6 Amendments of Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ related to 2017/2044(BUD)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the Draft Budget 2018 (DB 2018); regrets the reduction in both commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA) in Heading III compared to 2017; underlines that these decreases cannot be justified by the delays in implementation of the agreed measures; welcomes the top-up of Heading III by an additional EUR 817.1 million above its ceiling using the flexibility instrument; highlights that the proposed level of expenditure will be insufficient to cover the needs in light of the prevailing security threats and the continuous migratory pressure which has recently been increasing along the Central Mediterranean route and the evolution of which cannot be predicted;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that the large budget reduction (49,7 % in PA) for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) undermines the importance and urgency of the AMIF policy objectives; challenges the Commission’s assertions in DB 2018 that justify its proposed reduction in AMIF funding; stresses that security for those who seek protectionwelcomes the Commission proposal to reinforce frontline activities linked to migration and security, including the increase in the operational capacities for integration and improved cooperation on return/readmission with third countries, but stresses that the management of the migration flows in the Union should not be adversely affected by budgetary cuts;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Reiterates the importance to make targeted funding available to tackle the root causes of the migration and refugee crisis; stresses, to this end, that the Union budget should finance measures in the countries of origin of migrants as well as in host countries of refugees, including, but not limited to measures addressing poverty, unemployment, education and economic opportunities, as well as instability, conflict and climate change;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets the significant budget reduction for the Internal Security Fund (ISF) (35,6 % in PA); stresses that in light of the continued security threat in the Union, ISF funding should be sufficient to aid Member States in dealing with threats to internal security; highlights the need to sufficiently fund efforts to improve information sharing and to fight cybercrime, especially cross-border organised and serious crime, terrorism and cybercrime; highlights the need to sufficiently fund efforts to improve police and judicial cooperation in security- related matters, including information sharing between Member States and enhanced interoperability of databases at European level;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes the proposed increases in the DB 2018 for expenditure and establishment plans for all agencies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs classified as holding “new tasks”; regrets however that the increases proposed are lower than those requested by most agencies; stresses the importance of staff increases for eu-LISA and EuropolEuropol, Eurojust, eu-LISA and CEPOL as well as budgetary increases for Eurojust and Europol, especially in light of their increased workload and the upcoming adoption of legal bases for new databases and interoperability developments; welcomes the budget increase for the European Data Protection Supervisor in view of the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation1 .; _________________ 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC ( General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Points out that the Commission's proposal, for the third year in a row, does not leave any margin under the ceiling for Heading III, evidencing the outdated size of the smallest MFF heading, as argued by the European Parliament as part of the mid-term revision process.