62 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2016/2208(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)
Citation 2 a (new)
- having regard to the unusual fact that the ECA Statement of Assurance is split into two parts, a) Audit of the reliability of the accounts, and b) Audit of the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Takes note of the findings and recommendations of the Court of Auditor’s (the “Court”) Special Report No 18/2015: Financial assistance provided to Member States in difficulties; believes this should be given its proper title, Financial loans provided to Member States, given that all that 'assistance' must be repaid and with interest;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that the Court has not included in this report all the Member States that received financial assistanceloans since the beginning of the financial crisis, including the programme for Greece, in order to facilitate a comparison;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Draws attention to the fact that the Court limited the audit to the very short term and concrete scenario of financial assistanceloans as decided by the Council without taking into consideration other potential solutions to the fiscal imbalances that were already part of public and academic debate, such as the mutualisation of sovereign debt or debt relief; regrets the fact that the Court failed to draw attention to the fact that had the fundamental structures necessary for any new currency been in place when the euro was launched (ESM, Single Supervisory Mechanism, Single Resolution Mechanism, Banking Union etc), it would have prevented many of the bank collapses that subsequently happened;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Draws attention to the fact that the Court limited the audit to the very short term and concrete scenario of financial assistanceloans as decided by the Council without taking into consideration other potential solutions to the fiscal imbalances that were already part of public and academic debate, such as the mutualisation of sovereign debt or debt relief;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regrets that the report limits its focus to the management of the assistanceloans but does not analyse, nor question, the programme's content and the conditions negotiated for financial assistanceloans;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Takes note that the objectives of the financial assistanceloans programmes - all of which are to be repaid - were for the assisted countries to return to financial markets, achieve sustainable public finances, and return to growth and reduce unemployment; regrets that the Court's findings has not fully analysed the results of the programme against these objectives;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the Court primarily focused its conclusions on the Commission as the manager of the financial assistanceloans, but considers that for a better understanding, further attention should have been brought to the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank (ECB) which initially supported the Commission in the preparation and monitoring of the programmes;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Shares the view of the Commission that the role of the Council and other partners has been underestimated in the establishment and management of the programme; asks the Court and Commission to analyse the relevance of the measures adopted by the Council, and the role of the ECB, and whether these were appropriate to meet the objectives of the programme and contributed to the Union's objectives, including phasing out of the economic crisis, more jobs and growth; further, asks the Court and the Commission to analsyse the effect on all eurozone countries of the catastrophic absence of even the most basic of support structures for a new currency, structures that now, after the fact and after the collapse of multiple banks and the collapse or near-collapse of several eurozone national economies, are in the process of being added, viz. Single Supervisory Mechanism, Single Resolution Mechanis, ESM, Full Banking Union, Full Monetary Union, etc etc.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Highlights that some of the reforms indicated in the programmes (i.e. reform of labour markets) can only lead to results in competitiveness only in the very long term, while assistance programme seek mainly and even then, can lead to lowering of labour rights and conditions, while assistance programmes, in the main, are more short-sighted, seek more immediate, short-term results;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Highlights that financial 'assistance' provided to the Member States in difficulties took the form of loans borrowed on the capital markets using the Union budget as a guarantee; regrets that in the case of Ireland particularly these loads were originally given at exorbitant rates, the EU making excessive profit off the back of a Member State's misery; considers that the role of the Parliament as budgetary authority in these programmes has been undermined, thus further reducing the democratic legitimacy of the financial assistance provided;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Considers it of major importantce to study the role of the European Central Bank during the crisis, to study in particular the assertions and accusations, confirmed by IMF representatives who were involved at the time, of coercion by the ECB in its dealings with the then Irish government; further, to study the role of the ECB in indirectly helping Member States to meet their objectives and on the wider support to the financial architecture of the Union during the time of the financial programmes;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that at the onset of the crisis it was difficult to have predicted some abrupt imbalances with devastating effects in some Member States; considers further that a major cause of the crisis was the incomplete nature of the euro as a currency at its launch, lacking as it did even the most basic currency support structures; highlights the difficulty of predicting the magnitude and nature of the 2007-2008 global financial crises which was unprecedented;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Shares the Court’s view that the attention paid to the pre-crisis surveillance legal framework was not adequate in identifying the risk in the underlying fiscal positions in times of severe economic crisis and that as a result of this lack of oversight and surveillance the ECB must accept responsibility for its role in the cause of the crisis;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. WelcomNotes the approval by the legislators of the 'six' and 'two' pack introduced as a result of the financial crisis which partially addressed the surveillance weakness that the crisis revealed; considers however that the reform of the Union Economic governance framework in the past years has not lead to a complete phase- out of the crisis and calls on the Commission to further analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the new framework compared to other similar economies (i.e. US, Japan and other OECD countries) and to propose new reforms, if necessary;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission to follow the Court's recommendation to further improve the quality of its macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts, which have been consistently wrong to an unacceptable degree;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Takes note of the Court’s conclusion that the Commission achieved in difficult time constraints and limited experience ex novo duties to manage the financial assistance programmes; highlights the Court's conclusion that but takes note also that a) had the proper support structures been in place for a new currency right from the start the crisis, if it had occurred at all, would not have been as severe, and b) notes also that with proper foresight and planning all such problems would have been foreseen and planned for; nevertheless, accepts the Court's conclusion that given the circumstances that DID prevail, this was an achievement taking into consideration the environmental constraints;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Welcomes the decision to allow the management of financial assistanceloans to be the responsibility of the Commission instead of other financial partners, allowing tailored assistanceloans that takes into consideration particularities and ownership of the Member States;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Underlines that in the early phase of the programmes, the Commission was operating under severe time and political pressure in the face of uncertain risks that challenged the stability of the whole financial system with unpredictable consequences in the economy; underlines also that the affected Member States were similarly under severe time and political pressure; points out that as a result of all the pressure decisions were taken which now, in retrospect and at more leisure, can and should be revisited, decisions such as the €31bn Promissory Note bank- debt assumed by Ireland in 2010 to bail out two insolvent non-systemic banks and thus prevent a domino-effect bank collapse across the EU, at a time when none of the necessary currency pillars (such as Single Resolution Mechanism or the ESM) were in place;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Considers that, whilst not having prior experience on financial assistance, the Commission 'learnt by doing' and managed to properly put in place relatively quickly those programmes and improved its management for the later ones, though the very real cost of that inexperience was borne - and is still being borne - by the Member States affected;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Notes that at the time this working document is being drafted, the Commission has already presented its proposal for the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP); welcomes that the Commission has evidently taken the recommendations from the Court into consideration and hopes the SRSP will emerge as a strong tool for TA based on the lessons learned from the TFGR; notes that in drawing its lessons and conclusions, the TFGR makes no effort to include the social cost of the various programmes on the people of Greece, which has been considerable;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Regrets that the beneficiary Member State as well as the task force did not provide the Commission with regular activity reports; points out that the Commission should insist on receiving quarterly activity reports without excessive delay and a comprehensive final report in the form of an ex-post evaluation within a reasonable timeframe after the conclusion of the work of the TFGR; requests the Commission to monitor the implementation of TA systematically in order to adjust for a results-oriented TA; requests further that the TA and the TFGR should include in their various reports an accounting of how and where exactly the so-called 'bailout' funds for Greece were disbursed;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 49
Paragraph 49
49. Considers also necessary also the strengthening of the political and policy dialogue, aid conditionality and the logical chain framework in order to ensure both the coherence between decision and preconditions of payments or disbursements in financing agreements by clearly linking payments to the achievement of actions and results as well as the relevance of selected objectives and indicators;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the connection between evaluations and policy formulation is effective by taking into account all lessons learned in the decision- making process;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Recognises the importance of rural infrastructure investments supported by Union funds and, especially by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for needs, whose benefits go beyond agriculture, which otherwise may have not been funded given significant economic challenges and scarcity of financing faced by rural areas;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 71
Paragraph 71
71. Notes that EAFRD funding to infrastructure projects is based on shared manage -ment where Member States are responsible for management, monitoring and control as well as for selection and implementation of projects, while the role of the Commission is to supervise the proper functioning of the management and control systems in Member States, believes that these roles should be more clearly defined so that beneficiaries are clear as to which areas monitoring bodies have competence over; underlines that both the Commission and Member States must respect the principles of sound financial management;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 73
Paragraph 73
73. Strongly recommends that the EUnion investments in rural infrastructure are targeted explicitly toat projects that allow improvement of public services and/or contribute to jobs’the creation of jobs and economic development in rural areas, and for which there is a demonstrable need for public support and which deliver added value, while also ensuring that these funds are additional investments, and are not used as a replacement of national funding to essential services;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 83
Paragraph 83
83. Requests that Member States to set a reasonable timeframe for processing grant and payment applications and respect it, as in most cases beneficiaries have already drawn down bridging loans to complete works;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 113
Paragraph 113
113. Emphasises that a multiannual grant agreement between the EIT and the KICs and the multiannual strategy of the KICs should not be a stand in the way for anof the KICs' annual reporting of the KICs;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 118
Paragraph 118
118. Understands the EIT’s mission to promote cooperation among higher education, research and innovation; takes the view that companies may be in the end the main beneficiary as being the legal owner of the innovate product being brought to the market and have the financial profits; stresses the need in this situation to incorporate in the cooperation- model a structure in which given funds will flow back to the EIT, along with an agreed (suggested equal share) of the profits;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 122
Paragraph 122
122. WelcomNotes the Court's report, endorses and its recommendations and is pleased that the Commission accepts these and will take them into account in future;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124
Paragraph 124
124. Stresses that the services market has not achieved its full potential and that the impact on growth and jobs of successful implementation of the Services Directive is high; whilenotes, however, that essential services such as water provision - how it is supplied and how it is paid for - should be a matter for individual Member States, and that keeping it in public ownership is the preferred option; notes further that the potential economic benefit or otherwise of full implementation of the Directive is still not known, and that the Commission should develop aorder a fully independent study in order to estimate the output gains or losses in the most possibly reliabley quantitative terms;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125
Paragraph 125
125. EWhere marked by the result of an independent study of the full implications and possible outcomes of a more complete imposition of the Services Directive, where it is shown to be socially beneficial, encourages subsequent inclusion of more sectors in order to achieve a broader removal of sectorial obstacles to market integration with a final goal of removing of barriers in the internal market for services and developing full Union potential for growth, competitiveness and job creation;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 126
Paragraph 126
126. Considers that Member States could have made better use of the measures provided by the Commission to support transposition, implementation and enforcement specially by sharing the problems faced in the different stages of the procedure, discussing possible common solutions and exchanging best practices, especially where those best practices suggest a move away from the privatisation of essential services back towards public ownership;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 152
Paragraph 152
152. Considers the rail freight transport one of the key aspects of the single market for goods and invitgiven its massive positive potential in terms of climate change targets and reducing road transport usage, urges the Commission to give it a new impetus within the single market strategy; asks for a rail freight transport strategy to be put in place;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 160
Paragraph 160
160. Calls on the Commission to evaluate all of the Court’s observations and to take the requested measures to avoid making the same mistakes during 2014- 2020 migration policy; calls for application of all the Court’s recommendations;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 161
Paragraph 161
161. Believes that the use of funds should be guided by improved monitoring and evaluation systems based on baseline indicators, progressive benchmarks and measurable and realistic objectives, all of which should ultimately have the best interests of those most affected - the migrants - at heart; calls on the Commission to review all indicators, benchmarks and objectives provided by the actual migration programs;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 164
Paragraph 164
164. Calls on the Commission to engage constructively for a better coordination between instruments, mechanisms and relevant stakeholders, including in particular representatives of the migrants themselves, to achieve migration crisis prevention;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 166
Paragraph 166
166. Believes, in this context, that due care should be given to the appropriate targeting of aid to different and evolving external migration’s issues while also ensuring the adequacy of oversight of disbursed funds in order to avoid the risk of misappropriation of funds and double financing;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 167
Paragraph 167
167. Considers that there is a crucial need to reconcile the demand onfor better results with the availability of sufficient funds to ensure a high level of ambition in the design of the Union’s comprehensive and sustainable response to current and future challenges induced by the migration crisis; believes that the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) mid-term revision is the appropriate forum to address these challenges, with a view to increasing the budget for those funds;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 179
Paragraph 179
179. WelcomNotes the findings and recommendations of the Court Special Report N° 10/2016 on further improvements needed to ensure effective implementation of the excessive deficit procedure;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 180
Paragraph 180
180. Recommends that the Commission should improve transparency ofdispense with the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) through regular communication of its country assessments on compliance with structural reforms proposed under EDP and through greater transparency in the application of the rules, given that its implementation has been patchy at best, discriminatory at worst, with the Union's larger economies given free rein; given also that EDPs are simply an extension of the so-called two-pack and six-pack economic strait-jacket;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 181
Paragraph 181
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 182
Paragraph 182
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 183
Paragraph 183
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 186
Paragraph 186
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 196
Paragraph 196
196. Welcomes that the Commission has established projects focused on civil society organisations; calls on the Commission to continue this practice and to establish strong relationships with the local NGOs;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 198
Paragraph 198
198. Notes from the Court that although many of the projects were well-managed, the results were not always sustainable or even achieved; further notes that the projects did not always fall into a coherent approach towards strengthening administrative capacity building; calls on the Commission to improve strategic planning and to secure sustainability and viability of the projects by setting it as a pre-condition of the projects;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 230
Paragraph 230
230. Notes that the projects partially contributed towards strengthening of public administration, however they were not always in line with the Moldovan administration’s needs or objectives; calls on the Commission to focus the projects more specifically in line with the concrete national needs;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 239
Paragraph 239
239. Points out that the integration of Roma depends on their inclusion and the extent to which they can enjoy the same rights as the entire body of European citizens, of which Roma fully faorm part;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 22
Subheading 22
Part XXII – Special Report No 17/2016 of the Court of Auditors entitled “The EU institutions can fordo more to facilitate access to their Public Procurement”
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 279
Paragraph 279
279. Calls onfor increased transparency of public procurement within Union institutions, as well as at national level, through public availability of documents and data on public procurement; considers that the visibility of the Union institutions’ procurement activities on the internet is poor, the information is insufficient, unclear and spread over many different websites;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 300
Paragraph 300
300. Notes with regret that the Commission’s recognition procedure does not take account of some of the key aspects of sustainability and fair trade, such as a) mega trade deals (CETA and TTIP being just two examples) that will lead to decreased localised production, increased centralised production and thus increased produce transport and also increased air pollution, b) land tenure conflicts, c) forced or child labour, d) poor working conditions for farmers, e) dangers to health and safety and the impact of indirect land- use changes, all of which in different contexts are considered extremely relevant; considers this to represent an inconsistency in the Commission´s policies; calls on the Commission to redevelop its assessment procedures in a more comprehensive manner and to include these aspects in its verification procedure for the voluntary schemes; calls on the Commission to require voluntary schemes to report once a year on the basis of their certification activities and relevant information concerning the abovementioned risks;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 307
Paragraph 307
307. Welcomes the fact that the Commission issues guidance notes to the voluntary schemes which contribute to promoting best practice and to increased effectiveness; notes, however, that the notes are not binding and are not fully implemented; invites the Commission to consider makingmake the guidance notes binding for the voluntary schemes in order to ensure that the requirements are fulfilled;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 314
Paragraph 314
314. Stresses the high levels of management costs and fees compared to the actual financial support to final recipients; points out that wherever possible, specific ERDF and ESF funds size should be revised to take, wherever possible, advantage of the significant economies in the cost of operating funds;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 315
Paragraph 315
315. Considers that the Commission is in a privileged position to provide additional guidance to Member States on how to set up such financial instruments within Member States or at Union level (which are managed directly or indirectly by the Commission); stresses the importance of the importance of ensuring that financial instruments are not subject to unacceptable tax avoidance schemes;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 317
Paragraph 317
317. Shares the view that lessons learnted from the audited programming period (2007-2013) be reflected when setting up the financial instruments for the European Structural and Investment Funds; considers in particular that proposals should be oriented towards performance and results rather than mere compliance;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 364
Paragraph 364
364. Recommends that, with the support of the Commission, the Member States, in the current CAP period, the Member States should develop and set up a framework for assessing the cost of running and updating of their LPISs. This should enable the Member States to measure the performance of their LPISs and the cost-effectiveness of system improvements.
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 365
Paragraph 365
365. Recommends that the Member States ensure that, using their LPISs, they reliably identify and, register, and then effectively monitor, ecological focus areas, permanent grassland and new categories of land. They should also assess the cost versus benefits ofdo a cost/benefit analysis, including in their LPISs all landscape elements protected under cross-compliance or agri-environmental schemes, in order to further enhance the monitoring and protection of such elements beneficial for the environment and for biodiversity.
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 371
Paragraph 371
371. Asks that for the CAP post-2020 that, the Commission envisages toshould ameliorate the rules regarding cross-compliance on- the- spot checks and will call on the Member States to carry out their existing administrative checks in an efficient way by a) using all relevant information available, and b) reducing the number of agencies involved in such checks to a minimum, thus ensuring that farmers are not placed in a situation as currently prevails in Ireland for example, where several different agencies are involved, all of which can have their own priorities, all of which can call at any given time, and all of which are ultimately subjective. This would allow a more effective targeting of key control points.
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 373
Paragraph 373
373. Encourages the Commission to develop a standard methodology of assessing cross-compliance with a view to reducing subjectivity/inspector bias in those assessments, this standard is to be developed across all Member States; further encourages the Commission to also develop a standard methodology to measure the costs of cross-compliance after the report on the performance of the CAP due by the end of 2018.
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 385
Paragraph 385
385. RegretNotes that Member States have not acted collectively to speed up the joint procurement of the pandemic influenza vaccine and; recognises that influenza is an issue that affects health services in individual Member States on an annual basis but recommends that, given the cost of the annually-changing vaccines, a comprehensive fully independent (especially of the drug companies themselves) study should be carried out on the effectiveness of those vaccines. A co-ordinated approach across Member States will benefit the health of Union citizens and reduce costs;