20 Amendments of Brice HORTEFEUX related to 2010/2305(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas absorption capacity is the extent to which a Member State is able to spend the financial resources allocated from the Structural and Cohesion Funds in an effective and efficient manner, and whereas this capacity is necessary for making a maximum contribution to economic and soc, social and territorial cohesion with the resources available from the EU funds,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas absorption capacity is not a parameter but a variable and whereas it differs widely in the different Member States and regions, so that individual solutions are necessary to increase this capacity,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas aiming at absorbing as much financial support as possible requires continuous efforts by the Member States and management authorities and the involvement of the local and regional level of administration in every stage of the process,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the rules relating to Structural and Cohesion Funds are complex and therefore difficult to comply with, causing errors, so that Member Stamust remain stable over time in order to promote a bettesr spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to manage and control these errorsse of ownership; whereas, however, simplification of the implementation of financial instruments should be encouraged,
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the Member States that joined the EU in the current programming period in particular are facing substantial difficulties as regards absorption resulting from the significant increase in the amount of the funds available in comparison with the pre -accession funds and the shortcomings of the administrative structures for setting up, supporting and evaluating projects,
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas the lack of visibility regarding the levels of uptake of short- and medium-term funds is an obstacle to absorption capacity, and whereas better transparency is needed at all levels of governance,
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point 6
Paragraph 2 – point 6
over-complicated and over-strict national requirementprocedures, and frequent changes therein;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – point 11
Paragraph 2 – point 11
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reiterates the need for simplification of rules and procedures at both EU and national level without creating major difficulties for the beneficiariBelieves that the rules relating to the structural and cohesion funds must remain stable over time in order to promote a better sense of ownership; stresses, however, the need for simplification of rules and procedures on the implementation of financial instruments at both EU and national level in order to facilitate access to EU funds for project organisers and to promote sound management of those funds by the administrative services; believes that simplification will contribute to the speedy allocation of these funds, higher absorption rates, increased efficiency, fewer errors and reduced payment periods; considers that a balance needs to be struck between simplification measures and the stability of rules and procedureexisting arrangements;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that emphasis should be placed on payments for delivery of results rather than checking inputs; believes, in this context, that a better balance should be found betwea more effective, results-based cohesion policy should be promoted while respecting the existing provisions relating to the implementation, control and payment systems for the structural funds; considers that introducing the principle of making reimbursemen,t onf the one hand, the rules and procedures required for ensuring the legality and regularity of EU expenditure and, on the other, making cohesion policy more performance- oriented and cost-efficientnational authorities conditional on payment of their contribution to beneficiaries risks paralysing the uptake of the funds and is therefore inappropriate; supports, however, making EU financing conditional on obtaining results, which could be assessed on the basis of clear and relevant indicators;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that a stronger focus should be placed on fraud than on formal irregularities and on more differentiated treatment of irregularities, allowing for flexibilitypunishing fraud rather than formal irregularities; calls for a more flexible and differentiated approach depending on the seriousness of the irregularity identified;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that proportionality between the volume of support and control requirementsthe application of the proportionality principle to control procedures depending on the scale of the project should be strengthened, and emph; calls for the asises that the coordination of audit activity should be enhanced and the single audit principle followed in the next programming periosment, eligibility and control conditions for small-scale and low-risk projects to be eased;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Stresses that the coordination of audit activities should be improved and calls, to that end, for redundant controls to be removed in Member States which have an adequate fund management system; considers that the single audit principle should be applied in the next programming period and that, as with the ‘contract of confidence’ principle, it should be implemented as often as possible;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. HighlightStresses the benefmerits of synergies between ERDF, ESF agreater synergy and complementarity between all the shared management funds (ERDF, ESF, cohesion fund, EAFRD and EFF); takes the view that flexibility to support ESF- type of actions in ERDF programmes should be increased, andbetween the ERDF and the ESF should be encouraged so as to facilitate the financing of integrated projects, while taking into account the specific nature and objectives of each of these funds; stresses that harmonisation of rules and procedures would lead to simplified delivery systems and encourage participation by potential beneficiaries in EU co-funded programmes; recalls in this context the potential of cross-financing, which is not yet being fully exploited;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Member States to make further efforts to attract and retain and the Commission, in coordination with local and regional authorities, to promote the training of high-qualifiedty staff to manage EU funds;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Points out the importance of inter- regional cooperation programmes and of programmes such as INTERACT and URBACT in identifying and disseminating best practices and in training the political and administrative actors in the optimum use of the funds; calls for actions promoting regional planning and effective use of funds to be eligible for appropriations under the ‘inter-regional cooperation’ part of the Territorial Cooperation Objective;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to explore the introduction of harmonised information and communication systems, bearing in mind the differences between the management and control systems of the Member States, and calls, to that end, for the implementation of uniform software to monitor the use of funds in the context of the territorial cooperation programmes;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Points out that most SMEs, and especially small and micro enterprises, cannot access structural funds on their own due to current administrative and financial constraints, and that they need support and advice from their representative organisations at regional and national level; considers that a simplification of the rules and procedures is essential to ensuring their access to structural funds; calls for the Small Business Act, its ‘think small first’ and ‘only once’ principles and the proportionality principle to be applied at all levels of decision-making to define investment priorities and the design of management, audit and control procedures in order to ensure better absorption of the funds;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Calls on the Member States to inform citizensand provide support to citizens, representatives of civil society and regional and local authorities fully about financing possibilities, eligibility for co-financing from the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the co- financing rules, the rules on reimbursement, and where to find calls for proposals;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Reiterates that multi-level governance and the partnership principle are key elements in the effectiveness of operational programmes and in high absorption capacity; recommends to the Members States, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and of their institutional autonomy, that they consistently reinforce the partnership and transparency principle, while implementing the operational programmes, and that they involve the economic and social actors and sub- national levelauthorities from the outset in defining investment priorities, in the decision making process itself and in the implementation and evaluation of programmes;