Activities of Giovanni LA VIA related to 2011/2019(BUD)
Plenary speeches (1)
2012 draft budget trilogue (debate)
Amendments (22)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that in its resolution of 24 March 2011 the EP put the Europe 2020 strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth at the centre of the 2012 EU budgetary strategy in order to move the Union out of the current economic and social crisishelp Europe recover from the crisis and come out stronger;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that the promotion of jobs and high-quality employmenta smart, sustainable and inclusive economy by delivering on the Europe 2020 strategy’s seven flagship initiatives is a jointly endorsed goal of the 27 EU Member States and of the EU Institutions; recalls that the implementation of this strategy will require a huge amount of future-oriented investment up to 2020, estimated at no less than EUR 1 800 billion by the Commission in its communication entitled ‘The EU Budget Review’3 ; underlines, therefore, that necessary investment in education, fostering a knowledge society, research and development, innovation, SMEs and green and new technologiesthe alignment of the EU Budget with the goals of the EU 2020 strategy is of outmost importance to sustain the necessary investment in order to promote employment, improve innovation, research and development, meet our climate change and energy objectives, improve education levels and promote social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty, and that it must be made now and delayed no longer;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Recalls that support for SMEs and youth employment are pivotal for the success of the EU 2020; recalls that SMEs create two out of three jobs in the EU, and that they are the back-bone of the European growth and job creation; recalls that today’s youth is the highest- educated, technically-advanced, and most mobile ever, and therefore is and will be the biggest asset for growth and jobs in the EU; underlines that SMEs and youth are key element of the success of the EU 2020 strategy, in its internal and external dimension, and are a priority for the EU budget;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is deeply concernedAcknowledges, against this background, by the alarming dropdjustments in public investment inmade by the Member States in some of these areatheir national budgets and firmly believes that, more than ever, this trend must be reversed if the EU as a whole is to deliver on the EU 2020 strategy; is of the opinion that the EU budget has an role to play as a leverage tool for Member States’ recovery policies by triggering and supporting national investment to reinforce growth and employment; emphasises that this is fully in line with the dynamics of the European Semester, which, as a new mechanism for enhanced European economic governance, aims at increasing consistency, synergies and complementarities between the EU and the national budgets in delivering on the jointly agreed Europe 2020 goals;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls that EU 2020 strategy and the European Semester need a strong parliamentary dimension, and shows its firm conviction that stronger parliamentary involvement would significantly improve the democratic nature and transparency of such an exercise;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights the fact that the proposed figures in the 2012 EU annual budget are consistent with the profile of EU expenditure set in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2007-2013; emphasises that any increase (or decrease) compared to Budget 2011 must therefore be assessed bearing in mind its impact on the delivery of the multiannual programmes; stresses that this is a question of institutional credibility and coherence of the EU project when EU responsibilities and commitments keep on growing; deeply regretsbelieves, from this point of view, that the Commission did not propose endowing policieendowing targeted policy areas and new competencies established at EU level following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with meaningful and visible financial capacity is a priority;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Observes that the Commission has made a first endeavour to identify negative priorities and savings in some policy areas as compared with what was initially foreseen in the financial programming, particularly in those characterised by poor performance and low implementation rates in the recent past; asks the Commission to provide additional information supporting its assessments; notes also that, contrary to previous years, the Commission has frequently departed from its indicative financial programming presented in JanuNotes the proposed increase in PA of 4.9% compared to 2011; is convinced that the Commission is proposing such figures on the basis of a careful and critical analysis of forecasts provided by Member States, which themselves co-manage 80% of the EU budget; notes that the bulk of this increase is linked to legal needs arising in relation to the 7th Research Programme and the Structural and Cohesion Funds; is convinced that the proposed level of payments represents the bare minimum required to honour EU legal commitments made in previous years and that it is the EU’s duty to comply with the legal obligations deriving from these commitments and ensure that programmes unfold their full potential and run at full speed; strongly urges the Council, therefore, to refrain from cutting the proposed level of payments; expresses its intention to keep the level of payments at the level proposed by the Commission in the Draft Budget, particularly in view of Council’s early 2011; is determined to further check and analyse these proposals before endorsing them reluctance to honour its formal commitment of December 2010 to providing fresh appropriations in case of need;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines that, with the DB 2012 and the updated financial programming for 2013, the total amount of funds committed by 2013 for key programmes for the achievement of the EU 2020 strategy, such as the 7th EC Framework Research Program (EC FP7), anti-pollution measures, Marco Polo II, PROGRESS, Galileo and GMES, would be less than the reference amount agreed by Parliament and Council when these programmes were adopted; notes that, on the contrary, these reference amounts would be slightly exceeded in the case of the following key Europe 2020 programmes: the Competiveness and Innovation Framework programme (CIP), Trans-European Transport Network, Trans-European Energy network, Erasmus Mundus and Lifelong Learning; regrets, however, that tintends to take full advantage , whesre approposed increases are well belowriate, of the 5% legislative flexibility allowed under Point 37 of the IIA, in order to further boost key and pressing investments;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes, moreover, that an important part of the nominal increase in Heading 1a in the DB 2012 compared to Budget 2011 is linked to the additional funds of EUR 750 million (in CA) required by ITER in 2012, of which EUR 650 million are truly additional and EUR 100 million redeployed from all budget lines of EC FP7; strongly reaffirms its opposition to any form of redeployment from EC FP7 since this would endanger its successful implementation and significantly reduce its contributions to the achievement of the headline goals and the implementation of the flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Welcomes the increase (+ EUR 5.7 million) in the overall level of commitment appropriations for the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework programme compared to what was initially foreseen; hopes that this increase will contribute to improving the access of SMEs to this programme and to developing specific programmes and innovative financial mechanisms; recalls, in this context, the key role played by SMEs in ensuring recovering and boosting the EU economy;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses the decisive contribution of cohesion policy to growth and employment, as well as to economic, social and territorial cohesion between EU regions and Member States; stresses that cohesion policy plays an instrumental role in enabling all EU regions to participate in the achievement of Europe 2020 objectives and in supporting regional investments aimed at implementing all flagship initiatives; takes the view accordingly that, while its redistributive nature and its aim to reduce regional disparities should be preserved, cohesion policy must remain EU-wide and viinvestment policy and accessible to all EU regions and citizens;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Stresses therefore that this level of payments is a bare minimum and complies fully with realistic budgeting, taking due account of the general payment profile over the period, the Member States’ available forecast in respect of payment claims to be sent to the Commission, and the need to fill the gap between commitments and payments; underlines the fact that these cash flows will also help accelerate the recovery of the European economy and contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy in the regions; will therefore strictly oppose any possible decrease in the level of payments compared to the one proposed by the Commission in its Draft Budget, particularly in view of Council’s early 2011 reluctance to honour its formal commitment of December 2010 to providing fresh appropriations in case of need;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Urges the Commission also to continue its reflection, in view of its legislative proposals for the new programming period, to place particular emphasis on how to reshufflesimplify the complex system of rules and requirements imposed by the EU and/or national legislation, in order to focus more on achieving objectives and less on legality and regularity, without departing from the key principles of transparency, accountability and sound financial management;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 41
Paragraph 41
41. Points out that, owing to its political importance, the financing and existing actions of the Common Fisheries Policy should be preserved and maintained at the proposed levels, not least given its upcoming reform; takes the view that the funding of the integrated maritime policy should not be detrimental to that of other fisheries actions and programmes under Heading 2; further considers it crucial to keep on monitoring the size of the European fishing fleet and giving appropriate support to Member States in this regard;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 53
Paragraph 53
53. Is astonished that the Commission has not proposed in its Draft Budget 2012 anyUnderlines its willingness to propose specific programmemeasures in favour of sport, although this is now a fully-fledged competence of the Union deriving from the Treaty of Lisbon; finds this attitude all the more surprising sinceat some funding – though of limited magnitude – wasneeds to continue to be available in Budgets 2009, 2010 and 2011;
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
Paragraph 54 a (new)
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 59
Paragraph 59
59. Recalls that Parliament and Council have still not agreed on the legal basis for Banana Accompanying Measures and Cooperation with Industrialised and other High-Income Countries (ICI +) and that this agreement will have an impact on Budget 2012 appropriations; regrets the Commission’s proposal to cut funding for the cooperation with developing countries in Asia and Latin America ; calls for a swift adoption of the ICI+ legislation and for an endorsement of adequate funding for Asia and Latin America;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 67
Paragraph 67
67. Acknowledges the Commission’s great effort to freeze its own administrative expenditure in nominal terms; notes that this was rendered possible through the offsetting of the increases linked to statutory and contractual obligations against other drastic cuts in other administrative expenditure; is nevertheless concerned about the possible consequences of the latter, for instance those related to training (-11%) and publications (-17% and -2.1% for the Publication Office);
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69
Paragraph 69
69. Acknowledges the Commission’s efforts not to request any additional posts, but views with scepticism and, its commitment to meet all its needs, including those relating to new priorities and to the entry into force of the TFEU, merely by means of internal redeployment of existing human resources; wondersask for further information in particular where the 230 additional posts for the monitoring of Member States’ economic and financial situation within DG ECFIN are to be redeployed from and what the impact of 70 fewer posts for administrative support and programmes management will be, following redeployments within specific Directorates-General;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 69 a (new)
Paragraph 69 a (new)
69a. Underlines that the increase proposed for EPSO (+5.4% in CA and PA) seems to contradict the Commission’s efforts to reduce administrative expenditure; requests more information on the proposed increase of EPSO's allocations and on the externalization by EPSO of key services; shows its deep concern about the recent Pachtitis ruling questioning the role EPSO is playing in EU open competitions, and the invasion by EPSO of competences of the Selection Boards; requests full information on how this ruling has been applied;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 70
Paragraph 70
70. Notes the 4% increase in expenditure on pensions (as against +5.2% from 2010 to 2011) in view of the wave of retirements of officials born in the 1950s; invites the Commission to supply a more in-depth analysis of the long-term budgetary consequences of this trend, while at the same time considering the possible consequences, whether direct and indirect, of any change in the EU pension scheme on the attractiveness, quality and independence of the European civil service; stresses that any such change should follow due social dialogue;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 77 a (new)
Paragraph 77 a (new)
77a. Considers the following points of the Budget 2012 to be of specific interest in the trilogue: – budgetary implications of the EU2020 strategy; – adequate level of payments; – the limited margins in the 2012 DB; Further topics of interest are: – the financing of ITER; – the Lisbon Package; – the Amending Budgets 2011 on Solidarity Funds, Surplus and ENPI – further upcoming important subjects;