Activities of Marta ANDREASEN related to 2011/2019(BUD)
Plenary speeches (1)
2012 draft budget trilogue (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the mandate for the trialogue on the 2012 draft budget
Amendments (23)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C
Paragraph C
C. whereas the Commission should be accountable not only for complianceevery Euro spent from its budget, but also for the extent to which the expected results were achievedoutcome of that spend matches the intended results,
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C a (new)
Paragraph C a (new)
Ca. having regards to Article 317 TFEU, which states that the Commission shall implement the budget on its own responsibility,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that in its resolution of 24 March 2011 the EP put the Europe 2020 strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth at the centre of the 2012 EU budgetary strategy in order to move the Union out of the current economic and social crisis;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that the promotion of jobs and high-quality employment by deliveringmeans onf the Europe 2020 strategy’s seven flagship initiatives is a jointly endorsed goal of the 27 EU Member States; recalls that the implementation of this strategy will require a huge amount of future-oriented investmentspend up to 2020, estimated at no less than EUR 1 800 billion by the Commission in its communication entitled ‘The EU Budget Review’3 ; underlinnotes, therefo Commission’s desire, that necessary investment in education, fostering a knowledge societyspend on education, research and development, innovation, SMEs and green and new technologies must be made now and delayed no longerbe subject to minimal delay, but urges caution in the face of a rush to spend money where the market would find and fund opportunities regardless;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights the factNotes that the proposed figures in the 2012 EU annual budget are consistent with the profile of EU expenditure set in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2007-2013; emphasises that any increase (or decrease) compared to Budget 2011 must therefore be assessed bearing in mind its impact on the delivery of the multiannual programmes; stresses that this is a question of institutional credibility and coherence of the EU project when EU responsibilities and commitments keep on growing; deeply regrets from this point of viewnotes that the Commission didhas not yet proposed endowing unnecessary policies and new so-called competencies established at EU level following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with meaningful and visible financial capacity; trusts that it will continue to refrain from so doing;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Observes that according to the DB 2012 there is an overall margin of EUR 1 603 million in CA under the 2012 ceiling agreed in the MFF; is determined to make full use of this available margin as well as – if necessary – of other flexibility mechanisms foreseen by the IIA to support and strengthen certain targeted political objectives; expects Council’s full cooperation as regards the use of these mechanismhat this margin should remain untouched; expects Council’s full cooperation in ensuring this;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Calls on the Commission to reduce the 2012 budget in commitment and payment appropriations in an amount equivalent to the irregularities reported by the European Court of Auditors and which amounts to a minimum of 3.2 billion euros;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls that the bulk of the new EU competences introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, in the areas of energy, tourism and space, falls within the remit of Heading 1a; expresses its disappointment that no extra funding for these new policies is proposed by the Commission in the third year after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; underlines that neither Galileo nor GMES – the two main EU space programmes – is to benefit from extra funding by the end of the current MFF and that the Galileo funding is decreasing between 2011 and 2012; reiterates the need to introduce some specific, visible measures in support of tourism, given the economic relevance of this sector, which represents the third industry in Europe in terms of size and revNotes that neither Galileo nor GMES – the two main EU space programmes – is to benefit from extra funding by the end of the current MFF and that the Galileo funding is decreasing between 2011 and 2012; considers that Galileo is redundant because it is duplicating at great expenuse, and regrets that the Commission is not proposing a new legal basis to replabeyond what was originally estimated, services the three preparatory actions in this field which cannot be extended in 2012at already exist and therefore should be cancelled;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Points out that, owing to its political importance, the financing and existing actions of the Common Fisheries Policy should be preserved, not least given the Common Fisheries Policy has been a disaster and its upcomingincapable of reform; takes the view that the funding of the integrated maritime policy should not be detrimental to that of other fisheries actions and programmes under Heading 2; further considers it crucial to keep on monitoring the size of the European fishing fleetit should be dismantled and that fishing should be returned to a national competence;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41 a (new)
Paragraph 41 a (new)
41a. Recalls that Spain receives an average of 2.51 billion euros per annum over the course of the current MFF from the EU in regional funds; calls on the Commission to withhold regional funds from the Spanish regions where irregular or retroactive application of the Ley de Costas or regional urbanisation laws has resulted in the unjust and uncompensated expropriation of property;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Notes that the overall increase in funding proposed in the DB 2012 compared to Budget 2011 for actions encompassed under this heading (+17.7% in commitments appropriations, +6.8 % in payment appropriations) is in line with the growingbecause of the growing and unjustified ambitions of the EU in the area of freedom, security and justice, as outlined in both the Treaty of Lisbon and the Stockholm Programme (2010-2014), which the European Council itself adopted in December 2009are intended to supplant the authority of the nations of Europe in these core responsibilities;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 57
Paragraph 57
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 64
Paragraph 64
64. Notes that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8 281 million, representing an increase of 1.3% as compared to 2011, leaving a margin of EUR 472.5 million; notes that estimated administrative expenditure outside heading five is EUR 1.12 billion an increase of 1.2% over 2011;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65
Paragraph 65
65. Notes the letter from the Commissioner for Financial Programming and Budget of 3 February 2011 committing to an increase in Heading 5 expenditure below 1% and no new staff as compared to 2011 and calling upon all institutions to follow the same approach as regards the evolution of their budgets; notes that the European Parliament has submitted a budget estimate for administration in 2012 increased by 2.7% over that of 2011;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66
Paragraph 66
66. Observes that while the Commission, the Council, the Court of Auditors, the Ombudsman and the Data Protection Supervisor have followed suit the European Parliament has sought a much higher increase; stresses that it will scrutinise in depth the other institutions’ estimates, inter alia against the additional needs and activities related to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. Acknowledges the Commission’s great effort to freeze its own administrative expenditure in nominal terms; notes that this was rendered possible through the offsetting of the increases linked to statutory and contractual obligations against other drastic cuts in other administrative expenditure; is nevertheless concerned about the possible consequences of the latter, for instance those calls on the Commission to sharply reduce new contractual requirements that will commit it grelated to training (-11%) and publications (-17% and -2.1% for the Publication Office)r expense in the future;
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Notes the 4% increase in expenditure on pensions (as against +5.2% from 2010 to 2011) in view of the wave of retirements of officials born in the 1950s; invites the Commission to supply a more in-depth analysis of the long-term budgetary consequences of this trend, while at the same time considering the possible consequences, whether direct and indirect, of any change in the EU pension scheme on the attractiveness, quality and independence of the European civil service; stresses that any such change should follow due social dialogue;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71 a (new)
Paragraph 71 a (new)
71a. Notes that the External Action Service is estimated to cost EUR 491 million in 2012; questions whether this is value for money under any criterion especially that which would be applied to a service tasked with dealing with unrest on the boundaries of the European continent;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. StresseConsiders that pilot projects (PPs) and preparatory actions (PAs) are key tools for the formulation of political priorities and for paving the way for new initiatives that might turn into EU activities and programmes likely to improve the lives of EU citizens; intends, therefore, to support by all possible means its proposals regarding pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2012 Budget, while stressing the need carefully to study the Commission’s preliminary assessment expected in July 2011 for the definition of a global and balanced final package on this issuenew EU activities some of which will become new EU programmes whose aim is to make the EU seem relevant to EU citizens; in light of anticipated difficulties with the EU budget for the foreseeable future considers that these PPs and PAs should be cancelled;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
Paragraph 73
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
Paragraph 74
74. Takes note of one new pilot project and five preparatory actions – two of them new – proposed by the Commission under different headings; states its firm intention of analysing the content and objectives of the newly proposed initiatives in the course of the upcoming negotiationspostponing them;