts between the powers of Member States and of the European Union are increasingly common in the field of social policy, calls on the Commission to respect the principle of the welfare state, which is enshrined in the constitutRecalls that the Union´s pursuit of strengthening social cohesion is set out in Article 174 TFEU, and the Union´s obligation to support this goal through European Social Fund is set out in Article 175 TFEU, along with the Commission´s of many Member States, and considers that there is considerable potential for savings on the EU budget herebligation to report on progress towards strong social cohesion and how Union funds have contributed to it;
Amendment 355 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 175
Paragraph 175
175. Calls for a policy to reduce youth unemployment which possesincreases European added value; regards the role of the EU as being, in particularter-alia, to improve infrastructure for vocational training and further training; calls, in this regard, for an ‘honest’ European subsidy policy which focuses fafor more on transfers of know-how from Member States with low youth unemployment rates to Member States where those rates are high, but without further arousing false expectations and without further making promises on matters for which the European Union cannot assume primary responsibility;
Amendment 358 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177
Paragraph 177
177. ONotes that Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 did not provide for reporting specifically regarding measures directed at young people during the 2007-2013 period, and therefore observes that European citizens and tax-payers cannot be fully shown what has been achieved by making payments amounting to billions from theuse of ESF and Structural Funds to combat youth unemployment; draws attention to the fact thatnotes that some of those carrying out labour market measures on the ground dispute the alleged failure to keep statistics on them; fully expects that the output and result indicators in the 2014-2020 ESF Regulation will deliver such information, and reminds the Commission of its accountability for the use of European tax revenue for young unemployed people, and considers information on the results of European subsidy policies to be inadequate, particularly in relation to the expectations which have been aroused in terms of reducing youth unemployment;
Amendment 387 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 201
Paragraph 201
201. Observes that the President of the Commission still has not accounted to Parliament for the removal from office of Health Commissioner John Dalli on 16 October 2012 andexplained the resignation of Mr Dalli to the Conference of Presidents in November 2012 insisting on the necessity of respecting the presumption of innocence and notes that the serious accusations of corruption levelled at the Commissioner by the tobacco industry, which he has always rejected, remain unproven to this day;
Amendment 391 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 202
Paragraph 202
202. Strongly deplores the fact that OLAF’s investigation of the accusations has been seriously flawed, according to an analysis by the OLAF Supervisory Committee, and that OLAF refuses to explain matters and is also not being called to accounTakes note of differing legal views between OLAF and its Supervisory Committee as regards some investigation methods used in the case of the former Commissioner John Dalli; notes that there are several legal cases pending in three Member States in the context of the OLAF investigation of ex-Commissioner Dalli; respects the independence of the courts and the principle of non- interference with ongoing legal proceedings; looks forward to receiving the verdicts of the courts which may shed more light into this respectcase of alleged bribery;
Amendment 392 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 203
Paragraph 203
203. Draws attention to the reversal of the burden of proof in this case, such that the focus is not on the culpability of the accused but it is necessary fact that Mr Dalli has contested the voluntary character and the lawfulness of his resignation before the accused himself to seek to prove his innocence before a series of courts,General Court of the European Court of Justice which couldmight result in actions for compensationn award of damages to the detriment of the tax-payer and has also launched an action in defamation against Swedish Match before the Belgian authorities;
Amendment 394 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204
Paragraph 204
204. Calls for complete clarification and for full and prompt cooperation by the Commission with the courts in Belgium and Malta in the Dalli case and for an independent inquiry into the methods used by OLAF in this case;
Amendment 399 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 205
Paragraph 205
205. Notes with concern the large number of suspected fraud cases which the Commission has reported to OLAF but which OLAF has referred back to the Commission; observes that no record is kept of the follow-up measures taken by the CommissionCalls for an analysis of the suspected fraud cases referred back to the Commission in 2012 and 2013; calls on OLAF at least to monitor the follow- up measures to these cases; calls for an analysis of the suspected fraud cases referred back to the Commission in 2012 and 2013;
Amendment 400 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 206
Paragraph 206
206. Is alarmed by the results of two surveys among OLAF staff and the shortcomings which have become apparent in the functioning of OLAF since the reorganisations; calls on the Court of Auditors to perform a follow-up audit and to follow up its Special Report 2/2011 in order to investigateCalls on the Court of Auditors to perform a follow-up audit and to follow up its Special Report 2/2011 on the Management of the European Anti-Fraud Office in order to assess developments in the organisation and the impact of the 2012 reorganisation on investigative capacity and effectiveness and on results;
Amendment 403 #
2013/2195(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 207
Paragraph 207
207. Calls for an assessment of the existing agreements with the four tobacco groups (Philip Morris International Corporation Inc. (PMI), Japan Tobacco International Corporation, British American Tobacco Corporation and Imperial Tobacco Corporation), taking into account the new Directive on Tobacco Products115 , the ratification of the Protocol to the FCTC Convention116 and Parliament’'s codecisionview on the issue of whether and, if appropriate, how the tobacco cooperation agreement with PMI is to be extended; __________________ 115 Directive 2014/…/EU of the European Directive 2014/…/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of … 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ L …). 116 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Amendment 3 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Ensuring an effective and timely start to the new Cohesion Policy Programming period
Amendment 12 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be adopted as soon as possibleby the Council and the European Parliament as soon as possible after the closure of the negotiations on the sectoral dossiers so that the budget for cCohesion pPolicy is set and programmes can start on time;
Amendment 13 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Notes also that in addition to an effective and timely start to the new Cohesion Policy programming period, ensuring the quality of PAs and OPs must be of paramount importance to make sure that funds are used to their full potential in the long term;
Amendment 26 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recognises that some Member States have experienced political pressures and changes of government that could impede the preparations for the next programming period; highlights the fact that, in cases like these, the advantages of having systems in place that ensure that all administrative work continues regardless of changes in governments are vital to the continued preparations;
Amendment 37 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Points out that there is evidence that Member States composed of powerful regional representations are potHighlights that Member States with a high number of OPs at regional level could be slower in their preparations due to potential added bureaucracy; in this instance, stronger control is required by the centirally slower government during their preparations; highlights the fact that these Member States often have a high number of OPs at regional level, which adds to the bureaucracy and requires stronger control by the central government for the PAs in that Member State; reiterates that the responsibility for the content and administration of OPs should lie with the regional level administration, in line with settlements in that Member State;
Amendment 45 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Recognises however that a reduction inof OPs at regional level would initially involve a substantial management and organisational change and might bring with it an increased risk of delay at the outset due to the changes caused by the complexity of implementing the OPs alongside programming at different national and regional levels; recognises also that the political structures in federal Member States might constitute an obstacle to achieving a single OP;
Amendment 48 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Notes that the Commission has received considerable interest in multi- fund programmes, with many Member States planning to have at least one or more multi-fund programmes; highlights that the risks associated with the multi- fund approach in the past included increased administrative burden and delay, which comes from having a number of different Commission Directorates General involved with different approaches in each DG; notes also that the impact of any problems or delays could be multiplied two or three fold with multi-fund programmes;
Amendment 65 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Is encouraged by the fact that some Member States are looking at developing the use of new instruments such as Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) and Joint Action Plans (JAPs); understands that there is, however, a mixed response to the new instruments and that evidence shows that CLLD is being more widely implemented than ITIs; recognises that it remains to be seen how the initial preparations will translate into these instruments being fully implemented;
Amendment 67 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Recognises Joint Action PlanAPs as a positive step towards results-based management, in line with one of the overarching aims of cohesion policy post 2013;
Amendment 68 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Welcomes the emphasis on simplification in the CPR; notes, however that in reality simplification could be difficult to achieve due to the differences that remain between the funds introduced by the fund specific regulations; notes specifically in terms of administration and management, where procedures are not fully standardised and there remains a big difference between funds;
Amendment 72 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Recognises that e-cohesion can be vital to reducing bottlenecks and ensuring simplification, and welcomes the reference by some Member States to its use; believes that this could also make a significant contribution to the preparedness ofations for future funding programmes;
Amendment 77 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Highlights the fact that this Member State combined that these ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top- down’ approaches to ensure that national strategies addressing the social and economic situation were included alongside extensive involvement at regional and local level; welcomes this effective way of guaranteeing that strategic requirements are met while at the same time engaging relevant stakeholders as far as possible in preparations;
Amendment 78 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Urges a quick agreement to be reached on the legal framework for cohesion policy alongside the conclusion of the CPR negotiations and the MFF;
Amendment 81 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49 a (new)
Paragraph 49 a (new)
49a. Highlights the Commission's call for Member States and regions to strive to ensure that PAs and OPs prepared are of the highest possible quality; notes that this will help lead to generating good quality project proposals targeted towards specific objectives to ensure that EU funding has the greatest possible impact;
Amendment 84 #
2013/2095(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recommends that Member States that are experiencsuffering severe delays be provided with additional support by the Commissionshould rigorously follow the recommendations issued by the Commission in the form of the individual Position Papers in autumn 2012 and also their subsequent dialogue with the Commission; highlights that the Commission should increase its support to ensure that theirse Member States' PAs and OPs are agreed as soon as possible; notes therefore that reviewing Member States' progress during the preparation stages would help reduce delays; notes also that during the implementation phase the Commission could seek to develop more measures to assist struggling Member States;
Amendment 5 #
2013/2042(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for priority to be given to creating synergies between EU, Member State and local and regional budgets; asks the Commission to provide clear factual data on how the EU budget could enhance its role in leveraging investments at different levels; calls on Member States to make full use of the additional financing opportunities provided for by the European Investment Bank and the new instrument of project bonds at all levels; furthermore welcomes the fact that the application of financial instruments is being extended under the cohesion policy to all thematic objectives and all CSF funds;
Amendment 9 #
2013/2042(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that macroeconomic conditionality is not acceptable as it could cause difficulties for the implementation of cohesion policy and potentially create risks for the fulfilment of long-term obligations; underlines, furthermore, its opposition to the performance reservereiterates that the introduction of macroeconomic conditionality would affect those regions that are most at need and stresses that local and regional authorities should not be punished for difficulties encountered at Member State level; underlines, furthermore, its opposition to the performance reserve, which could discourage regions from selecting more ambitious and innovative projects in favour of projects with more easily attainable targets;
Amendment 135 #
2012/2092(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
Paragraph 81
81. Recognisesing the challenging economic situation across the EU;, reconfirms the position takedecision in the 2012 budget resolution to freeze Members'duce all budget lines related to travel; furthermore, recalls the decision taken not to index Members' individual allowances until the end of the mandate and recallhighlights that staff mission allowances have been frozen since 2007;
Amendment 143 #
2012/2016(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57 a (new)
Paragraph 57 a (new)
57a. Acknowledges that most institutions, including the European Parliament, have made an effort to restrict their administrative budgets to an increase below the expected inflation rate, excluding the cost of enlargement to Croatia; in this context, underlines the need for long term rationalisation of administrative resources and insists on the need to strengthen inter-institutional cooperation in areas such as human resources, translation, interpretation, buildings, and information technology;
Amendment 144 #
2012/2016(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Stresses that thise increase of 3.2% as compared to 2012 is mainly due to statutory or contractual obligations such as pensions or the salary adjustments; notes however that the Commission complied with and even overstepped its commitment to keep the nominal increase in the Commission's administrative appropriations under Heading 5 below the forecast inflation of 1,9%, as compared to 2012, as presented in the letter dated 23 January 2012 from the Commissioner for Budgets and Financial programming;
Amendment 8 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the level of the preliminary draft estimates for the 2013 budget, as suggested by the Secretary-General in its report to the Bureau, amounts to EUR 1 768 731 441; notes the suggested rate of increase of 2,96 % over the 2012 budget corresponding to a rate of increase of 2,96 % over the 2012 budget; further to the pre-conciliation meeting highlights the need to reduce the level of increase to at least 1,9% over the 2012 budget excluding the costs of enlargement to Croatia;
Amendment 13 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Welcomes efforts made to present realistic estimates and acknowledges the fact that the Bureau adopted further savings as compared to the original level suggested in the Secretary-General's report; notes that the Bureau adopted the preliminary draft estimates for the 2013 budget at its meeting on 12 March 2012, at the rate of increase of xx % over the 2012 budget; further notes that, pursuant to the agreement reached by the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets at the conciliation meeting of 13 March 2012, this rate is currently set at xx % over the 2012 budget; insists on the need for strict budgetary control, close cooperation with the Committee on Budgets and identifying further possible savings during this budgetary procedure;
Amendment 26 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the Secretary General's initiative taken in 2011 proposing the reorganisation of translation and interpretation activities; believes that such an initiative will lead to significant savings in the 2012 budget and calls for this initiative to be continued in 2013; defends, however, the principle of multilingualism, and highlights the unique nature of the European Parliament with regard to interpretation and translation needs; furthermore highlights the importance of inter-institutional cooperation in this field;
Amendment 40 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes the high level of appropriations proposed for the continuation of the multiannual ICT strategy; understands that it could take several years for projects currently being undertaken to be completed; welcomes the launch of the e- committee programme; understands that a pilot scheme for the e-meetings programme is currently underway; requests further information about the possible costs of this programme and when it will be fully implemented; calls for a cost benefit analysis of the paperless meetings project to be presented to the Committee on Budgets; encourages its administration to pursue the policies which will enable Members to use effective tools based on new technologies and support the legislative process more effectively, in particular through bringing the Knowledge Management System to fruition; by the same token calls for the increased use of video conferencing which could help to further reduce the travel costs of both Members and staff.
Amendment 43 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that the creation of a Directorate for democracy support seeks to enhance the synergy between the different in-house services dealing with issues relating to democracy; expects that the decision taken will make the organisation of the services more transparent, coherent and efficient; insists that this reorganisation of services must be budget neutral; calls therefore for a freeze of the appropriations from article 323 at the 2012 level without jeopardising relations with parliaments of third countries and support for parliamentary democracy;
Amendment 45 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Notes the conditions set out in the regulation concerning the financing of political parties1; is concerned that "the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law" are not being fully respected; insists that the granting of European Parliament funding should only go to those parties that rigorously uphold the founding principles of the EU and the Charter of Human Rights; __________________ 1 Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4th November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ L 297, 15.11.2003, p. 1).
Amendment 47 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Taking into account the 2011 and 2010 outturn levels of Entertainment and representation expenses, (Article 302)and the necessary budgetary restrictions in the time of crisis, believes that all the appropriations relating to this linerepresentation expenses for the budgetary year 2013 should be frozen and kept under a strict control;
Amendment 51 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Insists that the EUR 3 million reserve for priority projects under development (Chapter 106) be withdrawn from the estimates;
Amendment 57 #
2012/2006(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is concerned about the costs of the KAD project underway (estimated at about EUR 549 600 000 Euros at 2016 prices) and about its timing; is aware that such a project is a significant undertaking of the Parliament; requests therefore that updated information specifying the timetable of the project, the progress of works and the financing estimated for each year until the finalisation of the project (planned for 2017 at the latest) be communicated to the Committee on Budgets in a timely fashionas soon as possible; believes that any creation of new posts specific to the project shall be implemented for the period of its duration rather than on a permanent basis, subject to further discussion in the Committee on Budgets;
Amendment 1 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the ceiling for Heading 5 of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the EU's budget in 2013 is EUR 9 095181 million in current prices; 1 __________________ 1 The Heading 5 ceiling includes the staff contribution to the retirement scheme.
Amendment 2 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas in a context of a heavy burden of public debt and of restraint in times of ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts the European Parliament, and all institutions, should show budgetary responsibility and self-restraint; whereas it takes note of the letter from Commissioner Lewandowski to the Presidents of the European Institutions dated 23 January 2012;
Amendment 15 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. CRecalls the significant savings which were achieved in the 2012 budget thanks to structural changes and reorganisation; encourages the continuation of structural and organisational reforms and supports innovation in other areas; considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budgetary lines; requests, therefore, a detailed and clear overview of budget lines that were under-implemented in 2011 and an objective analysis of the reasons for this;
Amendment 19 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that, in order to make significant long-term savings, an independent evaluation of the EP budget should be considered; believes the setting up of a working group should be considered; calls on the Secretary General and the Bureau to come forward with concrete proposals on the establishment of such a group as soon as possible; also calls for the speedy implementation of any conclusions reached by the group;
Amendment 24 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the need for greaterWelcomes the enhanced cooperation between the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau during the annual budget procedure; strongly encourages a further strengthening of cooperation between the Secretary General, the Bureau, and the Committee on Budgets throughout the year to ensure a smooth budgetary process and effective implementation of the budget; expects the Bureau to present prudent needs-based draft estimates, in which any taking into account possible subsequent increases due to legally binding obligations; every effort should be made to ensure that any other targeted increases are counterbalanced by savings identified in other areas;
Amendment 26 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for a freeze on budget lines related to all travel in 2013 and no indexation of any of the Members' individual allowances until the end of the legislature; awaits with interest the Secretary General's report on travel, due to be delivered to the Bureau and Committee on Budgets by the 31st March 2012;
Amendment 32 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that savings should not jeopardise the legislative activity of the EP; is convinced that Members' legislative activities can be enhanced by the completion of the knowledge management system (KMS); welcomes the information provided by the Administration, requests updated information on the state of play of the project and expects the system to be fully operational and accessible to EU citizens in early 2013; calls for increased efforts to speed up the implementation of this project; recalls its request for information regarding how savings can be made following the implementation of the KMS;
Amendment 33 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls the Parliament's budgetary resolutions, including its most recent resolution of 26 October 2011 (P7_TA(2011)0461), calling for early information, dialogue and a transparent decision-making process in the field of building policy; insists that no furtherasks for precise information on the progress in buildings projects and its financial implications every 6 months; states that no new unforeseen building projects be undertaken during the current legislature;
Amendment 42 #
2012/2001(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Understands the challenges that faced the EEAS in drawing up its first budget for 2011; expects, however, its estimates for 2013 to be more accurate in order to avoid the transfer of appropriations throughout the budgetary year.calls for sound financial budgeting for this new institution;
Amendment 3 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. recognises, in order to achieve this collaboration, the importance of the code of conduct for Member States consulting with regions and local authorities during the preparation stages of funding programmes;
Amendment 7 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights the need for the focus on a results-led system to include flexibility at member state and regional level, taking into account simplification, programming priorities and partnership, so that results- led systems are regional-specific in order to achieve the best possible efficiency;
Amendment 10 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the need to ensure a flexibility for funding programmes based onle approach to setting local and regional objectives, with stakeholders at regional level involved at all stages to ensure that European funding programmes meet the needs to tackle social and economic disparities;
Amendment 11 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that flexibility should extend to greater provision for projects to operate across different funds covered by the CPR and that this increased flexibility would help to simplify project delivery and increase the complementary and cross- cutting aspects of European funding;
Amendment 12 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recognises that cohesion policy can make a valuable contribution to delivering EU2020 targets; notes, however, that cohesion policy, as a permanent and legally binding objective of the EU, must not be used solely as a means of implementing EU2020; by introducing a territorial dimension
Amendment 20 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Expresses concern regarding the definition of cities and urban areas given the differing size, resources and social and economic aspects of cities in the EU; welcomes a definition decided at Member State or regional level
Amendment 22 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Stresses that territorial cohesion also applies to cohesion within territories i.e. ensuring that the whole area makes an economic contribution and not just the large cities and emphasises that the potential of small and medium sized towns in rural areas to make a significant contribution to the region should not be overlooked;
Amendment 23 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Highlights that developing better integration between cities and surrounding rural areas requires a strong multi-level focus and collaboration between rural and urban stakeholders;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Highlights that a stronger and more integrated territorial approach to European funding, with an efficient and strategic approach to implementing funds at the level closest to the citizen, is a positive way of ensuring that money is directed towards addressing Europe's long-term social and economic challenges;
Amendment 26 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Stresses the need for clear and well defined Partnership Contracts, with the involvement of actors at local and regional level, so that all parties can contribute to the preparation and delivery of programmes;
Amendment 27 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Welcomes the proposals for a regulatory framework with a sub-regional focus foron local and integrated development through ‘'community-led local development’', ‘'joint action plans’' and ‘'integrated territorial investment’';
Amendment 28 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that, following the Commission's proposals, clear links must now be developed between these delivery instruments in order to ensure that all investment complements local needs and does not overlap with other projects;
Amendment 30 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. highlights the need to keep the application of the proposed instrument as simple as possible to avoid adding to the administrative burden of local authorities and to keep in line with simplification objectives;
Amendment 32 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Highlights the example of the sub- delegation to councils in the Netherlands, which includes parts of funding programmes (e.g. ERDF) being delegated from the regional authority to large local authorities, with actions implemented at local level to address local needs; stresses that allocating management responsibility to local authorities gives greater potential to integrate the best combination of funds tailored to local needs; emphasises that, with the management structures already in place at local level, this approach could benefit the delivery of ITIs, JAPs and CLLDat local or sub- local level;
Amendment 35 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. recognises the past success of LEADER as an important tool for the delivery of rural development policy and believes that through CLLD this delivery mechanism can be instrumental in responding to local and regional challenges;
Amendment 36 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for the Commission to clarify its proposals on CLLD in the implementation phase in order to allow potential participants to fully determine the likely purpose, scope and effect of CLLD through; looks forward to the preparublication of delegated and implementing acts;a guide to CLLD for Managing Authorities
Amendment 41 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Stresses the importance of ensuring that these instruments are developed alongside the CLLD in order to ensure that the CLLD grows into more than merely a strategic tool which relies on the JAPs or ITIs to deliver the programmesfor local capacity development;
Amendment 50 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Highlights the example of a proposed model for ITIs from Greater Manchester, which integrates funding from as many relevant sources as possible to achieve better value from investment; highlights the fact that the development of this model is ongoing and could potentially be used to support a strategy bringing many economic and social benefits to the city region; emphasises that the proposed ITI would integrate ERDF priorities with ESF measures and that, given the increased focus of ERDF on SMEs and innovation, there is potential for the ITI to include support fromcreate links with Horizon 2020 projects in the future;
Amendment 52 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34 a. stresses that in the future funding framework Financial Instruments should have the ability to lever private funding and offer flexibility to Member States and regions to tailor target sectors and implementation methods to their specific needs;
Amendment 53 #
2011/2312(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 b (new)
Paragraph 34 b (new)
34 b. Integration of CSF funds with other EU policies and instruments . welcomes the proposals in the Common Strategic Framework for Partnership Contracts to outline potential alignment between CSF funds and other funding programmes, such as the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (previously FP7, now Horizon 2020), LIFE + or the Connecting Europe Facility; . recognises that, while funding programmes such as H2020 are primarily focused on excellence, Structural Funds have previously been successful in a 'capacity building' role by providing funding to develop businesses or organisations that have then gone on to become partners in FP7 or Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) projects; . stresses that the existing synergies between CSF funds and Horizon 2020 mean that both funds could potentially be used while working towards complementary thematic objectives;
Amendment 3 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Highlights that the EU's cohesion policy makes an important contribution to the European economy and is the Community's largest source of investment, with the current low levels of growth and high levels of unemployment across the EU, the support given by cohesion policy is integral to improving the economic growth and competitiveness of Member States and their regions; recognises that research and innovation investment is also vital to sustainable growth;
Amendment 13 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that in most Europeanwhile the countries,bution of large firms generate a substantive part of the business sector value added, and insists that for geographically targeted support, the size of the enterprise should not matter as the only criterion should be the quality and required sustainability of the project; to the EU's economy is significant, growth at local level is often sustained by SMEs and social enterprises and cohesion policy funding must be delivered through a strong multi-level governance approach to ensure that SMEs and social enterprises fulfil their potential and continue to make a valuable contribution to EU competitiveness.
Amendment 24 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that in the world of global competition, an option of cohesion policy support provides added value for companies when deciding in which world region to develop their operation capacities and where to transfer their knowhow;Recognises that the EU, as the world's largest trading bloc, has significant potential for investment and highlights the importance of ensuring that the EU remains a top target for future investment; highlights that through Cohesion Policy investment in infrastructure and labour-market skills the attractiveness for prospective investors is increased.
Amendment 30 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. EndorStresses the economic rationale of a place-based development policy rooted in the fundamental logic that the interest of the Union's less-developed regions is likely to increase, should they be able to offer competitivat a strong, integrated regional policy brings numerous benefits to all EU regions; highlights the importance of a place-based approach to ensure that cohesion policy has an effective impact at local level; recognises that a multi-level approach to governance, with local community involvement at all stages, is essential to ensuring that investment is targeted towards addressing the specific needs of each region. Recognises the potential of extending the scomparative advantages as well as firm sets of incentives; in this context requests the Commission to support Member Statepe of innovative financial instruments so that they are used to a greater effect as an access to finance to complement traditional financing methods; highlights that a revolving nature of financial instruments and a flexible approach to integrating such instruments andt regions to pursue their own investment incentives policial level could lead to an increased focus on addressing region-specific territorial issues;.
Amendment 40 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines that high taxes and public debtlow demand, low growth, low skill levels, poor labour mobility and poor infrastructure are among the key concerns identified byfor companies investing in Europe; would be particularly concerned by any effort to harmonise corporation tax conditions inevitably giving rise to higher fiscal burden in some Member States, and would deny individual regions to remain fiscally competitive and recognises that Cohesion Policy targets and objectives are aimed at improving these issues to create a more attractive environment for investment;
Amendment 41 #
2011/2288(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that cohesion policy is key to addressing macroeconomic and regional imbalances at EU level and should be a key internal market policy for enhancing competitiveness, productivity, growth and job creation, which in turn has the potential to increase the attractiveness of investing in the EU; highlights that through cohesion policy investment in infrastructure and labour-market skills attractiveness for prospective investors can be significantly increased;
Amendment 46 #
2011/2288(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that it is crucial to maintain strategic European investors' interest in conducting their activities within the EU, bearing in mind that the negative feelings and uncertainty created by the debt crisis and a lack of quick responses leads investors to reduce their exposure to the region; recognises that a multi-level approach to governance, with local community involvement at all stages, is essential to ensuring that investment is targeted towards addressing the specific needs of each region and each Member State;
Amendment 47 #
2011/2288(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that the EU has an enormous strength in itsRecognises the increased focus on cities, and that major urban infrastructure projects, and innovative business parks, provide the strongest appeal for investment; urges the Member States to provide large-scale investments in infrastructure and technology in order to enhance the liveability and competitiveness of Europe's citiesurban areas as drivers for economic growth in the EU; emphasises that the EU's rural areas are also vital to economic development and urges that urban-rural links are improved through better integration of funding to enhance territorial development.
Amendment 93 #
2011/2288(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Points out that difficult access to finance remains one of the top concerns for SMEs; is particularly worried about the fact that healthy companies cannot acquire the funding they are planning for; calls on the Commission and Member States to swiftly to implement actions and regulatory measures to facilitate funding for SMEs, as proposed in the EU Action Plan to improve access to finance for SMEs; stresses that growth at local levels is often sustained by SMEs and social enterprises and cohesion policy funding delivered through a strong multi-level governance approach can ensure that SMEs and social enterprises fulfil their potential and continue to make a valuable contribution to EU competitiveness;
Amendment 2 #
2011/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the Structural and Cohesion Funds can complement EU research and innovation funds but cannot replace them, and, because the principal aims of the respective funds differ, they should continue to be separate during the future multi-annual financial framework (MFF); further, synergies between these funds are a vital way of ensuring European added value;
Amendment 5 #
2011/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the Commission's proposals on extending the use of innovative financial instruments to strengthen the leverage of the EU budget while fully respecting the rights of the budgetary and discharge authorities; asks the Commission to improve access for primary target groups such as SMEs; demands that any SME-specific bank should function under the umbrella of the EIB; expresses its reservations about so-called ‘soft loans’ blurring the distinction between grants and loans, providing this does not divert funds from FP7 funding;
Amendment 10 #
2011/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that a risk-averse culture of EU research funding would prevent financing of high-risk research ideas with the greatest potential for breakthroughs, and therefore advocates a trust-based approach with higher tolerance for risk and failure – involving, for example, more frequent use of prizefollow-on funding for particularly successful projects – in preference to a purely results- based approach, which is at odds with the very nature of innovative scientific research;
Amendment 14 #
2011/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is convinced that horizontal simplification activities throughout all research and innovation programmes should be one of the highest priorities for the new programme period, and draws attention to the important decisions on simplification to be taken in the ongoing procedure of revising the Financial Regulation, on issues including simplifying the rules on pre-financing and on eligibility of costs and increasing the scope for awarding research prizestroducing a clear set of rules regarding the use of flat rate and lump sum payments, where this is the most appropriate method of allocation; emphasises the need for further simplification of application procedures and control mechanisms, for the benefit of applicants to European research and innovation programmes;
Amendment 16 #
2011/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Asks the Commission to build ‘stairways to excellence’ for all potential research and innovation players in those Member States with a low rate of participation in FP 7, including by encouraging more effective and flexible use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds in this respect, including ways of maximising synergies between funds;
Amendment 20 #
2011/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates its position that, with regard to the MFF post-2013, the financial resources dedicated to large-scale projects such as ITER and Galileo should be fixed for the whole programming period and ring-fenced so that any cost overrun must be financed with fresh money through employing budgetary flexibility, as opposed to the redeployment of funds at the expense of other programmes such as research and innovation, and Structural and Cohesion funds;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2107(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Strongly supports a further increase in the EU's annual budgets for research and innovation, as these have been proven to deliver excellent European added value and to aid recovery from the economic crisis; emphasises that the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, adopted by the Council, clearly states the need for additional funds for research and innovation.; emphasises that this should not be at the expense of Structural and Cohesion funds
Amendment 2 #
2011/2068(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the flagship initiative on resource efficiency and points to its crucial influence on the quality of life for present and future generation; Notes that any strategy must include all of Europe's vast resources including raw materials such as fuels, minerals and metals and also resources such as food, soil, water, air, and the natural environment;
Amendment 20 #
2011/2068(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points to the crucial role of regional policy in supporting initiatives aiming at efficient use of resources, owing to its long-term development programmes, decentralised administration system and the incorporation of the EU's priorities for sustainable development; Calls for a review of current programmes and practices to ensure that the most efficient use of resources is a key consideration within regional policy;
Amendment 45 #
2011/2068(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recommends to the Members States that they involve the sub-national levels from the outset in defining priorities, planning of measures and in their implementation; Further recommends that a consultation with citizens is undertaken to provide a platform for discussion and information as the public will be key to implementing these measures and will be the ultimate beneficiaries of a resource efficient Europe;
Amendment 3 #
2011/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. While fully respecting the rights of the budgetary and discharge authorities, welcomes the RSFF and other innovative financial instruments which strengthen the leverage of the EU budget; emphasises the need for working delivery mechanisms for these; asks the Commission to improve access for primary target groups such as SMEs and Higher Education Institutions;
Amendment 4 #
2011/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to explore ways of strengthening links between research institutions and industry as a way of creating jobs and increasing productivity by harnessing the full potential of R&D funding.
Amendment 9 #
2011/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that the current risk-averse culture of EU research policy prevents funding of high-risk research ideas with the highest potential for breakthroughs, and therefore suggests a trust-based approach with higher tolerance for risk and failure, as opposed to a purely results-based approach which could hamper innovative research;
Amendment 12 #
2011/2043(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the simplifications concerning the acceptability of personnel costs and asks the Commission to explore further simplification measures; reaffirms its commitment to further simplifying the rules applicable to the implementation of the EU budget and to research spending in particular; calls on the Commission to apply further simplification measures to the application process including providing researchers with assistance in finding partners;
Amendment 71 #
2011/2042(BUD)
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); regrets the attitude of the Council, deciding on the level of payments á priori, without taking into account an accurate assessment on the actual needs; 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; underlines in this respect the commitment of the Council to the joint declaration with Parliament on the possibility to solve arising needs in payments during 2011 through an amending budget;
Amendment 1 #
2011/2035(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that the European Court of Auditors has for many years reported that payments in the area of cohesion are affected by an error rate exceeding 5%, although notes that this fell from 11% for the last discharge procedure, and that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective; calls in addition for clarification on the method of calculating errors, as discrepancies in figures provided by the European Court of Auditors and by the Commission lead to confusion and distrust of official figures;
Amendment 7 #
2011/2035(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that common rules on the management, eligibility, auditing and reporting of projects financed by the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund and of projects supporting the economic diversification of rural and fisheries areas under the EAFRD and the EFF would play a key role in simplifying the management of funds, reducing the risk of error and facilitating participation in cohesion policy programmes by smaller stakeholders, as well as easier absorption of available funding;
Amendment 11 #
2011/2035(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls, furthermore, for the supervisory role of the Commission to be strengthened by introducing automatic interruption and suspension of payments as soon as evidence suggests a significant deficiency in the functioning of the accredited authorities; calls on the Commission also to put in place more robust plans for increasing the rate of recoveries of erroneous payments;
Amendment 15 #
2011/2035(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Notes that around 50 % of errors in spending on cohesion policy occur in the field of procurement; calls on the Commission to come forward with clear and transparent rules on the procurement procedure as a way of cutting down on the error rate;
Amendment 74 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Emphasises however that there is a pressing need to address the accuracy and availability of data on regional participation in Framework Programmes and other EU research and innovation funding programmes, to enable local and regional authorities to benchmark their performance at EU level, and to enable structural weaknesses in performance to be identified accurately;
Amendment 82 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with the principle of multi-level governance as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; calls for this partnership principle to be further strengthened; the new rules should require Member States to involve, in a structured and systematic way, the local and regional level in planning, decision-making, implementation, monitoring and evaluation;
Amendment 89 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and in some Member States are actually growing – so cohesion policy must continue to concentrate on evening out differences between regions' levels of development; regardless of the member state in which they are located;
Amendment 100 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environment; reiterates its call to Member States for special forms of preference to continue to apply in respect of those types of region, mentioned in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (including, but not limited to outermost regions, northernmost regions and regions with very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions);
Amendment 118 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses however that cohesion policy is not merely an implementing tool for EU 2020. Continued focus on the core principles of cohesion policy will have the added value of sustaining the achievements of Europe 2020 even after the strategy has come to an end;
Amendment 131 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Sees macroregional strategies as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of trans-regional potential and adopt a joint approach to challenges stemming from the natural environment, e.g. in relation to environmental protection; considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU Structural Funds; further notes that Local Development Plans could prove to be the most efficient method of achieving cohesion policy objectives, through integrated development of projects at an infra-regional level based on a bottom-up methodology;
Amendment 148 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. DoubtQuestions whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as groups of local authorities, metropolitan regions or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits; this particularly aware, in relation to such programmes, of the absence ofshould be an option in those programmes with political bodies (including democratically elected bodies) with a sufficiently wide- ranging remit to implement them; calls insteadit should be the preferred option of delivery in those regions where sub-regional delivery provides added value vis-à-vis national and regional programmes; further calls for closer coordination of macroregional or natural-environment strategies at inter- governmental levels;
Amendment 170 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses the key role of towns and cities in achieving the economic, environmental and social EU 2020 objectives; calls for support for ideas and projects which can serve as models, on the basis of place- based integrated local development plans, and for the upgrading of urban-rural links;
Amendment 171 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to continue to allow Member States and regions to define urban areas as appropriate to them;
Amendment 208 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Sees scope under the Structural Funds for specifically supporting investment in energy infrastructure, although such support must be available only in regions where political or geographical constraints significantly hamper the ability of the market to meet energy- supply needs; calls, too, for support from the Structural Funds to be made contingent in all cases on the adoption of a commercial approach and of compliance with the principle of multi-level governance;
Amendment 271 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls for Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment), which is based on a cross-cutting approach, to be upgraded; stresses that the proven system of innovation clusters and competition for fundingensuring that more developed regions are able to modernise their social and economic capital and to address specific pockets of deprivation and a lack of economic development needs to be developed further;
Amendment 282 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Takes the view that a general new funding category based on GDP/PECalls for a transitional objective for the support of regions coming out of the Convergence objective and for regions with a GDP per capita between the 75% and 90% rates would be at odds with the tried and tested principles of EU cohesion policy (to support the weakest and pool the inherent potential of the wealthier regions, taking a cross- cutting approach), and therefore rejects this intermediate categoryto replace the current phasing-out and phasing-in system, thus creating a fair system which reflects the negative impacts of the economic crisis; Believes that such a system will guarantee truly equal treatment between regions and will enhance the release of the endogenous development potential of all EU regions;
Amendment 318 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to place-based integrated development planning – to be facilitated;
Amendment 333 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Suggests, in this context, that reintegration of the regionally oriented EAFRD (Axes 3 and 4) programmes be considered, and calls for binding targetcommon indicators to be set for the Member States and the regions in order to establish more standardised arrangements for administering the EU Structural Funds and the regionally oriented rural development programmes;
Amendment 335 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 363 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Calls for the mandatory involvement of federal Länder and regionlocal and regional authorities in drawing up development partnerships and operational programmes; considers it essential to make appropriate provision for this in the regulations governing the Structural Funds;
Amendment 374 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls, in the event that binding priorities are set for all Member States, for these to cover innovation, infrastructure and resource management and to be tailored in each case to regions' specific needs; stresses that it must be possible to suggest and pursue additional priorities on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls for suggested priority areas to include energy, education and training, and combating poverto allow a necessary degree of flexibility for regions to define additional investment priorities, according to local and regional development needs and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 390 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be expedited as a matter of course; calls, too, for the technical equipment available to the relevant administrative authorities to be improved and for them to be more closely networked, for disclosure requirements to be reducviewed, and for a significant shortening of deadlines for putting the necessary expert reports out to tender and for their delivery;
Amendment 396 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls for the funding under investment partnerships to be made conditional on the implementation of reforms by the Member States, in order to ensure that it is used efficiently in areas directly related to cohesion policy; considers it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering procedures, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness, providing the following conditions are respected: the conditionalities serve to increase effectiveness and efficiency of cohesion policy, the actors involved in the management of Operational Programmes have the possibility to influence conditionalities, those actors have the necessary competence and institutional capacity to carry out the required changes, and that they have ownership of the conditionalities and can relate to them; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform; all conditionalities should fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and partnership;
Amendment 425 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Regards co-financing as one of the basic principles of cohesion policy; calls for a review of the popposes the introduction of differcentage ceiling for EU funding – which should take more account of regional development levels, European added value and the types of measure funded and should be raised or lowered accordiated co-financing rates as this could lead to unpredictable consequences and might ultimately render EU funds unavailable in some regions, especially competitiveness regions, as strained domestic budgets would prevent increased rates of national co-financingly;
Amendment 432 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Considers that the maximum level of support must not exceed 75%, otherwise applications will be driven less by the case for the projects than by the prospect of the funding they can attractalls on the Commission to examine and to establish the most appropriate maximum level of support on the basis of a thorough analysis of the development situation and the specific needs of the regions in the framework of each objective, in order to ensure that applications will respond to the real needs of each region and will aim to sustainable results in a long-term perspective; calls for it to be made easier for regions to use private co- financing and market-oriented credit options to cover their share of project financing;
Amendment 469 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Sees global grants at subregional level as an appropriate tool for developing independent innovation strategies in line with European structural-policy objectives; proposes that the tried and tested approach of competitive procedures should also be applied in respect of global grants;
Amendment 473 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Supports the creation of a flexibility reserve established on the basis of appropriations automatically de- committed during the programming period, and aimed at triggering the Structural Funds in an economic, social or environmental crisis in conjunction with the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Union Solidarity Fund;
Amendment 491 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Regards post-2013 cohesion and structural policy as the decisive policy arena for cross-sectoral implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and therefore calls for it to be treated at least as generously in budgetary terms it has been as ina real terms rise in the Cohesion Policy Budget for the next period compared to the current planning period;
Amendment 498 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Calls, in respect of Member States that are falling significantly short of the EU stability criteria requirements and also have a poor record on the use of monies from the Structural Funds, for a proposal for the automatic application of more stringent rules in order to monitor the use of such monies in accordance with the law and the relevant objecon a procedure of systematic interruption and suspension of payments as soon as evidence suggests significant deficiency in the functioning of the accredited authoritives;
Amendment 523 #
2011/2035(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54
Paragraph 54
54. Calls, in the interests of reducing red tape, for the more general application of standardised procedures, with higher standardised units of cost and declaration of overheads on a flat-rate basis where this system is appropriate; calls for greater account to be taken of the principle of proportionality, i.e. for the implementation of smaller programmes to be subject to significantly reduced reporting and auditing requirements;
Amendment 98 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64
Paragraph 64
64. Votes therefore the overall level of its 2012 Budget at EUR xxx.xxxx, which means an increase of xx0.8 % compared to 2011, not considering in the 2012 budget the new 18 Members of the Parliament (in line with the Lisbon Treaty) and the Croatia accession;
Amendment 106 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. Notes that the general expenditure allowances (excluding daily allowances) are frozen at 2011 level is frozen at the 2011 level; calls on the Bureau not to index Members' travel and subsistence allowances (including the "daily" allowance);
Amendment 111 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67 b (new)
Paragraph 67 b (new)
67b. Considering the current financial, economic and social situation, calls furthermore on the Bureau to freeze all the Members' allowances (including the "daily" allowance) in absolute terms at 2011 level until the end of the seventh legislature;
Amendment 113 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
Amendment 115 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68 a (new)
Paragraph 68 a (new)
68a. Believes that in times of increasing financial difficulties for numerous Europeans and ongoing austerity policies, Parliament should give an example of restraint by reducing its number of business flights; calls in this context on the Bureau to examine the effectiveness of travel costs, to present proposals encouraging Members to buy economy / flexi-economy class airfares, to ensure a proper treatment of the Frequent Flyer Points and to revise the rules of the Members' Registry opening hours, in particular on Fridays;
Amendment 118 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Approves, the following measures contained in the Amending Letter, which have been offset by other savings: - the release of appropriations from the reserve for the new security policy; - offsetting of the carbon emissions generated by administrative activities; - increase in the appropriations for contract staff in order to support the implementation of Parliament’s property policy; - increase of the annual grant to the EPA;
Amendment 119 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Requests to be kept informed on a regular basis on new developments for building projects with a significant impact on the budget, such as e.g. the KAD building; asks the ABelieves that the Parliament's building policy requires careful analysis and that the administration should continue to develop buildings policy in cooperation with the Committee on Budgets; requests therefore to be kept informed on a regular basis on new developments for building projects with a significant impact on the budget, such as e.g. the KAD building; asks to be kept informed about the creation of any new posts and a possible further financing of the existing posts relating to DG INLO's three year plan before they are approved by the administration; asks the administration to establish a service agreement for cost sharing with the Commission of part of the running costs;
Amendment 122 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72 a (new)
Paragraph 72 a (new)
Amendment 125 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
Paragraph 73
73. Regrets the delay in the opening of the new visitors centre Parlamentarium and the total costs of setting up the project which are much higher than the initially intended; notes a large increase on this budget line (3243) for 2012; calls for a better planning and asks for a timely consultation of the Committee on Budgets on any further financial implications;
Amendment 126 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73 a (new)
Paragraph 73 a (new)
73a. Believes that, in view of making long-term savings, making the organisation more modern and efficient, the budget of the European Parliament should be subject to a comparative study with the budgets of a representative sample of Member States and with the budget of the United States Congress;
Amendment 127 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
Paragraph 74
74. Welcomes the putting into place of concrete incentives to make more use of less polluting means of transport by introducing the 50 % Jobcard system in Brussels; points out that the reserve on the different lines for missiontravel costs depends also on the result of a report requested from the Bureau examining the feasibility of measures to ensure the utmost efficiency of travel costs and making recommendations for budgetary savings;
Amendment 128 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74 a (new)
Paragraph 74 a (new)
74a. Calls for further measures to be taken to reduce energy, water and paper consumption in view of making savings in Parliament's budget;
Amendment 136 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82 b (new)
Paragraph 82 b (new)
82. Notes the ongoing difficulties with theat Seconded National Experts (SNE) are not counted in the one third of EEAS establishment plan as it seems that national experts inside the EEAS are not counted in the 1/3 part for Member States and there seem to be a overproportion of high ranking manff at AD level; nevertheless, recalls the Council decision establishing the organisation and fuctioning of the EEAS which states that "by the expiry of the contract of an SNE transferred to the EEAS under article 7, the function will be converted into a temporary agement posts; this development seems to be a result of pressure by Member States’ administrations on the EEAS in or in cases where the function performed by the SNE corresponds to a function normally carried out by staff at AD level, providerd to create high ranking posts for national civil servants;hat the necessary post is available under the establishment plan".
Amendment 137 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82 a (new)
Paragraph 82 a (new)
82a.Takes into account the clarifications received from the EEAS in the letter sent to the Committee on Budgets chair on 30 September 2011 concerning the share of EU officials in the establishment plan, in line with the committment taken by HR/VP; therefore, decides to restore the EEAS establishment plan as proposed in Commission Draft Budget, and believes that all reserves related to recruitment and the setting up of an EU delegation in the United Arab Emirates should be lifted;
Amendment 139 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83
Paragraph 83
83. NotesIs concerned by the Council’s position to reduce the increase incut the EEAS’ draft budget for 2012 to +2,25%; has also taken a restrictive approach on increases, in line with the position of its Committee on Foreign Affairs;
Amendment 141 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 84
Paragraph 84
84. Notes that the EEAS is constantly growing since its creation in 2010; has therefore decided to apply an abatement rate of 6% (instead of 14 % proposed by Council); has therefore refused new AD posts for delegationsremarks that the increase in budgetary needs of the EEAS is a result of a reallocation of competences previously carried out by the Council and the Commission, and the development of underestimated needs such as start-up costs, new obligations and tasks currently undertaken by Council and Commission; therefore, taking into account its specific situation, believes that the Commission draft budget for Section X should be reinstated;
Amendment 143 #
2011/2020(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph
Paragraph
85. Concerning the other lines, decides to increase appropriations partly above Council's position level because there will be the need to move the EEAS to a new building, which will make necessary to procure services from the local market, as well as to introduce a reserve on budget lines 3001, 3002 and 3004 because of large contractual obligations payable in foreign currencies, which are extremely sensitive to exchange rate movements;
Amendment 2 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the indisputable added value of European cohesion policy offers the best means of creating jobs and promoting economic growth; stresses the fact that programmes that started after 2007 are becoming fully operational and therefore require higher payment appropriations, and that this need must be reflected accordingly in the EU Budget for 2012;
Amendment 8 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls Parliament's conviction that whilst the budgetary resources under headings 1a and 1b should be used so as to align policy areas with the objectives of the EU2020 Strategy, the objectives of cohesion policy, namely the reduction of regional disparities, are of equal importance; further notes that whilst EU2020 is important, the needs and objectives of regions are varied and this should be reflected in policy objectives which ensure flexibility for regions;
Amendment 12 #
2011/2019(BUD)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Underlines and reiterates Parliament's position that cohesion policy must be given adequate and sufficient resources in order to achieve its purpose under the Treaties; is therefore of the view that a real terms increase in the Cohesion Policy budget is required for 2012.
Amendment 7 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. NotesIs concerned that the level of the Preliminary Draft Estimates for the 2012 budget, as suggested by the Secretary General to the Bureau, amounts to EUR 1 733 560 543, representing 20,26 % of heading 5 of the multiannual financial framework (MFF); notes that the rate of increase suggested is 5,20 % over the 2011 budget and higlights its concern over such an increase;
Amendment 12 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls for a long-term review of the European Parliament's budget; asks for future potential savings to be identified in order to reduce costs and create resources for the long-term running of the Parliament as part of a legislative authority;
Amendment 13 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reaffirms that, in the light of the difficult economic and budgetary conditions in Member States, the Parliament should show its budgetary responsibility and self- restraint by staying around the inflation ratelimiting the level of increase in the Parliament's budget for 2012 to a maximum of 2% and finding consequent additional savings; following the interinstitutional line, enlargement-related needs are to be integrated either by a letter of amendment or an amending budget; the needs for the 18 new MEPs following the Lisbon Treaty will be also integrated by a letter of amendment or an amending budget;
Amendment 21 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion that the European Parliament and the other institutions should show budgetary responsibility and self- restraint in the context of economic crisis and the heavy burden of public debt and restraint in times of ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts without undermining the goal of legislative excellence; is therefore ready to accept a revision of the ceiling of heading 5 of the MFF according to point 23 of the Inter-Inter- Institutional Agreement (IIA); this revision should be an offsetting with a reduction of the ceiling of heading 5 (administration) by EUR 100 million and a corresponding increase of other headings in favour of youth;
Amendment 22 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Is of the opinion that the European Parliament and the other institutions should show budgetary responsibility and self- restraint in the context of economic crisis and the heavy burden of public debt and restraint in times of ongoing national budgetary consolidation efforts without undermining the goal of legislative excellence; is therefore ready to accept a revision of the ceiling of heading 5 of the MFF according to point 23 of the Inter-Inter- Institutional Agreement (IIA); this revision should be an offsetting with a reduction of the ceiling of heading 5 (administration) by EUR 100 million and a corresponding increase of other headings in favour of youth;
Amendment 31 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Requests more detailed information regardingIs against the creation of an European Added Value Assessment Unit, its tasks and competences; puts all appropriations concerning this new Unit and the request for new staff for this Unit into reserve until sufficient information received and the creation of an additional 11 posts for this unit; considers that activities of such a unit could be carried out by the Policy Departments; does not support putting appropriations concerning this project in to a reserve; calls for money relating to this project to be withdrawn from the estimates;
Amendment 33 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls for the contingency reserve to remain at 2011 levels; therefore proposes to cuts the contingency reserve by XEUR 4 million EUR.;
Amendment 37 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Notes the proposal in the preliminary draft estimates to increase spending by EUR 7.2 million for the information campaign for the 2014 elections; calls for this amount to be spent over the period of two years; therefore proposes that half the appropriations earmarked for this purpose be withdrawn from the 2012 estimates;
Amendment 38 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Calls for item 2022 'Building maintenance and cleaning' to remain at 2011 levels; proposes therefore to cut the amount in the preliminary draft estimates by EUR 4 million;
Amendment 39 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Paragraph 11 c (new)
Amendment 51 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls for the financing of the Konrad-Adenauer building (KAD) to be cut; insists that spending on this project in 2012 be limited to a maximum of EUR 20 million;
Amendment 52 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the detailed information received concerning the continuation of the realisation of the House of European History; takes note of the estimated total cost for setting up the House of European History, the estimated running costs and the staffing needs; requests to be informed as soon as possible on the building project accWelcomes the detailed information received concerning the continuation of the realisation of the House of European History; notes the release of the reserve to assist with the preparatory phase of this project; underlines the fact that the release of the reserve did not mean a final agreement on the project and that additional information regarding the future financial and legal implications (including a detailed business plan) for the EP will need to be provided before further funding for this project can be guaranteed; stresses the importance of wordking to Article 179(3) of the Financial Regulationwith partners to finance this project; reiterates that all decisions relating to the project should be subject to standard parliamentary procedure in order to ensure an open debate and a transparent decision making process;
Amendment 59 #
2011/2018(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Does not support the creation of a new budget line at this stage specifically for the House of European History; considers that any creation of such a line should be part of a transparent procedure and approved by the budgetary authority;
Amendment 2 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
Amendment 5 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the difficult situation with respect to the heading 5 expenditure ceiling for 2012, and is fully aware of the fact that the institutions may encounter problems in meeting all financing requirements while maintaining budgetary discipline and self- restraint in order to comply with the multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 6 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Sets the principle of excellence, which in Parliament’s case means legislative excellence, as a priority, to ensure an appropriate response to the current political challenges, which requires the consolidation of the resources needed to address the new institutional framework resulting from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; takes the view that the budget of Parliament and the other institutions for 2012 should be a budget of consolidation, not least because it may also serve as a reference for the next multiannual financial framework;
Amendment 9 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that accuracy, simplicity, clarity and transparency must be the result of the implementation of the principles of good management; requests, in this connection, the submission of an organisation chart for each institution, together with the respective cost of each constituent unit; requests, moreover, that each expense be clearly specified and justified, with a clear distinction between fixed and variable expenses in order to fulfil the principles of a zero-based budget;
Amendment 10 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that Parliament and the other institutions should submit thrice- yearlycontinue to submit annual reports on the implementation of their own budgets, giving details of the implementation of each budget line;
Amendment 14 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Recalls the need for a fully integrated knowledge management system; requests a progress report on thiwelcomes the information provided by the Administration regarding the knowledge management system; calls for a report on the multitude of information sources/systems available to Members; calls for a clear timetable to be established for the design of a prototype; stresses the need for a speedy implementation of a classification and indexing policy; requests information of how this system can be made easily accessible for European citizens;
Amendment 15 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls for a ‘one-stop shop’ for Members’ casework queries regarding issues in other Member States to be integrated in to the knowledge management system;
Amendment 18 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Asks for use to be made of staff redeployment and of retraining in order to enhance mobility; recommends that new staff only be recruited after internal recruitdeployment procedures have failed and where the option of buying in external services is not appropriate;
Amendment 19 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Suggests that a medium-to-long-term strategy be adopted for buildings policy so that expenditure on buildings may be properly planned in advance; takes the view that this strategy should seek to find the best solution, taking into account the principles of good managementWelcomes the decisions taken by the Bureau on 24th March 2010; reiterates its call for the development of a medium and long-term buildings strategy; takes the view that this strategy should seek to find the best solution, taking into account the principles of good management and the need to assess various options and alternative financing possibilities; is concerned by a proposal in the above- mentioned decision to make available €85,897,000 to finance the investment in infrastructure for new office space for MEPs’ assistants; requests, as a matter of urgency, more detailed information regarding this issue and information on alternative options before any decision is taken;
Amendment 26 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Expects the Bureau to submit realistic requests when presenting the estimates; is ready to examine its proposals on a fully needs-based and prudent basis in order to ensure an appropriate and efficient functioning of the institution; stresses that the purpose of the amending letter presented by the Bureau to the Committee on Budgets in September is to take into account needs unforeseen at the time the estimates were drawn up and stresses that it should not be seen as an opportunity to renew estimates previously agreed;
Amendment 28 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20b. Takes note of the proposed 5,2 % increase for the European Parliament’s 2012 budget as compared to the 2011 budget; considers, however, that in the present economic context this increase must be reduced in order to reflect efforts being made by Member States to make savings in public administration;
Amendment 30 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 c (new)
Paragraph 20 c (new)
20c. Highlights the fact that the timetable foreseen for the approval of the guidelines and the draft estimates for the EP budget 2012 will not allow the report on the guidelines to be adopted in plenary before the adoption of the draft estimates by the Bureau and thus not allow Members to work in a proper and informed way;
Amendment 36 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Takes the view that, as already decided, a fully functioning wifi service must be implemented so as to enable the goal of reducing the use of paper to be met; considers that the use of videoconferencing for meetings should be encouraged, as should the use of new environmentally friendly technologies; requests a cost benefit analysis of such measures;
Amendment 37 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Underlines the need for further information regarding the House of European History; in particular, calls for a detailed business plan to be submitted to the Committee on Budgets; reiterates the need to receive information concerning the global cost of this project as well as the future financial and legal implications for the EP and requests further information regarding the architectural design competition which has been ongoing since 2009; stresses that all decisions relating to the project are subject to standard parliamentary procedure;
Amendment 41 #
2011/2017(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Is concerned by the proposal to create a Parliamentary Budget Office to measure the cost of non-Europe; questions whether such an office is necessary; requests more detailed information regarding the creation of this office;
Amendment 15 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Assistance under this Regulation should be provided in accordance with the enlargement policy framework defined by the Union for each beneficiary country reflected in the annual enlargement package of the Commission, which includes the Progress Reports and the Enlargement Strategy, in the Stabilisation and Association agreements and in the European or Accession Partnerships. Assistance should mainly focus on a limited number of policy areas that will help beneficiary countries strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law, reform the judiciary and public administration, respect fundamental rights and, promote gender equality and non- discrimination and tackle corruption and organised crime. It should also enhance their economic and social development, underpinning a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth agenda in line with the Europe 2020 strategy and to align progressively with the Copenhagen criteria. The coherence between the financial assistance and the overall progress made in the implementation of the pre-accession strategy should be strengthened.
Amendment 18 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a – point iv
(iv) public administration reform and, good governance and improvement of institutional capacity;
Amendment 19 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – introductory wording
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – introductory wording
(b) Support for economic, social and territorial development, with a view to a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and increased cooperation between Member States and candidate or potential candidate countries to encourage the exchange of experience and knowledge concerning Union legislation and administration, inter alia through:
Amendment 21 #
2011/0404(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – point v a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – point v a (new)
(va) development of infrastructure projects to address regional and national transportation, energy and communication needs.
Amendment 505 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In accordance with their constitutional arrangements, Member States may implement relevant provisions of this regulation at regional level. In that case, Member States shall define regions in accordance with objective and non- discriminatory criteria and proceed to divide the national ceiling amongst the regions. Member States may also take all decisions referred to in this regulation at regional level and apply the financial provisions referred to in Articles 33, 35, 37, 39, and 51 to the regional ceilings. Member States may also decide to establish regional reserves
Amendment 515 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Without prejudice to Article 8, the total amount of direct payments which may be granted in a Member State pursuant to Titles III, IV and V in respect of a calendar year, after application of Article 11, shall not be higher than the ceilings set out in Annex III to this Regulation. For this purpose, Member States may divide the ceiling set out in Annex III of this Regulation amongst regions defined in accordance with objective and non- discriminatory criteria.
Amendment 1913 #
2011/0280(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1
Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay grant an annual payment to young farmers who are entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1. Alternatively, the Member State may choose to extend this scheme to all farmers who commenced their agricultural activities within the last five years.
Amendment 58 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 2 – Article 62 – paragraph 1 – point c
Part 2 – Article 62 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) procedures for ensuring the correctness and regularity of expenditure declared and respect for the principle of sound financial management;
Amendment 80 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – Article 117 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Part 3 – Article 117 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
In deciding whether to request those documents, the Commission shall takeapply a risk-based approach taking into account whether the management and control systems for the operational programme are similar to those in place for the previous programming period, whether the managing authority also carries out the functions of the certifying authority, and any evidence of their effective functioning.
Amendment 82 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – Article 131 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Part 3 – Article 131 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. When launching the procedure in accordance with Article 137, the Commission may only make a financial correction in relation to expenditure concerning accounting years for which the annual accounts were or should have been submitted. Expenditure considered as closed under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article for which the 3 year period under Article 132(1) has expired shall not be subject to financial corrections, except in the case of irregularities detected for non compliance with Article 61 and in the cases referred to in Article 136 (4) and (5).
Amendment 84 #
2011/0276(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Part 3 – Article 137 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Part 3 – Article 137 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Any financial correction resulting in a net correction shall constitute assigned revenue to the same Chapter of the general budget of the Union.
Amendment 7 #
2011/0046(NLE)
Draft legislative resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that the prime reference amount set in the legislative proposal is not compatible with the ceiling of Heading 1a of the current Multiannual Financial Framework 2007-13 (MFF); takes note of the proposal of the Commission of 20.04.2011 (COM (2011)0226) to revise the current MFF on the basis of points 21 to 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (IIA) in order to accommodate the additional unforeseen funding for ITER for the years 2012- 2013; is willing to enter into negotiations with the other arm of the budgetary authority, on the basis of all the means provided in the IIA, with a view to reaching a swift agreement on the financing of the Euratom research programme by the end of 2011; recalls its opposition to any form of redeployment from the Seventh Framework Programme for research as proposed in the above- mentioned Commission proposal;
Amendment 24 #
2011/0046(NLE)
Proposal for a decision
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) This Decision should establish, for the entire duration of the Framework Programme (2012-2013), a financial envelope that constitutes the prime reference, within the meaning of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (IIA), for the budgetary authority during the annual budgetary procedure. On 20 April 2011, the Commission tabled a proposal (COM (2011)0206) to revise the current MFF 2007-13 on the basis of points 21 to 23 of the IIA, in order to accommodate the additional unforeseen additional funding needs for ITER for the years 2012-2013. That proposal should serve as a basis for an agreement between the two arms of the budgetary authority that should be concluded on the basis of all the means provided in the IIA without jeopardising the financing of other polices under Heading 1a;
Amendment 65 #
2010/2211(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that a successful cohesion policy needs commensuradequate funding, which cannot in any circumstances be less than in the current 2007-2013 funding periodshould be greater than the levels of funding in the current 2007-2013 period to ensure the objectives of cohesion policy are met;
Amendment 20 #
2010/2143(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. ApplaudNotes especially the medium- and long- term property policy (buildings strategy) approved by the Bureau on 24 March 2010, which takes into account Parliament's increased responsibilities under the Treaty of Lisbon, the rules governing allocation of space, the need for accommodation of certain external staff and the need for maintenance/renovation of buildings; further, requests a detailed report on future accommodation needs and on where the funding for this may come from;
Amendment 56 #
2010/2143(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes the twoat, as a priority projects necessitating important new office surfaces to be found: a second, space should be found for extra crèche places in Brussels and a second assistant's officeto deal with demand; stresses in this context the need for Parliament's buildings to be located close to each other in order to achieve more efficiency and also for environmental reasons;
Amendment 112 #
2010/2143(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. Deplores the fact that EuroparlTV cannot be considered to be a success story in view of its very low number of direct users (excluding viewers through partnership agreements with regional TVs) in spite of the considerable annual appropriations that it receives, amounting to some EUR 9 000 000; therefore, calls for a cost-benefit evaluation of Europarl TV with a view to making savings in this area;
Amendment 117 #
2010/2143(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Observes that, in the last few years, Parliament has greatly increased the number of and the budget for its prizes; expresses doubts as to whether those prizes represent at their best Parliament's core competences and the tasks which stem from its legislative, budgetary and budgetary control prerogatives; calls on its Bureau to refrain from initiating the funding of new prizes, and to examine the funds set aside for winners of these prizes;
Amendment 119 #
2010/2143(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Deplores the fact that, in spite of its opinion, expressed in its resolution, that the Prize for Journalism is inappropriate, as Parliament should not award prizes to journalists whose task is critically to examine the EU institutions and their work, DG COMM has already launched the procedure for the 2011 prize; calls for the prize for 2012 to be abolished;
Amendment 149 #
2010/2143(DEC)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 99
Paragraph 99
99. Stresses that real savings could be achieved if Parliament only had one seat; indeed, in the report of the Secretary- General on Parliament's preliminary draft estimates for 2011, the estimated annual cost arising from the geographical dispersion of Parliament has been estimated at around EUR 160 000 000, accounting for about 9% of Parliament's total budget; draws the attention to the fact that currently the decision to change this situation - and to make some EUR 160 000 000 of savings annually as well as to considerably lessen Parliament's carbon footprint - lies exclusively with the European Council (Member States)Member States; in view of the European Council's desire to restrict future budgets, calls on them to release these savings;
Amendment 1 #
2010/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the simplification measures already introduced by the Commission in the implementation of the 7th framework programme (FP) and supports the Commission in its efforts to simplify and clarify the rules still further, to leave no room for differing interpretations and to reduce the risk of error, thereby also reducing the cost of monitoring; further calls on the Commission to define the measures they would take when simplifying and clarifying the current rules;
Amendment 5 #
2010/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists that the Commission, in its preparations for the next FP, should put forward a set of ambitious proposals aimed at establishing a financing system that is based on scientific results and performance, rather than on inputs and costs, whilst ensuring that innovative applications are not deterred;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that help is provided to all applicants by providing assistance in finding relevant partner;
Amendment 8 #
2010/2079(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Calls on the Commission to examine its move towards flat rate and lump sum payments, which could have a detrimental effect on beneficiaries' ability to adequately fulfil audit requirements;
Amendment 62 #
2010/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Wishes the EGF to be made a permanent fund in the next multiannual financial framework, with its own commitment and payment appropriations, instead of on which depends on the non- utilisation or under-utilisation of appropriations from previous financial years; therefore requests the Commission to come forward with proposals for resourcing a permanent fund;
Amendment 3 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls its view that, on the basis of the original MFF references negotiated in 2006 and in force since 2007, its expenditure should be established around the traditional 20% limit, taking into account the needs of the other institutions and the available margin; notes in this regard the requests by the ESC and the Co R for over EUR 10 Mio for the year 2010 only; reiterates that the External Action Service may also have an impact on heading 5; Confirms its view that the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets should work together to re-assess this limit before opening an inter- institutional dialogue on the matter; suggests that a working group be established for this purpose; decides to put in reserve EUR 5 million from item 320 – acquisition of expertise – until steps are taken to set up such a group;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. In this regard, supports the idea of finding an appropriate mix of in-house and external expertise for the policy departments depending on the type of information required for the specific files under consideration but would like further explanations as to whether and how the staff increases proposed could be used in a flexible way and wishes to receive more information on past implementation rates and demand from committees for such expertise; therefore approves xx [half the number of posts] for the time beingconsiders that a further strengthening in terms of funds and human resources of the existing EP information services should go hand in hand with the development of a user- friendly system, which would allow Members to have easy access to all the information produced in the house; in this regard asks to receive concrete information about the steps undertaken by the Bureau and administration to put in place an internal Knowledge Management System, including the timetable envisaged for its implementation and any savings resulting from the rationalisation of information sources; in the meantime decides to introduce half of the appropriations (EUR 480 000) foreseen to cover this measure in reserve;
Amendment 12 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Being aware of the sensitive situation within groups as regards the assistance allowance, and after weighing the different arguments, cannot endorse the second instalment of the EUR 1 500 per year; wishes to withdraw the corresponding appropriations from the draft estimates; recalls its resolution on the guidelines in which an evaluation was already called for, including a detailed financial statement of the overall costs that would result from this measure;
Amendment 13 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Being aware of the sensitive situation within groups as regards the assistance allowance, and after weighing the different arguments, cannot endorse the second instalment of the EUR 1 500 per year; recalls its resolution on the guidelines in which an evaluation was already called for, including a detailed financial statement of the overall costs that would result from this measurea second instalment of the EUR 1 500 per year for the assistance allowance, decides to postpone its final decision until an evaluation of the overall costs that would result from this measure is provided; therefore decides to place in reserve the corresponding appropriations;
Amendment 14 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Being aware of the sensitive situation within groups as regards the assistance allowance, and after weighing the different arguments, cannot endorse the second instalment of the EUR 1 500 per year; rRecalls its resolution on the guidelines in which an evaluation was already called for, including a detailed financial statement of the overall costs that would result from this measure proposed increase of the assistance allowance;
Amendment 26 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Attaches importance to the in-depth review on security policy announced by the Bureau and, in this regard, recalls its attachment to a prudent use of resources and, particularly, a cost-effective balance between internal staff and external agents; asks the Bureau to carefully examine the operational and financial implications of a new strategy, aiming to strike a good balance in the proposals to be made between security concerns on the one hand and accessibility and openness on the other hand; stresses that Parliament should remain as much as possible an open and accessible institution; for this reason wishes to receive more information from the administration concerning the so- called "Wiertz project" in order to assess its implications relating to the accessibility of Parliament for the public;
Amendment 30 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Notes that the budget item for Members' travel costs is actually higher than the one for salaries; underlines the need for responsible use of allowances, notably travel allowances, and points out that by using, where possible, other means of transport than business class air travel from and to Parliament's places of work, Parliament's carbon footprint can be reduced and costs saved at the same time. Therefore decides to reduce the budget item related to Members' travel by EUR 3 million; calls on the Bureau to present, as agreed during the last pre-conciliation, in time for Parliament’s first reading, a study focused on the functioning of the new system and possible solutions for savings to be carried out;
Amendment 35 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Takes note of the Bureau's proposal to introduce allowances for office holders with a budgetary impact of EUR 0,54 million; notes, howevconsider,s that the discussion on the principle is controversial; also notes that the budget line in question was already set to increase by EUR 0,54 million for other purposes and therefore considers that an extra amount for office holders, if this should be the Parliament's final political decision, should be financed within the overall envelope of EUR 1 650 000, i.e. without other increases compared to 201at a time of financial hardship for citizens across Europe, Parliament must show leadership in spending restraint; insists therefore that the budget line be maintained within the overall envelope of EUR 1 650 000, and sets Article 302 of the budget accordingly;
Amendment 36 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Takes note ofCannot agree with the Bureau's proposal to introduce allowances for office holders with a budgetary impact of EUR 0,54 million; notes, howevconsider,s that the discussion on the principle is controversial; also notes that the budget line in question was already set to increase by EUR 0,54 million for other purposes and therefore considers that an extra amount for office holders, if this should be the Parliament's final political decision, should be financed within the overall envelope of EUR 1 650 000, i.e. without other increases compared to 2010, and sets Article 302 of the budget accordinglyat a time of financial hardship for citizens across Europe, Parliament must show leadership in spending restraint;
Amendment 37 #
2010/2005(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Takes note of the Bureau's proposal to enter EUR 2,5 for the House of European History, concerning studies following the results of the architect's competition currently under evaluation; recalls its request from last year to receive a clear overview of the costs envisaged for the project as a whole, including administrative costs, at the latest at the stage of the Preliminary draft estimates for the 2011 budget procedure; also recalls the agreement with the Bureau from the pre- conciliation meeting in 2009; highlights that the report of the Committee of experts to the House of European History lists 11 points, which entail further costs: (1)"academic advisor composed of experts and museum specialists", (2)"institutional independence of the institution", (3)"extensive museum- pedagogic offers", (3)"meeting place for young academics", (5)"permanent evaluation", (6)"temporary exhibit and travelling exhibition", (7)"relevant events with a European reference", (8)"own publications", (9)"extensive on-line offers", (10)"Creation of an own museums collection", (11)"continuous development of exhibitions and the infrastructure of the museum"; therefore stresses that the global cost of this project must be identified as a matter of urgency; decides to put the proposed amount of EUR 2,5 million into a reserve until this information has been provided;
Amendment 68 #
2010/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Takes the view that the key focus when assessing the cohesion and structural policies should be their implementation in both quantitative and qualitative terms; welcomes the submission of MCS (Management and Control Systems) descriptions by the Member States for almost all operational programmes, and the Commission’s 87% approval rate by the end of 2009it is necessary to take into consideration not merely the capacity for taking-up and disbursing Community funds, but also the effectiveness of those policies on the ground and their scope for improving the well-being of the beneficiary community, thus assessing the quality, as well as the quantity, of the projects implemented; points out that the launch of the current programming period has been subject to considerable delay owing to new rules and the introduction of new management and control systems; expects, therefore, a considerable increase in interim payments in 2010 and 2011;
Amendment 71 #
2010/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a new
Paragraph 29 a new
29a. Points out that amendments have recently been adopted to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, and to Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund; wonders what impact the Commission estimates these amendments will have on the level of payments in the coming years - considering also the effect of the late launch of the 2007-2013 programming period - and to what extent it will take this into account in its draft budget;
Amendment 76 #
2010/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a new
Paragraph 30 a new
30a. Points out also that the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and currently under discussion in Parliament could, if adopted, have repercussions for the budget; wonders how the Commission intends to factor the potential amendments into the equation and what the effect on the budget would be of a prospective derogation from the rule on automatic decommitment with retrospective effect;
Amendment 77 #
2010/2004(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b new
Paragraph 30 b new
30b. Notes that in recent years the level of payments has remained somewhat low and expresses its concern at the widening gap between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations (RAL) under this heading; also considers it a priority to make optimum use of ESF resources in 2011 in order to boost the competitiveness of European enterprises and overcome the economic and financial crisis; points out that this will require the availability of sufficient payment appropriations;
Amendment 2 #
2010/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls that the purpose of the amending letter presented by the Bureau to the Committee on Budgets in September is to take into account needs unforeseen at the time the estimates were drawn up, and stresses that it should not be seen as an opportunity to renew estimates previously agreed; expects the Bureau to submit realistic requests when presenting the estimates; is ready to examine the Bureau's proposals on a fully needs-based and prudent basis in order to ensure an appropriate and efficient functioning of the institution;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 10 #
2010/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Stresses the need for a fully integrated knowledge management system; recalls the need to organise a presentation in the Committee on Budgets on the multitude of information sources/systems available to Members and to receive the requested information concerning the state of play of the 'knowledge management system', as agreed during the conciliation between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets on 15 September 2009; is of the opinion that such a system should be made easily accessible via the Internet; underlines the need to consider how much of this information should be made available to European citizens;
Amendment 11 #
2010/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Would welcome an analysis of Parliament's WebTV channel, Europarl TV; requests, in particular, information about its viewing figures and the geographical dispersal and age range of viewers, in order to evaluate whether the aims of this tool have been fulfilled in terms of dissemination and quality and quantity of information transmitted;
Amendment 14 #
2010/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Highlights the need for an open and in-depth discussion on the current self- imposed 20% threshold applying to the level of Parliament's budget; considers that the Bureau and the Committee on Budget should work together to reassess this limit before opening an interinstitutional dialogue on the issue;
Amendment 19 #
2010/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. RCalls for an evaluation of the use of secretarial assistance allowances and for an assessment of the global cost of the increase currently awaiting approval from both arms of the budgetary authority, prior to considering any possible further increase in the future; recalls that wider cost implications should always be assessed in relation to new measures introduced such as, for example, when deciding on staff and assistants schemes in both 2010 and 2011; underlines especially that if additional assistants were to be recruited in Brussels, this would have an impact on the situation regarding office space, which is already stretchedbuilding maintenance and security, IT equipment, human resources dealing with administrative tasks and general facilities; considers that the March presentation of the medium-term buildings strategy for its three places of work is crucial;
Amendment 23 #
2010/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Recalls that the Bureau, in its draft estimates for Amending Budget 1/2010, proposed a reinforcement of 70 members of staff for the committee secretariat; underlines that these staff will be divided between three groups according to the increased workload expected for their legislative activity, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; considers that that breakdown should be submitted to a mid-term assessment by July 2011, in order to clarify whether the services benefiting from a higher increase of staff have been affected in real terms by the predicted increased work load;
Amendment 29 #
Amendment 30 #
2010/2003(BUD)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Stresses the fact that sound financial management of building expenses is essential; calls on the Bureau and Secretary General of the Parliament to carry out the main proposals of the joint declaration between Parliament and the Council agreed during the last budget conciliation meeting in November 2009; reiterates, in particular, the importance of enhancing interinstitutional cooperation in this field; stresses the need to receive information necessary for decision- making in good time under the procedure laid down in Article 179 of the Financial Regulation, which 'should include needs assessments and cost benefit analyses for the various alternatives, outlining the options to rent or buy, as well as transparent information concerning the alternative financing possibilities, the long-term financial consequences, and compatibility with the MFF'; in this context, cooperation with other institutions in working towards the harmonisation of such information in order to allow a comparison of building space and costs would be considered a key issue;
Amendment 3 #
2010/0048(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 - point vi
Paragraph 1 - point vi
vi. given the current economic climate, make efforts to consider reprioritisation within the budget through the establishment of positive and negativein order to ensure the adequate funding of priorities, bearing in mind however the European added value of the EU budget;
Amendment 4 #
2010/0048(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 - point vii
Paragraph 1 - point vii
vii. recognise that these new needs cannot be met only through redeployment or reprioritisation and use of available flexibility mechanisms, without a revision of the MFFthat a revision of the MFF and the flexibility mechanisms included in the IIA is necessary, contrary to the Council's position as set out in its conclusions of 16 March 2010 on the budget guidelines for 2011 and reaffirmed by the Presidency-in- office in its statements during the 15 June 2010 debate on oral question B7- 0310/2010 O- 0074/2010; and that,recall furthermore that new needs stemming from the entry into force of the Lisbon TreatyTreaty of Lisbon should logically entail savings at national and regional level;
Amendment 7 #
2010/0048(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 - point x
Paragraph 1 - point x
x. take all necessary steps for a revision of the MFF providing the extra resources necessary to deliver the European External Action Service and other Lisbon-Treaty- related policy priorities, as well as other initiatives, particularly under Heading 1a "Competitiveness Growth and Employment" and Heading 4 "External Relations", providing EU added value allowing the EU to meet its commitments and its citizens’ expectations;
Amendment 9 #
2010/0048(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 - point xiii
Paragraph 1 - point xiii
xiii. recognise the importance of flexibility to create reserves and margins allowing the EU to respond to current and future needs, both within the financial framework, within and between headings (such as was necessary to find the resources for Galileo, the Food Facility and the Economic Recovery Plan for example), and in negotiations over its establishment and revision; take note of the fact that Parliament is not prepared to accept any loss ofincreased flexibility norand enter into negotiations over any proposals that do notwould guarantee at least the current stronger degree of flexibility ove, including increasing the threshold for revisions to the financial framework of up to 0,03% of EU GNI (referred to in Article 8(3) of the proposal for a MFF Regulation), as well as increasing the amount available through the Flexibility Instrument and simplifying the procedure for shifting resources between the different Headings of the MFF;
Amendment 14 #
2009/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Reiterates its recommendations in paragraphs 46-48 of its above-mentioned resolution of 25 March 2009 following the Court of Justice's judgement of 6 November 2008 on the legal basis of Decision 2006/1016/EC and awaits the new Commission proposal for a decision on the EIB's external lending mandate following the mid-term review in April 2010; calls for greater consistency in the EIB’s external mandate, as regards both the sufficiency of funds for the whole period of the new mandate and their distribution by geographical areas; calls in particular for a single streamlined mandate for all regions, enabling a focus on sectors of comparative advantage where the Bank can provide clear benefits, such as infrastructure, private sector development, financial services, etc.;
Amendment 15 #
2009/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Calls for the release of the extra EUR 2 billion within the EIB’s optional mandate, which should be used for horizontal climate change issues in all countries with EIB activity, subject to there being sufficient evidence that the EIB can effectively utilise the extra funds;
Amendment 24 #
2009/2166(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29a. Requests that the EIB add up-to-date details, in its next Annual Report, of the accomplishments of the JESSICA initiative;
Amendment 1 #
0112/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Observes that the level of error related to the implementation of cohesion policy has been progressively decreasing over the last years; highlights the distinction between error and fraud and that only 0.6% of errors were reported by Member States to be as a result of fraud for ERDF, Cohesion Fund and ESF programmes of the 2007-2013 period; notes however that regional policy remains one of the policy areas which is particularly error prone, with 98 out of the 168 ERDF and Cohesion Fund payments and 70 out of 160 ESF payments audited by the Court of Auditors for the year 2011 affected by different types of errors; points out, however, that these figures could be explained by the fact that twice as many payments were made in 2011 than in 2010 due to the completion of programmes;
Amendment 2 #
0112/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that an error occurs when a transaction is not carried out in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions, therefore rendering declared (and reimbursed) expenditure irregular; an error does not necessarily mean that funds have disappeared, been lost or wasted or that fraud has been committed;
Amendment 3 #
0112/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Highlights, however, that there is no distinction made between major and minor errors, some minor errors, such as not filling in a form properly are counted in the same way as more serious errors such as overpayment or underpayment;
Amendment 5 #
0112/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Draws attention to the multiannuality of the cohesion policy management system and underlines that the final evaluation of irregularities related to the policy implementation will be possible only at the closure of the programming period; supports the commitment of the Commission to focus its efforts on the most risky-prone programmes and Member States andto strengthen administrative capacity and opt for adequate staffing where needed; is looking forward to the final results of the reinforced control provisions at the closure of the 2007-2013 programming period;
Amendment 6 #
0112/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that 80% of funding is administered at Member State level and that the European Court of Auditors found that in the vast majority of errors found in regional policy transactions sufficient information was available for Member States to detect these errors themselves; therefore highlights that measures such as improving administrative capacity, streamlining procurement and eligibility rules and a focus on simplification and a risk-based approach should be implemented at Member State level;
Amendment 7 #
0112/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that infringement of public procurement rules remains the most frequent reason for irregularities along with the non-compliance with eligibility rules; draws attention to the different approach to the application of corrections related to the public procurement eirroregularities by the Commission and the Court and calls for the standardisation of the methodology; takes note of the efforts of the Commission to provide training and guidance in order to improve the knowledge of the eligibility rules on the ground;
Amendment 12 #
0112/2167(DEC)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Observes the increasing level of suspension and interruption of payments carried out by the Commission; notes that in spite of the fact that the Commission ensures corrective actions to be systematically initiated whenever deficiencies are identified, the Court is of the opinion that there is no assurance that financial correction mechanisms adequately compensate the detected errors, nor that they prevent the recurrence of such errors; highlights the need for Member States to work more closely with national audit authorities to ensure better coordination;