26 Amendments of Luke Ming FLANAGAN related to 2022/2081(DEC)
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Recalls that any form of conflict of interests and corruption has to be seriously tackled at all level, both in the Member States and within the Union institutions, through effective and efficient preventive and deterrent measure, including clear sanctions;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines the increasing need to ensure the transparency of NGOs and of their funding, as they are importantall actors in the implementation of theing Union budget, especi in ally in the area of external action; demands the Commission to re- evaluate its identification of entities as NGOs,mplementing mode , including, but not only, NGOs ; calls on the Commission to reinforce the Transparency Register to make it really mandatory, to improvinge the reliability of information (making sure to have them registered as lobbyists, having clearly established whether they stand for the topics they claim they represent, and having insight into their financing); demands the disclosure of their financing be it private (e.g. NGOs financed by the industrial actors) or public, and to provide a deeper insight into the financing of all entities registered, which should be the condition to approach all Union Institutions, bodies and agencies ); recalls that as regards public funding, the Union basic acts regulate how transparency and visibility in this regard need to be handled, therefore reminds the Commission about the responsibility it has to check the compliance with rules and procedures, especiallyincluding rules and procedures on sub- granting to NGOs; moreover, demands that the Commission provides the discharge authority with clear information about the total amount of Union funds implemented by third parties, including NGOs;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Is concerned by the findings of the Court in its first annual assessment of the RRF; considers that the nature itself of the RRF is such that implementation of the RRF takes place under time pressure, with however a much mor in order to provide a timely support to recover from COVID crisis; considers that the straight forward delivery model that puts much, lighter requirements on the Commission, and reduces the control burden from the Commission towards the Member States, in particular in comparison with the cohesion policy; is therefore concerned by the types of findings of the Court which fundamentally calls into question whether the Commission can handle even this reduced control burden; calls on the Commission not to apply the performance based delivery model as used in the implementation of the RRF for other policies until the advantages and disadvantages are more clear, followinghighlights that any fast delivery model is to be accompanied by a robust control system of which Commission has to be in charge; await the evaluation of the implementation of the RRF by 20 February 2024;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes the successful efforts of the Commission to raise funds on the financial markets to provide the financial means for the RRF as an important instrument to provide support in a time of extreme crisis; nevertheless expresses some concerns about; is concerned by the resulting debts, the rising interest rates and the resulting uncertain capacity to repay the loans and the risk this poses for the Union budget and Union policies;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20a. Is worried that despite the decrease of the EU budget’s outstanding commitments, together with the part stemming from the NGEU, total outstanding commitments reached a new record amount; reiterates its concerns that such an amount creates a risk for the smooth operation of the budget in the future, which would be put under serious pressure, and could possibly create a serious risk to the liquidity of the Union budget;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Regrets that again the Court issued an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of expenditure; and found that the control mechanisms of the Commission and Member States are simply not reliable enough; Underlines the importance of reinforcing the control mechanisms of the Commission and Member States which are considered by the Court as not reliable therefore compromising the reliability of the AMPR; remind that the Commission should follow up in details on all Parliament’s observations, including all the political priorities;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31a. Invites the Commission to rethink its methodology to make sure that its figures can be more comparable to those of the Court; call on the Court to qualify the impact of correctives measures on the overall level of error;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38 a (new)
Paragraph 38 a (new)
38a. Takes note that still not absorbed 2014-2020 ESIF funds represent the biggest part of the EU’s budget outstanding commitments; calls on the Commission to closely analyses the differences among Member States in absorbing the funds in order to provide with effective tools to help improve the situation and finally reduce the outstanding commitments;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Notes with concern that at the end of 2021, total outstanding commitments reached a record high of EUR 341,6 billion (combining EU budget and NGEU outstanding commitments); highlights that outstanding commitments are likely to exceed EUR 460 billion in 2023 but that they will then fall as NGEU draws to a close;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39 a (new)
Paragraph 39 a (new)
39a. Takes note that the EU budget’s outstanding commitments decreased from a historic high at the end of 2020 and that Commissions forecasts that the increase expected in 2027 will increase by a small amount, mainly due to the smaller gap between commitment and payments appropriation; reflects that Court has in several occasions pointed out that they can only be reduced if budgeted payment appropriations exceed commitment appropriations and are used; invite the Commission to consistently follows up on this recommendation, which is consistent with the requirement to maintain an orderly ratio between appropriations for commitments and payments;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40 a (new)
Paragraph 40 a (new)
40a. Is worried about the related risks identified by the Court in its 2020 report and reiterated for 2021 financial year, namely that the level of administrative resources needed to manage different budgetary instruments in parallel may not be available and that, the introduction of flexibility in the system to cope with COVID effects, may lead to a weakening of established control systems;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 65
Paragraph 65
65. Notes with concern that the Court found that the estimated level of error in spending on ‘Single Market, Innovation and Digital’ was material, reaching 4,4 %, compared to 3.9 % in the previous year; is worried that the estimated risk at payment calculated by the Commission is 1.3 %, which is below both materiality and the range of estimated level of error of the Court; notesis particularly concerned about the Court’s observation that, despite the measures already taken by the Commission, its error rate remains understated, because of persistent weaknesses in the Commission’s ex post audits;
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 89 a (new)
Paragraph 89 a (new)
89a. Recalls the importance of a fair CAP allocation, which from one side should avoid any misuse of funds in particular by political prominent wealthy individuals, elites and big conglomerates, and on the other concentrate on active farmers, fully engaged in agricultural activity;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 92
Paragraph 92
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 93 a (new)
Paragraph 93 a (new)
93a. Regrets that the Court did not estimate the error rate for this chapter and reiterate its call for a clear estimation;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 94
Paragraph 94
94. Notes with concerns that, of the 28 transactions the Court examined, nine (32 %) were affected by errors, that the Court quantified six errors which had an impact on the amounts charged to the Union budget, and that the Court also found six cases of non- compliance with legal and financial provisions, with no impact on the Union budget;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 105 a (new)
Paragraph 105 a (new)
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 105 b (new)
Paragraph 105 b (new)
105b. Recalls that development and cooperation policy are meant to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality and that funds should reach only their intended beneficiaries;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 108
Paragraph 108
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 a (new)
Paragraph 116 a (new)
116 a. take all necessary steps to continue building a more diverse and inclusive work environment and culture by taking actions in favour of people with disabilities, including improvements in the access to building;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 b (new)
Paragraph 116 b (new)
116 b. implement a more transparent appointment procedure for all posts, with particular reference to the management ones;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 c (new)
Paragraph 116 c (new)
116 c. set clear rules on revolving doors in particular for Commissioners and former officials engaging in new post- office activities;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 116 d (new)
Paragraph 116 d (new)
116 d. provide an analysis on the effects of employing an increasing number of contract agents, on which the Parliament has constantly expressed concerns;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 119 a (new)
Paragraph 119 a (new)
119 a. Expresses concerns about the follows up of the Commission on the Parliament recommendation in its 2020 discharge resolution about the implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendation on the Commission’s refusal to allow access to text messages exchanged between the Commission President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company on the purchase of a COVID19 vaccine (case 1316/2021/MIG);
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 124 a (new)
Paragraph 124 a (new)
124 a. Underlines that Court audit based its assessment on the condition for the only payment made in 2021, namely whether the Commission has gathered sufficient and appropriate evidence to support its assessment of satisfactory fulfilment of the milestones included in the payment request;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 125
Paragraph 125
125. Is worried byTakes note of the Court’s serious finding that for the payment made to Spain in 2021, - out of 52 milestones associated to the payment - one milestone was not satisfactorily fulfilled; regrets to note that the Court was not able to quantify this error because of the absence of a methodology to quantify the impact of (partially) not achieving a milestone or target; notes the Commission’s Internal Auditor also observed the absence of this methodology; considers it grave negligence of the Commission to not have this methodology in place before making payments, as this calls into question the Commission’s sincerity of assessing the satisfactory fulfilment of milestones and targets;