Activities of Clare MOODY related to 2015/2353(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament's input ahead of the Commission's proposal (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on preparation of the post-electoral revision of the MFF 2014-2020: Parliament’s input ahead of the Commission’s proposal
Amendments (29)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that gender equality is a fundamental value of the EU enshrined in the EU Ttreatyies and should be included in all EU policies to deliver equality in practice; stresses that gender equality must become a policy objective in budget titles and similarly, gender mainstreaming must be recognised as an implementation method in budget titles; stresses therefore that gender budgeting must become an integral part of the budgetary procedure at all its stages, and notes that progress on this front has been marginal; welcomes the MFF mid-term review as an opportunity to make significant progress, in light of the ‘Budget for Results’ agenda; expects the Commission, therefore, to present further measurable and realistic objectives in order to truly embed gender perspectives in the EU budget for the remainder of this programming period;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes the considerable long-term impact of EFSI on the EU budget; believes that EFSI invests in projects that are not the same as those targeted by thedoes not fully compensate for H2020- affected budget lines and CEF; stresses therefore that, if the EU is to reach its research and innovation targets, the unanimously agreed level of financing of these programmes needs to be fully restored; recalls, in this context, that CEF in the area of energy and telecom has high political priority for the Energy Union and the Digital Union;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the focus on the 'Budget for Results' agenda as an opportunity for budget spending to deliver integrated benefit of gender equality with every euro spent; also recognises that simplification measures in the 'Budget for Results' agenda must not be made at the expense of investments that can bring positive change to achieve gender equality;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Draws attention to the existing gender- related targets in the Europe 2020 strategy, namely increasing female employment to 75%, achieving equal pay between women and men, reaching gender-equal members of national parliaments and an equal number of women on large company boards, all of which we are a long way from reaching; also draws attention to the related EP priorities under Horizon 2020, which include the promotion of gender equality, especially in research and innovation; stresses that the MFF review must assess progress towards these targets and should, if necessary, revise the measures being taken to achieve these targets;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that in accordance with Article 2 of the MFF Regulation, the Commission shall present a compulsory review of the functioning of the MFF before the end of 2016, taking full account of the economic situation at that time as well as of the latest macroeconomic projections, and that this review shall, as appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal for the revision of the MFF Regulation; is of the view that it is not an appropriate time to revise upwards the MFF ceilings;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that new political priorities should not be proposed at the expense of the agreed programmes of the current MFF, in particular H2020, CEF, COSME, Galileo and Copernicus, and pre-allocated national envelopes;identified by the three institutions recognise the reality of the urgent needs arising from Climate Change, resource efficiency and energy security; supports therefore the inclusion of the Circular Economy Package, the EU's COP21 commitments, Energy Union and Digital Union as priorities that will benefit from and are interdependent with the already established programmes Horizon 2020, CEF, and Copernicus
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that, according to UNHCR data, since January 2016, 55 % of the refugees and asylum-seekers entering the EU have been women and children; calls for an MFF revision to look at financial tools aimed specifically at integrating women refugees and asylum-seekers into their host country such as including flexible language training, education and childcare; also calls on the MFF revision to look at the financial tools available to address the root causes of their original displacement;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that grant funded projects provide critically important qualitative outcomes which are not reflected on balance sheets; such as the fight against online child abuse, where EU funding has made Europe a world leader;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Notes that the principle of programmes such as Horizon 2020 is to fund risky research with uncertain outcomes, providing a lifeline for innovation where the private sector will not invest; Believes the purpose of public financing for the Union should be to support these important, innovation and critical projects to bring them closer to market readiness;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that investing public funds in in the care sector such as quality and affordable childcare and elder care services will boost employment and, social care services, long term and elder care services creates jobs, drives economic growth and fosters gender equality, allows more women to return or take up fulltime work given that women spend two to ten times more time on unpaid care than men; calls for the MFF revision to be used to invest in this social infrastructure in Europe as part of the Jobs and Growth Agenda and Europe2020 Strategy; notes that this form of expenditure is rarely considered as a suitable form of investment when policy makers are looking for effective forms of employment generation in recessionary times and in fact we often witness the opposite happening as public expenditure on education, health, childcare and social care services is cut in many countries as part of their deficit reduction strategies; regrets that this neglect of social infrastructure reflects a gender bias in economic thinking and may derive from the gender division of labour and gender employment segregation which in turn contributes to the widening gender pay gap in Europe; regards the review of the MFF as a chance to take action to address this;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls for a further strengthening of, and a maximising of synergies between, EFSIF funds and EU programmes such as, ESIF, Horizon 2020, COSME and CEF;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Reiterates that the Daphne programmes played a fundamental role in combating violence against children, young people and women in the EU; underlines the need for sufficient financial support and for more clarity on how this objective is pursued under the REC programme; urges the importance of ensuring funds reach the grass-roots organisations on the ground to ensure effective implementation.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. ERecalls the Union's unique ability to initiate international collaboration and mobilise public finances on cross border issues such as climate action and environmental sustainability, where and when the private sector is unable; emphasises that Union funding can actually trigger and catalyse actions that Member States are unable to carry out on their own and create synergies and complementarities with Member States’ activities; encourages Member States to better explore areas in which the EU is not taking action;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the mid-term evaluation of the MFF programmes on the basis of their performance against stipulated targets and objectives, absorption capacity and EU added value, and newly emerging political priorities, taking into account the late implementation of the current framework; requests that as part of the MFF review the Commission defines and presents more clearly what Commissioner Georgieva's 'Budget for Results' agenda means in practice for the ITRE policy area; recalls the Parliament's stipulated priority for the need for gender balance under Horizon 2020, which includes the promotion of gender equality in research & innovation.
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that, in order to secure this additional funding, the financial allocation for two significant EU programmes, Horizon 2020 and the Connecting European Facility (CEF), has had to be reduced by EUR 2.2 billion and EUR 2.8 billion respectively, while the remaining EUR 3 billion are covered by unallocated MFF margins; stresses Parliament’s commitment during the EFSI negotiations to reduce as much as possible the impact on these two programmes, whose financial envelopes were decided only in 2013; efforts should be made to replenish these cuts from elsewhere in the EU budget including from under other headings;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Highlights, in this context, that in accordance with Article 15 of the MFF Regulation, a frontloading of resources was implemented in 2014-2015 for Horizon 2020 (EUR 200 million for European Research Council and Marie Curie actions) and COSME (EUR 50 million), in order to compensate in part for the decrease in appropriations between 2013 and 2014; notes that this frontloading does not change the overall financial envelope of the programmes, leading to less appropriations respectively for the second half of the MFF; stresses, however, that the frontloading for Horizon 2020 and COSME was fully absorbed, thus proving the strong performance of these programmes and their capacity to absorb even more; would welcome flexibility measures to reallocate from across the EU budget from programmes with lower absorption rates and impact;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes also with great concern that that the success rate for Horizon 2020 has dropped to a level of 13 % from the 20-22 % enjoyed by its predecessor (FP7) in the previous programming period; regrets the fact that as a result fewer high-quality projects in the field of research and innovation are receiving EU funding; notes, similarly, the rejection of many high-quality applications relating to the CEF owing to insufficient budget funds being allocated to the relevant budget lines; with this in mind reallocation and getting the most out of existing resources under the MFF should be a priority;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Is convinced that, while fully confirming the notion of large-scale political and financial support for EFSI, the EU budget should not be financing new initiatives to the detriment of existing priority Union programmes and policies; intends to deliver on its commitment to fully offset the EFSI-related cuts affecting Horizon 2020 and CEF, in order to allow them to accomplish their objectives as agreed only two years ago;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 15
Subheading 15
Budgeting for Results & Simplification
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Believes that the mid-term review/revision provides for an excellent opportunity for the first-time assessment of the functioning of the EU policies and programmes concerned, and expects the Commission to supply an analysis identifying the shortcomings of the current implementation system; invites the Commission to come up with concrete proposals to address the possibleinefficiencies, deficiencies and to improve the implementation environment for the remaining years of the current MFF, in order to ensure the best possible use of scarce financial resources; believes that Budget for Results agenda holds potential and in light of the huge pressure the EU budget is under, it could also boost the faith of citizens in EU expenditure;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 a (new)
Paragraph 43 a (new)
43a. Believes that the Budget for Results agenda should be a vehicle for the boosting performance of underperforming programmes and that political priorities should not be abandoned due to technical or programming failures;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 b (new)
Paragraph 43 b (new)
43b. Reminds the Commission that as one arm of the budgetary authority the European Parliament must be included in budgetary decision making and must be included in developing the Commissions Budget for Results strategy;
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 c (new)
Paragraph 43 c (new)
43c. Believes that new priorities often correspond with very real need and require budgetary support; the Parliament would be more able to meet these needs under existing budgetary ceilings if more performance information and greater flexibility were available;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 d (new)
Paragraph 43 d (new)
43d. The lack of adequate flexibility and accurate information has led to across the board cuts in some instances and the cutting of high demand, high performance programmes such as Horizon 2020; in this regard the current system is damaging to the EU's aims and reputation;
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 43 e (new)
Paragraph 43 e (new)
43e. Believes that many social challenges, such as achieving gender equality, would be better addressed by improved setting of targets and measurement of results across budget lines and headings;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Considers that the key priorities to be addressed must include adjustments to the duration of the MFF, a thorough reform of the own resources system, a greater emphasis on the unity of the budget, and more budgetary flexibility; is furthermore convinced that the modalities of the decision-making process need to be reviewed in order to ensure democratic legitimacy and comply with the provisions of the Treaty;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Recalls that, according to recital 3 of the MFF Regulation, the three institutions have agreed to jointly examine the issue of the most suitable duration in the context of the review/revision; reiterates its position that the duration of the MFF should be aligned with the political cycle of both Parliament and the Commission, thus making the European elections a forum for debate on future spending priorities;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58 a (new)
Paragraph 58 a (new)
58a. Recalls that many EU policies and programmes have their own revision/review requirements, mostly scheduled in 2017, and that these reviews will have to take account of available budgetary resources; in light of this the MFF review/revision should increase flexibility between headings so that budgetary resources can be reallocated more easily; notes that lack of flexibility in this respect leads to a situation whereby priorities are underfunded and scarce resources are not spent where the need is greatest;