Activities of Vicky FORD related to 2011/0177(APP)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the interim report in the interest of achieving a positive outcome of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 approval procedure
Amendments (8)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines the key role that the EU budget must play in achieving the commonly agreed EU 2020 strategy objectives since, if well devised, EU funding can actually trigger and catalyse actions of clear EU added value that Member States are unable to carry out on their own, as well as create synergies and complementarities with Member States’ activities by helping them to focus on key future-oriented investments; welcomes, therefore, the Commission’s proposal to increase – relative to the current MFF 2007-2013 – the funding available for EU programmes in the fields of research, innovation, competiveness, SMEs and infrastructure; strongly believes that these proposed financial allocations constitute a bare minimum, and strongly warns against the temptation by some Member States to cut them, as this would jeopardise the EU’s credibility and political commitment in favour of growth and jobs; emphasises in these areas; emphasises, however, at the same time, the need to ensure sufficient budgetary restraint and flexibility so that the budgetary means can be aligntargeted in an appropriate manner withand be adaptable to evolving circumstances and priorities;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses in particular the need to enhance, stimulate and secure the financing of research, development and innovation in the EU by significantly increasing the relevant expenditures in the MFF 2014- 2020 for the Horizon 2020 programme within the context of an overall reduced EU budget, and by radically simplifying funding procedures while strictly maintaining the principle of sound financial management;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Highlights the added value of EU programmes in favour of SMEs, as these have sometimes proven very helpful in supporting Member States’ efforts to secure SMEs’ access to funding opportunities in a time of deep financial crisis, but stresses the need to radically simplify the application process of such programmes for SMEs and the need to ensure timely payment by the Commission to SMEs participating in these programme; recommends that the Commission and Member States should review successful national programmes in order to share best practices; stresses, nevertheless, that a better and more diverse access to funding, from grants to loans or equity financing, should be available in the future for all European industrial actors; strongly believes that within the foreseen financial envelope foreseen for the Programme for the Competitiveness of enterprises and SMEs (COSME), the proportion of the budget allocated to financial instruments shallould be increased, and the access to it improved, so that the programme can be extended to include even more SMEs, and so that it answers more adequately to SMEs’ various needsmore adequately meet SMEs’ various needs; underlines the need to ensure that basic and affordable banking services are available to European SMEs involved in cross-border, especially cross-currency, trade, including outside the EU, in order to maximise the ability for SMEs to export;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines the strategic importance of large-scale infrastructure projects (such as ITER, Galileo, GLONASS, GMES) for the future of the EU’s competitiveness and for the reinforcement of EU industries; believes that industry financing should be secured in the EU budget on the basis of a fully autonomous and comprehensive multiannual budget, while improvements to the governance of industries should remain under EU Treaty rules; highlights that if any cost overruns arise in the course of the implementation of these projects, it should be covered in a manner that does not threaten the funding and the successful implementation of other Union policies that contribute to achieving the goals of the EU 2020 strategy; stresses the need to bring the budget for ITER back under the budget for Horizon 2020 to ensure secure funding for this vital research project;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Believes that in the actualcurrent context of public budgetary constraints, the leverage of other sources of funding is absolutely necessary to realise the long-term investments needed to achieve the EU 2020 strategy; strongly believes that EU added value accrues in particular through the support for high-risk, high- cost, long-term programmes beyond the reach of individual Member States; calls, therefore, for EU actions to reduce investment risks in large-scale activities and to develop Europe-wide energy and ICT infrastructure investments, amongst others; welcomes, in that respect, the launching of the 2012- 2013 pilot phase of the EU Project Bond initiative, and the Commission’s proposal regarding the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), as the first steps in the right direction;is direction; recommends that the Commission monitors and reviews the cumulative impact of new or amended legislation on long-term private sector investments and ensures that barriers to investment are urgently addressed.
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes, however, that a more thorough reflectionassessment is needed to improve support for long-term investments in the EU; underlines the need to develop and enhancefurther study and assess risk-sharing financial instruments based on the EU budget, with a view to possibly enhancing their use, and through them facilitate investment financing in priority sectors, encompassing a wider and more disparate range of projects and entailing different risks (a ‘portfolio of projects’ approach); is convinced that synergies and complementarities between EU and national schemes should be pursued in order to maximise the growth potential of such instruments; highlights that these instruments must rely on clear and transparent criteria for project eligibility and selection;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Strongly emphasises that the reinvestment of revenues (reflows) should be themay prove a useful principle governing all innovative financial instruments; underlines that this revolving principle entails not only savings for public finances but strengthens the leverage and multiplier effect of these instruments which, by the end of the day, helps to secure a higher level of investments in the economy;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Underlines that interoperability and synergies between cohesion policy and the specific programmes (such as Horizon 2020, COSME, CEF) and the cohesion policy must be promoted; is convinced that cumulative or combined funding should be encouraged in order to maximise the uptake of available EU funds in all Member States, and thereby their participation in all specific programmes, and to achieve more even economic development within the EU’s territory as a whole;