140 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2016/2151(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Citation 8
Citation 8
– having regard to the fact (unusual) that the statement of assurance4 as to a) the reliability of the accounts and b) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, _________________ 4 OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147.are separate accounts, which can and does cause confusion over whether or not the EU accounts have in fact been signed off;
Amendment 2 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision on grantsing the Commission discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015; until such time as the confusion over the split reports on the Statement of Assurance is cleared up, and until such time also as the Parliament (and by extension the EU public) is provided with a clear and unambiguous statement of affairs vis-à-vis funds that cannot be fully accounted for either because of fraud and/or negligence, as opposed to simple bureaucratic form- filling error, where funds were properly spent but simply improperly accounted for;
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a decision 2
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the fact (unusual) that the statement of assurance11 as to a) the reliability of the accounts and b) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are separate accounts, which can and does cause confusion over whether or not the EU accounts have in fact been signed off; _________________ 11 OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147.
Amendment 6 #
Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision on grantsing the Director of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2015; until such time as the confusion over the split reports on the Statement of Assurance is cleared up, and until such time also as the Parliament (and by extension the EU public) is provided with a clear and unambiguous statement of affairs vis-à-vis funds that cannot be fully accounted for either because of fraud and/or negligence, as opposed to simple bureaucratic form-filling error, where funds were properly spent but simply improperly accounted for;
Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a decision 3
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the fact (unusual) that the statement of assurance21 as to (a) the reliability of the accounts and (b) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, _________________ 21are separate accounts, which can and does cause confusion over whether or not the EU accounts have in fact been signed off; _________________ 21 OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147. OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147.
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a decision 3
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision on grantsing the Director of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium- sized Enterprises discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2015 until such time as the confusion over the split reports on the Statement of Assurance is cleared up, and until such time also as the Parliament (and by extension the EU public) is provided with a clear and unambiguous statement of affairs vis-à-vis funds that cannot be fully accounted for either because of fraud and/or negligence, as opposed to simple bureaucratic form- filling error, where funds were properly spent but simply improperly accounted for;
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a decision 4
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the fact (unusual) that the statement of assurance31 as to a) the reliability of the accounts and b) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, _________________ 31are separate accounts, which can and does cause confusion over whether or not the EU accounts have in fact been signed off; _________________ 31 OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147. OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147.
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a decision 4
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision on grantsing the Director of the Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2015; until such time as the confusion over the split reports on the Statement of Assurance is cleared up, and until such time also as the Parliament (and by extension the EU public) is provided with a clear and unambiguous statement of affairs vis-à-vis funds that cannot be fully accounted for either because of fraud and/or negligence, as opposed to simple bureaucratic form- filling error, where funds were properly spent but simply improperly accounted for;
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a decision 5
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the fact (unusual) that the statement of assurance42 as to a) the reliability of the accounts and b) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, _________________ 42are separate accounts, which can and does cause confusion over whether or not the EU accounts have in fact been signed off; _________________ 42 OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147. OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147.
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a decision 5
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision on grantsing the Director of the European Research Council Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2015 until such time as the confusion over the split reports on the Statement of Assurance is cleared up, and until such time also as the Parliament (and by extension the EU public) is provided with a clear and unambiguous statement of affairs vis-à-vis funds that cannot be fully accounted for either because of fraud and/or negligence, as opposed to simple bureaucratic form-filling error, where funds were properly spent but simply improperly accounted for;
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a decision 6
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the fact (unusual) that the statement of assurance52 as to a) the reliability of the accounts and b) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are separate accounts, which can and does cause confusion over whether or not the EU accounts have in fact been signed off; _________________ 52 OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147.
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a decision 6
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision on grantsing the Director of the Research Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2015 until such time as the confusion over the split reports on the Statement of Assurance is cleared up, and until such time also as the Parliament (and by extension the EU public) is provided with a clear and unambiguous statement of affairs vis-à-vis funds that cannot be fully accounted for either because of fraud and/or negligence, as opposed to simple bureaucratic form- filling error, where funds were properly spent but simply improperly accounted for;
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a decision 7
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the fact (unusual) that the statement of assurance62 as to (a) the reliability of the accounts and (b) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, are separate accounts, which can and does cause confusion over whether or not the EU accounts have in fact been signed off; _________________ 62 OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a decision 7
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. GPostpones its decision on grantsing the Director of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency’s budget for the financial year 2015 until such time as the confusion over the split reports on the Statement of Assurance is cleared up, and until such time also as the Parliament (and by extension the EU public) is provided with a clear and unambiguous statement of affairs vis-à-vis funds that cannot be fully accounted for either because of fraud and/or negligence, as opposed to simple bureaucratic form-filling error, where funds were properly spent but simply improperly accounted for;
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a decision 8
Citation 7
Citation 7
– having regard to the fact (unusual) that the statement of assurance72 as to (a) the reliability of the accounts and (b) the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2015, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, _________________ 72are separate accounts, which can and does cause confusion over whether or not the EU accounts have in fact been signed off; _________________ 72 OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147. OJ C 380, 14.10.2016, p. 147.
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a decision 8
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ApprovPostpones the closure of the accounts of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015 until such time as the confusion over the split reports on the Statement of Assurance is cleared up, and until such time also as the Parliament (and by extension the EU public) is provided with a clear and unambiguous statement of affairs vis-à-vis funds that cannot be fully accounted for either because of fraud and/or negligence, as opposed to simple bureaucratic form-filling error, where funds were properly spent but simply improperly accounted for;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas Europe is facing a crisis of confidence in its institutions, a situation for which each individual institution of the EU must accept its own share of responsibility, and which thus requires Parliament to be particularly rigorous when scrutinising the accounts of the Commission;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas while the percentages involved in the EU budget as a) a portion of the overall aggregate Member States' expenditure, and b) the unaccounted for/misspent/wasted element of that budget, are small, the actual amounts involved are considerable and thus justify intense scrutiny;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas when the Parliament grants discharge to the Commission it checks – within reason – whether or not funds have been used correctly and policy goals achieved;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point b
Paragraph 2 – point b
(b) the 10 political priorities set out by President Juncker on the other side, while also responding to a number of crisis situations: refugees, insecurity in Europe and its neighbourhood, financial instability in Greece and the economic impact of the Russian ban exports;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets that the current budgetary arrangements do not facilitate the translation of social and political aspirations into useful operational objectives for spending programmes and schemes;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that there will be an opportunity in 2020 to bring the long term strategy and policy-making in to line with the budgetary cycle and recommends that this opportunity should be availed of;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Endorses the suggestion made by the Court of Auditors (the “Court”) in its “Briefing paper on the mid-term review of 28.10.2016” (points 39 and 40) of the multiannual financial framework that it is time for the Commission to explore other options, for example:
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
– a rolling budgeting programme with a five years planning horizon, clause(s) of revision by objectives and policies and rolling evaluation programme;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – indent 2
Paragraph 6 – indent 2
– determining the duration of programmes and schemes on policy needs rather basing it on the length of the financial planning period and; requiring Member States and the Commission to present well -justified needs for (a) Union funding and (b) results to be achieved, before spending is set;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to put on the agenda of the next experts’ meeting on Budget Focused Results (BFOR) the suggestions made by the Court in its “briefing paper on mid-term review” of 28. 10.2016 (points 39 and 40) in order to prepare the next 'Conference on EU Budget focused on Results' initiative that could debate on the policy areas in which the Union budget should be spent before deciding upon the financial framework;
Amendment 64 #
10. Points out the increasing use of financial instruments principally composed of loans, equity instruments, guarantees and risk sharing instruments under indirect management for the 2014-2020 period, and points out further that the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group managed almost all of the financial instruments under indirect management;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to propose measures to make EUnion Funding arrangements - which include, in particular, structural funds, trust funds, strategic investment funds, guarantee funds, facilities, financial instruments and macro-financial assistance instruments - clearer, simpler, more coherent and better equipped to ensure sufficient transparency, accountability and public understanding of how Union policies are funded and the benefits they bring (see points 50 and 56 of the Court’s “briefing paper on mid-term review” of 28. 10.2016); those EU Funding arrangements include, in particular, structural funds, trust funds, strategic investment funds, guarantee funds, facilities, financial instruments and macro-financial assistance instruments;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Asks the Commission to re- evaluate the ex-ante assessment for the Connecting Europe Facility debt instrument in the light of the creation of the EFSI, and also to consider the impact of EFSI on other Union programmes and financial instruments;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes Commissioner Oettinger’s intention to bring the various shadow budgets, in the long run, back under the Union budget but proposes that this should be done sooner rather than later; Ccalls on the Commission to prepare a communication on this issue;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses that this situation may indeed pose a significant challenge as– in some Member States the unclaimed Union contribution, together with required co- financing, exceeds 15% of the total general government expenditure; this means that because of their own internal budgetary restrictions, those Member States most in need of EU contributions to improve their infrastructure are also the Member States who lose most – this anomaly needs to addressed and ended;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Points out that five Member States (Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Poland and Romania), all of whom badly need access to the Structural Funds, account for more than half of the unused commitments of Structural Funds that have not led to payment;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Finds iunadmissicceptable that by the end of 2015 fewer than 20% of the national authorities responsible for European sStructural and Investment funds - with the exception of the European Agricultural Fund for Regional Development (EAFRD) – had been designated by the Member States which is; those designations are a necessary step for Member States' authorities to submit statements of expenditure to the Commission;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Notes that the Commission adopted in March 2015 a payment plan presenting short term measures to reduce the level of unpaid bill, but points out that while those measures seek to improve shorter term cash -flow management, dealing with the high level of outstanding commitments requires a longer term perspective;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Requests that the Commission takes measures to reduce outstanding commitments including,: (1) faster closure and earlier decommitment of the 2007-2013 programmes,; (2) wider use of net correction in cohesion,; (3) a reduction of cash held by fiduciaries and (4) the compilation of payment plans and forecasts where outstanding commitments are significant;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Requests once again that the Commission establish annually an updated long-term cash-flow forecast, spanning a seven- to -ten -year time horizon covering budgetary ceilings, payments needs, capacity constraints and potential de commitments, in order to better match payments needs and funds available;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Requests that as a matter of urgency, given the poor situation in which several Member States now find themselves, the Commission considers in its budgetary and financial management the capacity constraints of certain Member States, in order to avoid the underutilisation of funds and to increase the absorption rates, especially in the area of the ESI funds;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Points out that unused amounts of financial instruments remain relatively high, 80% of which were at the end of 2014 concentrated in five Member States at the end of 2014 (of which Italy constituted 45% of the total);
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. WelcomNotes the fact that the Court gives a clean opinion on the reliability of the accounts for 2015 as it had done since 2007, that the Court concluded that revenue was free from material error in 2015 and notes with satisfaction that the commitments underlying the accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 are legal and regular in all material respects; notes also, however, that this 'clean opinion' can give rise to confusion among the general population as to whether or not this means that the Court is giving a 'clean opinion' on the overall accounts of the Commission - given the vast sums involved, absolute clarity is needed and while the accuracy of the book-keeping is important, in any proper auditing process it is the underlying accounting that is paramount, i.e. whether all income and expenditure is legal, proper and (within the accepted parameters) fully accounted for;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Deeply regrets that for the 22nd year in a row payments are materially affected by error because of the fact that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective and points out that this, in fact, is the true result of the various ECA audits and that based on that result, discharge should be withheld;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Regrets that payments are affected by a most likely error -rate of 3,8% and notes that this error-rate is unacceptable; recalls that the most likely error -rate for payments was estimated in the financial year 2014 at 4,4%, in the financial year 2013 at 4,7%, in the financial year 2012 at 4,8% and in the financial year 2011 at 3,9%;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Notes with concern that if the corrective measures taken by the Member States and the Commission had not been applied to the payments audited by the Court, the overall estimated level of error would have been 4,3 % rather than 3,8%;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Points out that the Court found highest estimated levels of error in spending under ‘Economic, social and territorial cohesion’ (5,2%) and for “Competitiveness for growth and jobs” (4,4%) whilst “Administrative expenditure” had the lowest estimated level of error (0,6%); recommends that the Court should initiate a Special Report examining and comparing those areas with a view to producing a concise 'best- practice' document;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Notes that the different risk patterns of reimbursement schemes and entitlement schemes have had a major influence on the level of errors in the different spending areas; where the Union reimburses eligible costs for eligible activities on the basis of cost declarations made by beneficiaries the level of error is 5,2% whilst where payments are made on meeting conditions rather than reimbursing costs the error rate is 1,9%; recommends that the Court should examine and compare those areas with a view to concluding a Special Report on Best Practice;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Stresses that the Commission recognises that spending is affected by a material level of error, as it presentsed in its 2015 annual and management performance report, COM (2016) 446, the amount at risk asbeing in a range from EUR 3,3 to 4,5 billion, which represents between 2,3% and 3,1% of the payments; notes that the Commission estimates that it will in the future years identify and correct errors for between EUR 2,1 to 2.,7 billion;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Shares the view of the Court that the Commission’s methodology for estimating its amount at risk error has improved over the years but that individual DGs’ estimations of the level of irregular spending are not based on a consistent methodology (see in particular paragraph 1.38 of the 2015 Court annual report); recommends that this practice should be regularized and standardized as soon as possible;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Points in particular to the fact that for more than three quarters of 2015, expenditure Commission dDirectorates gGeneral base their estimates of amount at risk on data provided by national authorities, whilst it appears from the annual activity reports of the concerned Commission directorates general (DG AGRI and DG REGIO) that the reliability of Member States' control reports remains a challenge, although the data reporting of Member States has improved;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Emphasises, in this context, that if the Commission were sure of the effectiveness of its corrective capacity the dDirector gGenerals should not issue any financial reservation in their annual activity reports;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 45
Paragraph 45
45. Points out that the Commission reports78 a total implemented financial corrections and recoveries amounting to EUR 3,9 billion; that around EUR 1,2 billion of the corrections and recoveries were at source (applied before the Commission accepted expenditure) and that of the remainder:ing EUR 2,7 billion, around EUR 1,1 billion represents withdrawals by Member States applied after accepting expenditure by replacing ineligible amounts with new cohesion projects; _________________ 78 see paragraph 1.39 of the 2015 ECA annual report
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
47. Shares the view expressed by the Court in its sSpecial rReport 27/2016 that the distinction introduced by the Kinnock- Prodi reform between the “political responsibility of Commissioners” and the operational responsibility of dDirectors- gGeneral means that it has not always been made clear whether ‘political responsibility’ includes taking responsibility for the dDirectorates-gGeneral budget execution, or whether it is distinct from it (see point 5 of the executive summary of ECA special report 27/2016);
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50
Paragraph 50
50. Calls again on the Commission to issue, on an annual basis, a single, proper "Statement of aAssurance" based on the directors-general annual activity reports and to produce its own statistically estimate of the level of error; asks the Commission to evaluate separately the amount of EU money it envisages to recuperate as recoveries or financial corrections linked to the financial year 2015;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Deeply regretNotes that the director general of Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, as in previous years, continues to issue a horizontal reservation covering all payments and cost claims under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7); calls on the director general to develop, at long last, a more meaningful, risk based approach and use specific reservations when needed;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 66
Paragraph 66
66. Points out that there remain a number of weaknesses in the performance indicators used in Horizon 2020, such as 1) in relation to the balance of indicators which measure only inputs or outputs rather than results and impact81 , 2) the absence of baselines orand 3) a lack of ambition in targets; _________________ 81 see paragraph 3.29 of the ECA annual report
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 68
Paragraph 68
68. Notes with satisfaction that, as to the proposals and grant agreements examined by the Court, sufficient emphasis had been put on performance in the objectives, when required by the Commission, and that the same applies for the evaluation process of these proposals;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 72
Paragraph 72
72. Regrets thate observations made by the Court noted that many of the objectives used in management plans and annual activity reports of the DGs for agriculture and rural development (AGRI) for Climate Action (CLIMA), for Environment (ENVI) and for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (MARE) were taken directly from policy or legislative documents and lacked the level of detail necessary for management and monitoring purposes;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73 – indent 1
Paragraph 73 – indent 1
– assess the performance of work programmes and calls, by translating high- level objectives set out in the Horizon 2020 legislation into operational objectives at work programme level;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 74
Paragraph 74
74. WelcomNotes the fact that the Court overall audit evidence indicates that revenue is not affected by a material level of error and, in particular, that the examined systems are effective for GNI and VAT -based own resources, that the examined systems are overall effective for the traditional own resources, the key internal controls in Member States visited by the Court being nevertheless partially effective and that the Court found no errors in the transactions tested; notes also, however, that as has been known for many years but that as was highlighted in 2016 when there was an almost overnight increase of 26%, Ireland's GDP is hugely distorted by the presence and activities of many major multinationals corporations (MNCs), this distorted GDP then used to overestimate Ireland's contribution to the EU budget; given that the major distortion announced in 2016 related to Ireland's 2015 GDP, a refund is surely due to Ireland for that year;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 75
Paragraph 75
75. Recalls that a reservation is a means by which a doubtful element in GNI data submitted by a Member State is kept open for possible correction and welcomnotes the fact that the Court did not identify serious problems in the lifted reservations reviewed in 2015; advises, however, that in light of the gross distortion of Ireland's GDP for 2015, caused by the activities of its many major multinational corporations (MNCs), such a reservation is now needed for Ireland for 2015;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78
78. Regarding the traditional own resources, notes that at the end of 2015, the Commission also had a list of 325 open points concerning non-compliance with Union customs rules that they had identified through inspections in Member States;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 79
Paragraph 79
79. Points out that the Court found - as to the customs duties and sugar levies statements -, the Court found inefficiencies in the management of the amounts receivable (known as the B accounts) in the Member States and that the Commission identified similar shortcomings in 17 of the 22 Member States they visited;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 81
Paragraph 81
81. Stresses that the impact of the major revisions to the GNI balances could be smaller if a common Union revision policy harmonising the time table for major revisions had been in place;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 82
Paragraph 82
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83 – indent 5 a (new)
Paragraph 83 – indent 5 a (new)
– reassess Ireland's EU 2015 budget contribution with a view to changing the basis for assessment from GDP to the more accurate GNP, which in the case of the vast majority of countries are far more closely aligned than in Ireland and which would reflect a truer measure of Ireland's national production;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
92. Regrets that that the target to invest 3% of Member States’ gross domestic product (GDP) into research by 2020 will most likely not be met; recommends that in the case of Ireland, where GDP is hugely distorted by the presence and activities of many major multinational corporations, GNP rather than GDP should be used as the basis for such calculations;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94
Paragraph 94
94. Welcomes also that the share of Horizon 2020 funds allocated to small and medium-sized enterprises increased from 19,4% in 2014 to 23,4% in 2015 and recommends that this trend should be proactively encouraged;
Amendment 187 #
97. Notes that the responsibility to implement the research framework programmes is shared amongst different Commission directorate-generals, to Executive Agencies, Joint Undertakings and so called Article 185 bodies (partnerships with the Member States), all of which requires close coordination;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 98
Paragraph 98
98. Clarifies that the Court’s audit concerned almost exclusively concerned payments under the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7);
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 103
Paragraph 103
103. Regrets that most of the quantified errors which the Court found (33 out of 38) concerned the reimbursement of ineligible personnel and indirect costs declared by beneficiaries; almost all of the errors we found in cost statements were due to beneficiaries misinterpreting the complex eligibility rules or incorrectly calculating their eligible costs which leads to the obvious conclusion that those rules need to be simplified;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 105
Paragraph 105
105. RegretNotes that the director general of DG R&I issued again, as in previous years, a horizontal reservation concerning all cost claims under FP7 (EUR 1,47 billion); is of the opinion that horizontal reservations in general cannot be considered as instrument of sound financial management;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 109
Paragraph 109
109. Is concerned about the Court’s findings that multiannual programmes setting political objectives like EU 2020 or Horizon 2020, while they advance in parallel and, they do not have a real link87 ; _________________ 87 European Court of Auditors, Annual Report 2015, point 3.19
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113
Paragraph 113
113. Calls on the Member States to make an extra effort with the view to meeting the target of 3% GDNP being invested in research; this would boost excellence and innovation;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 115
Paragraph 115
115. Calls on the Commission to follow- up in particular the 16 cases of quantifiable errors, in which Commission, national authorities or independent auditors had sufficient information to prevent or detect and correct the errors before accepting the expenditure; and further, to inform its competent committee in detail about the corrective measures taken before the end of October 2017;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 119
Paragraph 119
119. WelcomNotes the fact that, according to the ex-post evaluation of the ERDF/CF 2007- 201392 , EUR 1 of cohesion policy investment will generate EUR 2,74 of additional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2023; swelcomes the fact that Structural and cCohesion fFunds invested mainly in small and medium enterprise innovation (EUR 32,3 billion), generic enterprise support (EUR 21,4 billion), in research and technology development (RTD) infrastructure (EUR 17,5 billion), transport investments (EUR 82,2 billion), energy investment (EUR 11,8 billion), environmental investment (EUR 41,9 billion), culture and tourism investments (EUR 12,2 billion) and urban and social infrastructure (EUR 28,8 billion); _________________ 92 SWD(2016) 318 final SWD(2016) 318 final
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 120
Paragraph 120
120. WelcomNotes that ERDF/CF were able, to a certain extent,to a limited extent, ERDF/CF were able to counter- balance the effects of the 2007-2008 financial crises, indicating that without structural funds’ intervention the economic divergence among European regions would have grown even more than it has;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122
Paragraph 122
122. Regrets that it is not informed about the measures, which the Commission asked Member States to undertake in the context of the European semester
Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124
Paragraph 124
124. Welcomes the fact that the Court has aligned the chapters in its Annual Report to the heading under the MFF; is , however, of the opinion, however, that the funds under this heading are of such financial importance (- European Regional Development Fund (ERDF): EUR 28,3 billion,; Cohesion Fund (CF): EUR 12,1 billion,; European Social Fund (ESF): EUR 10,3 billion) - that the Court’s audit strategy should keep the ERDF and the CF, one the one hand, and the ESF, on the other, identifiable;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125
Paragraph 125
125. Is concerned that Member States, in particular towards the end of a programming period, Member States focussed on absorption funds available under national envelops rather than on achievement of policy objectives;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 126
Paragraph 126
126. Is anxious that the 16 Member States, which that have not yet transposed the directive on public procurement, and the 19 Member States whichthat have not transposed the directive on award of concession contracts, and the 17 Member States, which that have not yet transposed the directive on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, do so as swiftquickly as possible, as the directives aim at further simplification; calls on the Commission to verify progress in these areas;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 127
Paragraph 127
127. Highlights the importance of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI); by the end of November 2015, close to 320,000 young people had been included in actions supported by the YEI and 18 out of 22 Member States had launched actions under it; 28 % of the available YEI funding had been committed,; 20 % had been contracted out to beneficiaries and 5 % had been paid to beneficiaries; three Member States had not yet committed any funding by the end of November 2015 (ES, IE, UK-Scotland);
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 129
Paragraph 129
129. Notes that, in 2015, more than 80% of the payments were interim payments to operational programmes (OPs) of the 2007- 2013 programming period, whose eligibility period ended 31 December 2015; the advance payments to the 2014-2020 programming period amounted to around EUR 7,8 billion;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 131
Paragraph 131
131. Notes with regret that the Court quantified the estimated level of error at 5,2% (2014: 5,7%); is alarmed that the Court, as in previous years, had to conclude that “In 18 cases of quantifiable errors made by beneficiaries, national authorities had sufficient information to prevent or detect and correct the errors before declaring the expenditure to the Commission. If all this information had been used, the estimated level of error for this chapter would have been 2,4 percentage points lower.”94 _________________ 94 European Court of Auditors, Annual Report concerning the financial year 2015, point 6.36
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 132
Paragraph 132
132. Takes note that in the area of ERDF/CF expenditure, the Court identified that the main risks to regularity were, in the area of ERDF/CF expenditure, that beneficiaries, on the one hand, that on the one hand, beneficiaries declare costs whichthat are ineligible according to national eligibility rules and/or the less numerous eligibility provisions in the EU structural funds regulations, or, on the other hand, noncompliance with EU and/or national public procurement rules when awarding contracts; the Commission estimated the risk of error in this policy area between 3% and 5,6%;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 133
Paragraph 133
133. Takes note that in the area of ESF expenditure, the Court identified that the main risk to regularity related, in the area of ESF expenditure, to the intangible nature of the investments in human capital, and the involvement of multiple, often small-scale, partners in the implementation of projects; the Commission estimated the risk of error in this policy area between 3% and 3,6%;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 135
Paragraph 135
135. Welcomes thate fact that Member States’ annual control reports became, more reliable over the years, more reliable: in only 14 cases (ERDF/CF) adjusted the Commission error rate reported by Member States upwards by more than 2%;
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 146
Paragraph 146
146. Is deeply concerned that, in Hungary, the European Court of Auditors and DG REGION discovered serious irregularities related to the construction of metro line four4 in Budapest; based on an OLAF administrative enquiry, which began in 2012 and which was only recently concluded due to the complex nature of the case, the Commission may have to recover EUR 228 million and the European Investment Bank may have to recover EUR 55 million; the mismanagement was discovered at project level; the OLAF case report also recommends judicial follow-ups in Hungary and the United Kingdom; calls on the Commission to keep its competent committee regularly informed on the progress made and measures taken;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 147
Paragraph 147
147. Deplores the adoption of two ordinances by the Romanian Parliament, of two ordinances which could impede an effective fight against corruption and which, in addition, could offer the possibility of pardoning politicians who may have been implicated in illegal acts; such new legislative measures could have a very negative impact on the Commission's endeavour to protect the Union's financial interests as Romania is an important recipient of structural funds; calls on the Commission to inform its competent committee about the measures taken by the Commission to address the situation in time for the 2015 discharge vote;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 149
Paragraph 149
149. Asks the Court that, given their financial importance, its audit strategy should keep the ERDF and the CF, one the one hand, and the ESF, on the other, separately identifiable given their financial importance;
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 150 – indent 1
Paragraph 150 – indent 1
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 150 – indent 4
Paragraph 150 – indent 4
– in line with the Court’s recommendation, when making its legislative proposal for the next programming period, to fundamentally reconsider the design and delivery mechanism for the ESI funds, (including political and financial frameworks), when making its legislative proposal for the next programming period taking also into account also the suggestions of the high level simplification group; calls on the Commission to prepare a communication on this issue at an early stage;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 151
Paragraph 151
151. Fully supports Commissioner Oettinger when he said that financial instruments and “shadow budgets” must be brought back, in the long run, eventually under the roof of the Union budget (and the sooner the better), as the Commission would be answerable to the European Parliament; calls on the Commission to prepare a communication on this issue before November 2017;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 152
Paragraph 152
152. Recalls that the direct aid schemes introduced by the 2013 CAP Reform only entered into force in claim year 2015 and that the present report relates to the expenditure of budget year 2015, corresponding to the direct aid applications lodged in 2014, the last year of the old CAP schemes; also notes that much of the expenditure in rural development are in multi annual programs and as such cannot be assessed accurately on an annual basis;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154
Paragraph 154
154. Points out that for “Market and direct support”, the estimated error of the Court is 2,2%, slightly above the materiality threshold of 2% (same level as in 2014) whilst in “Rural development and other policies”, the estimated level of error remains high at 5,3% but is lower than the 6% estimated last year; regrets therefore that the focus of the simplification agenda being pursued by the Commission is on Pillar one while Pillar two which is known to have a higher error rate due to the complexity of the schemes within it is not receiving priority;
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 154
Paragraph 154
154. Points out that for “Market and direct support”, the estimated error of the Court is 2,2%, slightly above the materiality threshold of 2% (same level as in 2014), whilst in “Rural development and other policies”, the estimated level of error remains high at 5,3% but is lower than the 6% estimated last year;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 155
Paragraph 155
155. Stresses that errors in direct support area were nearly all due to an overstated number of eligible hectares despite the fact that the reliability of data in the Land Parcel Identification System has been constantly improving over recent years and, believes however that there is room for further improvement in particular in developing a consistent approach to identifying landscape features, trees and hedges; points out that in rural development half of the errors were caused by the ineligibility of the beneficiary or project, 28% by procurement issues and 8% by infringements to agri-environmental commitments;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 155
Paragraph 155
155. Stresses that errors in direct support area were nearly all due to an overstated number of eligible hectares despite the fact that the reliability of data in the Land Parcel Identification System has been constantly improving over recent years, and points out that in rural development, half of the errors were caused by the ineligibility of the beneficiary or project, 28% by procurement issues, and 8% by infringements to agri-environmental commitments;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 157
Paragraph 157
157. Welcomes the fact that the Commission significantly reduced the number of open conformity procedures: from 192 in 2014 to 34 in 2015, and that following changes in legislation designed to streamline the procedure, the Commission now monitors the audit cycle more closely in order to comply with the internal and external deadlines;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 – point a
Paragraph 158 – point a
(a) for EAGF, the LPIS, the administrative controls, the quality of on- the-spot inspections, the lack of consistency in defining the parameters for maintaining land in Good Agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) and the recovery procedures for incorrect payments;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 – point a
Paragraph 158 – point a
(a) for EAGF, t: * The LPIS, the administrative controls, t; * The quality of on- the-spot inspections and t; * The recovery procedures for incorrect payments;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 158 – point b
Paragraph 158 – point b
(b) for rural development support, d: * Deficiencies in administrative checks related to eligibility conditions, in particular those concerning public procurement;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 159
Paragraph 159
159. RegretNotes that despite the fact that in 2015in 2015, for the first time, the certification bodies were, for the first time required to ascertain the legality and regularity of the expenditure,; regrets that the Commission could use the work of those bodies only to a limited extent due to significant weaknesses in methodology and implementation such as: i* Inadequate audit strategies, small s; * Samples being drawn that were too small, i; * Insufficient skills and legal expertise of Certification Bodies’ auditors;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 160 – point a
Paragraph 160 – point a
(a) in Direct payments,: * DG AGRI made adjustments (top ups) for 12 out of 69 paying agencies with an error rate above 2 % - (but none above 5 % -) while only one paying agency had initially qualified its declaration; * DG AGRI has issued a reservations for 10 paying agencies: 3 for Spain, one each for France, Bulgaria, Cyprus Italy (Calabria), Romania, and one each for Spain and France as to POSEI (Programme d'Options Spécifiques à l'Éloignement et à l'Insularité for the ultra-peripheral regions).
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 160 – point b
Paragraph 160 – point b
(b) in rural area,: * DG AGRI made adjustments (top ups) for 36 out of 72 paying agencies and in 14 cases the adjusted error rate was above 5;%; * DG AGRI issued a reservation for 24 Paying agencies comprising 18 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy (4 paying agencies), Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Spain (3 paying agencies) and the United Kingdom (2 paying agencies; i* In addition DG AGRI issued reservations concerning public procurement for 2 Member States: Germany and Spain;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 162
Paragraph 162
162. Notes that as in 2014, the Court examined performance -related issues for selected rural development transactions and is concerned by the facts that there was insufficient evidence that costs were reasonable in 44 % of projects, and that there were deficiencies in targeting measures and selecting projects, including weak links to Europe 2020 objectives.
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 163 – introductory part
Paragraph 163 – introductory part
163. Is concerned about the reliability of the data used by the Commission to measure Key performance indicator 1 as defined by DG AGRI concerning the agricultural factor income; believes that the current trend in part time farming due to low commodity prices is not accurately accounted for, notes in particular that:
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 163 – introductory part
Paragraph 163 – introductory part
163. Is concerned about the reliability of the data used by the Commission to measure Key pPerformance iIndicator 1 (KPI 1) as defined by DG AGRI concerning the agricultural factor income; notes in particular that:
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 164
Paragraph 164
164. Fears that the Commission is not well equipped to yearly provide comprehensive yearly data as to key performance indicatKPI 1, nor 1– ands a result – to precisely and comprehensively monitor the evolution of farmer income;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 165
Paragraph 165
165. Considers that key performanceKPI 4 on the employment rate in rural development is not relevant as, given that the employment rate in rural development is not solely influenced by the CAP measures and as, given also that the objective of maintaining and creating rural jobs is shared with many other instruments, notably other ESI funds;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 167
Paragraph 167
167. Takes note that the director general of DG AGRI reported in one page of its Annual activity report for 2015 on the “Trends in the distribution of direct payments” and stressed once again that it is up to the Member States to use the options offered by the 2013 CAP reform to redistribute the CAP subsidies; recommends that: * Given the fact that this is one of the biggest areas of EU funding; * Given also the fact that under the current system in certain Member States (Ireland and the UK in particular), many large farms/estates are receiving vast annual sums from CAP, giving rise to much public criticism (justified) and putting at those funds at risk for al; The Commission should control the distribution of those funds such that they are properly targeted at those who are meant to receive them, with a binding cap on CAP payments to any individual farm, adjusted to the Consumer Price Index in each individual Member State;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 167
Paragraph 167
167. Takes note that the director general of DG AGRI reported in one page of its Annual activity report for 2015 on the “Trends in the distribution of direct payments” and stressed once againbelieves that the Commission has abdicated its duties in ensuring a fair distribution of CAP by stressed that it is up to the Member States to use the options offered by the 2013 CAP reform to redistribute the CAP subsidies which is in stark contrast to its willingness to engage directly with Member States and insist regulations be followed where it feels there is funds to be recovered;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168
Paragraph 168
168. Considers that direct payments may not fully play their role as a safety net mechanism for stabilising farm income, particularly for smaller farms, given that the current distribution of payments leads to 20% of all farms in the EU receiving 80% of all direct payments which does not reflect the level of production and is a legacy of Member States continuing to base payments on historic criteria; is the opinion that larger farms do not necessarily need the same degree of support for stabilising farm incomes as smaller farms in times of income volatility crisis since they may benefit of potential economies of scale which are likely to make them more resilient;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 168
Paragraph 168
168. Considers that direct payments maydo not fully play their role as a safety net mechanism for stabilising farm income, particularly for smaller farms, given that the current unbalanced distribution of payments leads to 20% of all farms in the EU receiving 80% of all direct payments; is the opinion that larger farms do not necessarily need the same degree of support for stabilising farm incomes as smaller farms in times of income volatility crisis, since they may benefit of potentialfrom economies of scale which are likely to make them more resilient;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 171
Paragraph 171
171. Is concerned by the conclusions of the Court that six major changes potentially affecting the LPIS were introduced in May 2015 and that the complexity of the rules and the procedures required to deal with those changes has further increased the administrative burden for Member States; recommends that those six changes should be revisited with a view to simplification;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 174 – point b
Paragraph 174 – point b
(b) annually monitor the results of the LPIS quality assessment performed by Member States and check that all Member States with negative assessments actually take the necessary remedialhave the skills and competency to ensure accurate implementation of the schemes;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 174 – point c
Paragraph 174 – point c
(c) re-examine the current legal framework in order to simplify and streamline the LPIS related rules for the next CAP period, e.g. by re considering the need for the 2 % stability threshold and the 100-tree rule in light of the clear benefits identified in practicing Agroforestry;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 174 – point h
Paragraph 174 – point h
(h) redefine KPI 4 relating to employment in rural area in order to stress the specific impact of the CAP measures on the employment in those areas;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 174 – point i
Paragraph 174 – point i
(i) trigger regular debates between the Member States in the Council regarding the implementation of the provisions introduced by the 2013 CAP reform for redistributing the direct payments between beneficiaries and to fully report on the progress made in this regard in the annual activity report of DG AGRI;104 _________________ 104 Member States must reduce the differences between per-hectare payment levels to beneficiaries on their respective territories (this is referred to as "internal convergence"). In principle (exceptions apply), they must also reduce by at least 5 % the receipts above EUR 150 000 which any beneficiary obtains from the basic payment scheme or the single area payment scheme. In addition, Member States have the option to redistribute up to 30% of their direct payments national envelope to the first 30 ha on every farm ("redistributive payment"), as well as to set an absolute upper limit on each beneficiary's receipts from the basic payment scheme or the single area payment scheme ("capping"). and to make this information widely and publicly available to the farming community;04
Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 174 – point l a (new)
Paragraph 174 – point l a (new)
(la) recommends that: * Given the fact that this is one of the biggest areas of EU funding; * Given also the fact that under the current system in certain Member States (Ireland and the UK in particular), many large farms/estates are receiving vast annual sums from CAP, giving rise to much public criticism (justified) and putting at those funds at risk for al; The Commission should control the distribution of those funds such that they are properly targeted at those who are meant to receive them, with a binding cap on CAP payments to any individual farm, adjusted to the Consumer Price Index in each individual Member State;
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 177
Paragraph 177
177. Notes that if all the information detaingathered by the Commission - and the auditors appointed by the Commission - had been used to correct errors the estimated error rate for the chapter Global Europe would have been 1,6% points lower;
Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 179
Paragraph 179
179. Points out that the most significant type of error, representing 33% of the estimated level of error, concerns expenditure not incurred: i.e. expenditure not incurred at the moment the Commission accepted and in some cases cleared it;
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 180
Paragraph 180
180. Points out that the most frequent type of error, representing 32% of the estimated level of error, concerns ineligible expenditure:, i.e.; (a) expenditure related to activities not covered by a contract or incurred outside the eligibility period,; (b) non- compliance with the rule of origin,; (c) ineligible taxes and indirect costs wrongly charged as direct costs;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 181
Paragraph 181
181. Recalls that in his declaration of assurance, the director general of DG NEAR considers that for both of the financial instruments managed by DG NEAR: - European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) and Instrument Pre Adhesion (IPA) - the financial exposure from the amount at risk is below the materiality threshold of 2% and the average determined error rate for the whole DG is 1,12%;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 184
Paragraph 184
184. Stresses that the Court found that the calculation of the RER as to the management mode “indirect management by beneficiary countries”, which combines results from non-statistical sampling by the audit authorities with the historical RER calculated by DG NEAR, is not sufficiently representative and does not provide accurate information on the amount of payments at risk; points out that according to the Court there is a risk that the calculation underestimates the level of error and may potentially impact on the assurance provided by the director General;
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 187
Paragraph 187
187. Notes that DG DEVCO assessed two spending areas as high risk: g(1) Grants in direct management and i; (2) Indirect management with international organisations; but shares the views expressed by the Court that a reservation could have been justified as regards indirect management with beneficiary countries in particular because grants implemented indirectly by beneficiary countries should require a similar level of risk analysis as grants implemented directly;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 188
Paragraph 188
188. Points out that according to the findings of the Court (see paragraphs 48- 50 of the Court’s 2015 annual report on the EDF), the corrective capacity of DG DEVCO has been overestimated by not excluding recoveries of pre financing and earnestd interest and cancellations of recovery orders from the calculation of the average annual amount of recovery order issued for errors and irregularities between 2009 and 2015;
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 190
Paragraph 190
190. Regrets once again that the external assistance management reports (EAMR) issued by the heads of Union Delegation are not annexed to the annual activity reports of DG DEVCO and DG NEAR as it is foreseen by article 67. 3 of the Financial Regulation; regrets that they are systematically considered as confidential whilst in accordance with article 67.3 of the Financial Regulation , "they shall be made available to the European Parliament and the Council, having due regard, where appropriate, to their confidentiality";
Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 192 – point c
Paragraph 192 – point c
(c) the share of projects with implementation problems has de-creased from 53,5% to 39,7%.
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 193
Paragraph 193
193. Stresses that 1) the Instrument for Stability (IFS), 2) the MIDEAST Instrument and 3) the European Development Fund are still the programs with worryingly high levels of implementation difficulties and that an unacceptable 3 of 4 EUR spent with the European Development Fund are at risk of not reaching their objectives or of to bebeing delayed;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 194 – introductory part
Paragraph 194 – introductory part
194. Notes that information on 3782 projects haves been reported by the Heads of Delegation for EUR 27.41 billion of commitments and that:
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 195
Paragraph 195
195. Welcomes that for the first time the Commission questioned the Heads of Union Delegations about the a priori risk of projects which may offer a first step into a centralized risk management process; recommends that on the basis of the information available regarding the difficulty field in which delegation may operate the Commission intensifies its dialogue with the delegations on how to manage this risk during the implementation phase of the project;
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 197 – point d
Paragraph 197 – point d
(d) Improve performance of all delegations with less than 60% of their KPIs “green” in 2015, in particular through the adoption of action plans and DEVCO information systems.
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 199
Paragraph 199
199. Recalls that one important aspect of the Union external relations is that the fight against poverty should have as indirect impactalso aim to create the conditions of preventing the uncontrolled arrival of irregular migrants in Europe;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 200
Paragraph 200
200. Endorses the main findings reported by the Court in its special report 9/2016 concerning “EU external migration spending in Southern Mediterranean and Eastern neighbourhood countries until 2014” and stresses in particular that the existing fragmentation of instruments, hinders parliamentary oversight onf 1) the way funds are implemented and 2), the identification of responsibilities, and therefore makes it difficult to assess the financial amounts actually spent to support external action on migration;
Amendment 317 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 201
Paragraph 201
201. In light of the alarming information provided by Politico on 2 December 2016 regarding “Conflict of interest fears over Georgieva’s World Bank dealings”, recalls that the Parliament called on the Commission in its last resolution of the Commission discharge for 2014 to review the code of conduct for Commissioners by the end of 2017, including by defining what constitutes a conflict of interest;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 202
Paragraph 202
202. Considers that the new funding arrangement concluded by the Commission with the World bank106 replacing a flat management fee with a more complex formula, and foreseeing in particular that certain projects directly carried out by the World Bank may be subject to a 17% charge on the cost of personnel and consultants ma, will probably be detrimental forto the budget of the Union and could result in payments exceeding athe 7% cap on management fees forbidden by article 124.4 of the Union Financial Regulation; _________________ 106 Commission decision of 12.4.2016 amending Commission Decision C(2014) 5434 authorising the use of reimbursement on the basis of unit costs for activities implemented by a World Bank Group entity under the Framework Agreement with the Union
Amendment 321 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204 – indent 4
Paragraph 204 – indent 4
– DG DEVCO to revise the estimate of its future corrective capacity by excluding from the calculation recoveries of unspent pre financing and earned interests and cancellation of recovery orders previously issued;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204 – indent 7
Paragraph 204 – indent 7
– the Commission to c(1) Clarify objectives, d; (2) Develop, expand and improve the performance measurement framework of its migration and asylum policies in neighbourhood countries, to f; (3) Focus available financial resources on clearly defined and quantified target priorities and to f, (4) Further consolidate the link between development and migration;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 204 – indent 8
Paragraph 204 – indent 8
– the Commission t(1) To includes in the code of conduct for Commissioners the definition of what constitutes a conflict of interests , that the Commission, and further, to outline the punishment for those who do not then declare such conflicts of interest, up to and including dismissal; (2) To fundamentally reconsiders the need to foresee in its funding arrangements with international organisations and entrusted entities provisions regarding their remuneration for staff cost linked to activities that are at the core of their mission, and that the Commission(3) To fully reports to the European Parliament by the end of 2017 on its reflections ion this regardese issues but also on the impact of the application of the new cost recovery policy;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 208
Paragraph 208
208. Recalls that deficiencies were detected by DG HOME in the management and control systems of the European Refugees Fund, Return Fund, and European fund for integration of third- country nationals and the External Borders Fund for the period 2007-2013 by Czech Republic, Germany, France and Poland;
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 212 – point d
Paragraph 212 – point d
(d) provides the budget and budgetary control authority with the most possible precise data as to the cost paid for migrants/asylum seekers in order to solidly justify the amounts of budgetary requests for funding programmes, while acknowledging the unquantifiable value of any and all human life;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 213
Paragraph 213
213. Notes that an official can be appointed to a senior expert or a senior assistant post which opens the possibility to be promoted to the AD 14 grade or AST 11, and that, once an official is appointed to a senior expert post, there is no possibility to move him/her back to an administrator job; regrets the inconsistency between this measure and those aiming to reduce administrative expenses or reinforce the link between grade and function; calls on the Commission to end this practice;