Activities of Richard ASHWORTH related to 2012/2016(BUD)
Plenary speeches (1)
2013 budget - mandate for trialogue (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2013 draft budget
Amendments (22)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that, on account of the austerity measures approved in many Member States in order to rebalance national budgets and reduce public debt, a realistic EU budget stipulating both positive and negative priorities is needed; notes that the commitments budgeted for agriculture and rural development have been raised slightly, with increases in commitments of 0.4% and 1.3% respectively compared with 2012, and increases in payments of 0.5% and 5.4% respectively, resulting in a total increase in payments under Heading 2 of 1.6%, which is well below the overallproposed budget increase of 6.8%; calls on the Commission continually to search for possible budget savings;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recognises the persistent economic and budgetary constraints at national level, as well as the need for fiscal consolidation which must be reflected at European level; reiterates, however, its conviction that the EU budget represents a common and effective instrument of investment and solidarity, which is needed particularly at the present time to trigger economic growth, competitiveness and job creation in the 27 Member States; stresses that, despite its limited size that does not exceed 2% of total public spending in the Union, the EU budget has had a real economic impact and successfully complemented so far Member States‘' recovery policies;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that advancing the Europe 2020 Strategy requires judicious selection of policy instruments and objectives, such as promoting trade, strengthening the single market and providing a supportive framework for innovation, and takes the view that the Europe 2020 strategy can be credible only if adequately funded but believes that funding for EU2020 should not be increased for 2013 unless accompanied by savings elsewhere in the budget, thus allowing for an inflationary freeze in both commitment and payment appropriations;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Intends, therefore, to strongly defend an adequate level of resources for next year's budget, as defined in the Draft Budget, and to oppose any attempt to cut down the resources especially for policies delivering growth and employmentBelieves that in the context of continued challenging economic circumstances, the European Union should freeze its budgets; emphasises, however, the need to respect legally binding obligations and possible subsequent increases, on the basis that increases be offset to maintain the level of an overall freeze; believes that the EU budget, which cannot run a deficit, should not be the victim of unsuccessful economic policies at national level; notes that in 2012 several Member States are increasing the size of their national budgets;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is convinced that, particularly in a period of crisis, financial responsibility is of utmost importance; believes, therefore, that resources must be concentrated on those areas, where the EU budget can deliver an added value whilst they can be decreased in sectors which are experiencing unjustified delays, low absorption and under-implementationtakes the view, moreover that the 2013 appropriations should be based on a careful analysis of payment appropriation outturn in 2011 as well 2012, with a view to view to making savings on lines where problems have arisen in implementation, considers that real savings can be made by identifying overlaps and inefficiencies across budgetary lines; on this basis, it intends to identify, together with its specialised committees, both positive and negative priorities for 2013; for this purpose asks the Commission to provide both arms of the budgetary authority with a prompt, regular and complete information on the implementation of the various programmes and initiatives;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to budget realistically and insists that the utmost done to examine the European added value of all current EU programmes, calls for systematic, regular and independent evaluations, ensuring that all spending is achieving the desired outcomes in a cost effective manner while contributing to the EU2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers the proposed increase of 6,8% in PA compared to 2012 as an initial response to Parliament's request for a responsible and realistic budgeting; nNotes that the increases in payments are concentrated in the areas of competitiveness and cohesion, due to a greater level of claims expected by running projects in these fields; fully endorses such increase that results not only from past commitments that need to be honoured but also from the actual implementation of programmes that is expected to reach at the last year of the current MFF a cruising speed;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. DeplorNotes Council's reluctance to participate in the inter-institutional political meeting on payments proposed by the Parliament as a follow up to the last year's budgetary conciliation; considers such a meeting the ideal platform for the two arms of the budgetary authority to reach a common understanding - ahead of their respective positions on the Draft Budget - regarding the available data on implementation and absorption capacity and to correctly estimate the payment needs for 2012 and 2013; firmly believes that any doubts –as expressed by some Council delegations- over the Commission's figures and calculations need to be communicated, examined and clarified as soon as possible, in order not to become an impediment for reaching an agreement in this year's conciliation;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Recalls that the annual Budget 2013 will be the last budget of the current multiannual financial framework, whose ceilings will become the reference for the next financial framework in the event of no agreement, according to what foreseen by point 30 of the IIA of 17 May 2006; is therefore determined to conduct the negotiations with the Council with the view to achieving for the Budget 2013 a realistic and adequate level of appropriations both in commitments and in payments, which can represent an appropriate basis also for the next MFF;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Recalls the Joint Declaration of 1 December 2011 on financing the additional costs of the ITER programme for 2012- 2013, where the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission also agree to make available EUR 360 million in CA in the 2013 budget procedure ‘making full use of the provisions laid down in the Financial Regulation and in the IIA of 17 May 2006, excluding any further ITER- related revision of the MFF’; is concerned that the Commission proposes to finance this additional amount only through redeployment from lines of the FP7 programme, contrary to Parliament's long- standing position on the matter; takes full account of the Commission's claim that this amount derives from performance savings on FP7, and that those cuts on administrative lines will not harm the operation of the programme; intends to examine this claim further as well as to explore other means available under the IIA and the Financial Regulation for this purpose;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. DeploresIs concerned by the Commission's proposed decreases for the European Supervisory Authorities compared what originally foreseen in the Financial programming; considers the current level of appropriations insufficient to allow these agencies to cope efficiently with their tasks; expresses therefore the intention to reinstate appropriations at least at 2012 level for the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) as well as to further reinforce the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) due to the new tasks entrusted to it;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Considers this increase in payments only as a first step to cover the actual needs of running projects and reiterates its concern as to a possible shortage of funds in the field of cohesion policy; will therefore oppose any possible cut in the level of payments compared to the proposal included in the DB 2013;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Reminds that price volatility in this sector is a major concern and endorses measures to combat abusive speculation in agricultural commodities; urges the Commission and the Council to carefully monitor developments in agricultural markets; in this context reminds the Commission of the request by the Parliament to install a price and margins observatory to achieve better price comparability and more transparency in setting food prices, to which no suit has been given so far;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Notes that climate action and environmental objectives are a priority stipulated in the Europe 2020 strategy, which must be translated into concrete actions to be implemented under the various programmes; welcomes in this context the proposed increase of CA by 3,3% to EUR 366,6 million for LIFE + and considers that this increase must be offset by a reallocation of funds from existing budget lines; considers a cross-cutting approach should be applied whereby sustainable growth becomes a horizontal priority underpinning all EU policies;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Considers important to maintain theconsider the arguments in favour and against in terms of value for money of maintaining the current financial backing to the common fisheries policy (CFP) with a view to its imminent reform; stresses in particular the need to support SMEs in the fisheries sector and the access to jobs for young people in this field; welcomes in this regard the proposed increase for the European Fisheries Fund by respectively 2,2% (to EUR 687,2 million) in CA and 7,3% (to EUR 523,5 million) in PA, compared to the 2012 Budget; Stresses however, that any increases must be reflected by cuts or reallocation in other areas of underperformance or under implementation;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
Paragraph 47
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Notes the significant increase of EUR 272,3 million in the proposed margin for Heading 4 compared to the Financial programming for 2013 (from EUR 119,6 million to EUR 391,9 million), which is the net effect of the increase in commitments for ENPI (reinforced by EUR 51,7 million), ICI and ICI + (above Financial programming with EUR 0,3 million) and decreasing the growth in commitments for the Guarantee Fund (-104,5 million EUR), Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (- 99.3 million EUR), Macro-financial Assistance (-37,4 million EUR), Development Cooperation Instrument (- 28,6 million EUR), Instrument for Stability (- 41,4 million EUR); is concerned byNotes the fact that the Commission did not provide sufficient explanation as to why such a significant scaling down of some programmes was needed compared to the Financial programming; stresses that while the principle of scaling down projects that are under-implemented is welcomed if it produces efficiency savings, the decrease in the appropriations should not be done across the lines; warns that the use of an artificially high margin as a negotiating tool in the budgetary procedure cannot be considered as a sound budgetary practice;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60
Paragraph 60
60. Welcomes this effort towards budget consolidation in administrative expenditure at a time of economic and budgetary constraints at national level; is however concerned about the adverse impact such measures may have on the swift, regular and effective implementation of EU actions and programmes, especially at a time when EU competences keep increasing and new Member States join the Union and considers that such consolidation must continue to be appropriately reflected throughout all administrative expenditure in 2013; welcomes the presentation of those areas reinforced in staffing, such as European economic governance, Single Market, Security and Justice but requires similar information as to those policy areas and types of posts where cuts in staffing were made as compared to 2012;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
Paragraph 62
62. Emphasises that for many areas of EU action, sufficient staffing should be ensured in view of the stage of programmes‘' implementation, new priorities and other developments; will therefore carefully scrutinise the overall evolution of staff in the different DGs and services also in light of the priorities presented in this report; in addition to more detailed information in this regard, asks the Commission to proceed to such detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed across the board staff cuts, also taking into account in the longer run any further reduction in Commission's staffing, and to report back to the Parliament; insists that this would be a prerequisite for the budgetary authority to consider accepting, depending of its outcome, this 1% staff reduction and possiblyto ensure cuts are made in the most appropriate services in order to endorse the Commission's objective to reduce, by 2018, the staffing level in the Commission by 5% as compared to 2013;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 63
Paragraph 63
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69 a (new)
Paragraph 69 a (new)
69a. Believes that when the ESAs are given additional tasks in the future there should be a cost assessment made at a suitable stage during the legislative process such as during trilogue negotiations in order for MEPs and Member States understand the cost consequences of the proposals they are making;