7 Amendments of Branislav ŠKRIPEK related to 2016/2306(INI)
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned about patchy implementation of country-specific recommendations (CSRs) in the European economic recovery; believes that it should remain the prerogative of Member States on whether to implement CSRs and the best way in which this should be done; highlights the role of local and regional authorities and other relevant stakeholders, as well as European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) themselves, in supporting the structural reforms and investment;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises the potentialobjective of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), which is designed to support high- risk investment projects, in boosting growth and employment; icalls concerned, however, about the enormous imbalance in use of the Fund between the EU15 (91% of funding) and the EU13 (9% of funding) the EIB and the Commission to ensure that the distribution of the Funds is based on prudent financial analysis with applications assessed fairly on their merit; welcomes the Commission’s proposal to strengthen synergies between the EFSI and the ESI Funds; emphasises, however, that this should by no means undermine the role of Cohesion Policy as the main investment policy of the European Union;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates the need to accelerate the implementation of the ESI Funds during the 2014-2020 financial programming period; while acknowledging that Member States should remain responsible for the designation of programmes, believes that tailor-made measurerecommendations should follow the analysis of the implementation deficiencies and be included in the CSR formulation process;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the factRecognises that the Commission’s proposal to suspend parts of the ESI Funds for Spain and Portugal has been abandonedheld in abeyance in the face of constructive criticism from Parliament which has shown conclusively that this proposal is superfluous.and an assessment from the Commission which claims both nations are making progress towards their deficit reduction targets; notes that this decision can be reversed if Spain and Portugal do not continue to make progress towards the requirements set out in the Council decision of 8 August 2016;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Believes that the Investment Plan for Europe will only deliver on its targets through improved engagement with SMEs, local authorities and other grass roots actors; calls on the EIB and Commission to ensure that these stakeholders can successfully design and lead applications for project financing, have appropriate support, and are not exposed to unnecessary regulatory burdens; in particular notes the positive impact that Community-led Local Development can have on ensuring that the voices of local actors are heard;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Welcomes support for SMEs through EFSI’s SME Window and the SME Initiative; is encouraged by the ongoing recovery of the SME sector since the 2008 financial crisis; calls on the Commission to cooperate with Member States to ensure that problem areas are addressed including the slow increases in the numbers employed by SMEs and the stagnant growth within the manufacturing, construction and retail sectors;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Believes that access to finance remains the primary challenge for growing SMEs; notes that the commercial banking sector, primarily regulated by Member States, remains the primary source of financing for most SMEs; notes therefore that it will be Member States who remain the primary actors in the recovery of the SME sector and that the Commission should ensure that its actions play an effective supporting role.