7 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2018/2114(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls the letters of 28 March 2018 of the President of the Parliament to the President of the Commission and the President-in-Office of the Council, regretting that Parliament had not been involved in the procedure leading to the selection of the new seat of the European Medicines Agency, recallingan agency critical to all citizens but which now finds itself disrupted on the double after Brexit as it moves from London to temporary accomodation and thence to permanent accommodation in Amsterdam, all within a few months; regrets that the prerogatives of Parliament as co-legislator were overlooked in this instance and askings for a revision of the joint statement and the common approach in this respect; urges the Commission to prepare the necessary proposals based on an in- depth analysis of the implementation of the Joint Statement and common approach as requested by the Council in its reply to the letter from the President of the Parliament;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is concerned with potential conflicts of interest that maycan arise if agencies have to rely on fees as their main source of income: re-iterates that agencies themselves are aware of this reputational risk and prefer a steady and predictable flow of income through the EU budget - crucial also to planning - rather than having to rely on fees which are both unpredictable and vary from year to year; urges the Commission to submit proposals to receive the feesfor direct payment of fees to the Commission itself and in return, to provide agencies with a regular subsidy from the EU budget;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that representatives appointed by Parliament have an important role to play in Management Board meetings, on financial matters especially as they reinforce Parliament’s scrutiny role; is of the opinion that the Joint Statement shouldmust not indicate how many members Parliament should be able to appoint;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the audit of the decentralised agencies "remains under the full responsibility of the Court, which manages all administrative and procurement procedures required and finances these"; reiterates that the unnecessary audit approach involving private sector auditors has resulted in a significant increase of the administrative burden on the agencies, as well as that thewith additional time spent on procurement and administration of audit contracts, which then created additional expenditure, thus straining further the diminishing resources of the agencies; emphasises that it is imperative to resolve this issue in accordance with the Common Approach, within the context of the revision of the Framework Financial Regulation; calls on all parties involved in this revision to provide clarity on this issue as a matter of urgency so as to significantly reduce the excessive administrative burden.
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets that the Parliament was not fully involved in the procedure to select the new seat of EMA, and critical agency in which disruption should have been kept to a minimum but which is now faced with two moves in a very short space of time; asks that the procedure followed for the selection of the new location for EMA is not used anymoregain in this form in the future;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. ExpectsDemands that in line with European Union legislation, the prerogatives of Parliament as co-legislator toshall be fully respected in future decisions on the location or relocation of agencies; considers that Parliament shouldmust be systematically involved, and on equal terms with the Council and the Commission;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that in case of budgetary decisions regarding decentralised agencies, the specificitys and workload of the agency has tomust be taken into account, and that possible budgetary cuts cannot be taken on a one -size -fits -all- basis; furthermore stresses the need to take into account the new climate and sustainability priorities within the next MFF and the tasks attributed to particular agencies for the implementation of the MFF.