On a revamped long-term budget for the Union in a changing world

PA_NonLeg

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs submits the following to the Committee on Budgets, as the committee responsible:

Amendment 1

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

18. Recalls that social, economic and territorial cohesion is a cornerstone of European integration and is vital in binding the Union together and deepening the single market; underlines that a modernised cohesion policy must follow a decentralised, place-based, multilevel governance approach and be built around the shared management and partnership principle, fully involving local and regional authorities;

18. Recalls that social, economic and territorial cohesion is a cornerstone of European integration and is vital in binding the Union together and deepening the single market; underlines that a modernised cohesion policy must follow a decentralised, place-based, multilevel governance approach and be built around the shared management and partnership principle, fully involving local and regional authorities; underlines that cohesion policy must remain a long-term policy, based on the objectives set out in Articles 174 and 175 TFEU; expresses its concern that the Union’s cohesion policy, including as provided for by the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), is often used as an emergency response tool;

Or. en

Amendment 2

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 18 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

18a. Highlights the vital role of EU programmes in the employment and social fields, in particular the European Social Fund+, the European Globalisation Fund, the Just Transition Fund, the Social Climate Fund and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), in supporting the Union’s social and territorial cohesion and fostering economic resilience; warns that inflation impacts the real value of projects and may jeopardise their implementation;

Or. en

Amendment 3

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

19. Stresses that cohesion policy funding must tackle the key challenges the Union faces, such as demographic change and depopulation, and target the regions and people most in need; highlights, in particular, the importance of enhanced support to address the EU-wide housing crisis affecting millions of families and young people;

19. Stresses that cohesion policy funding must tackle the key challenges the Union faces, such as demographic change and depopulation, and target the regions and people most in need; emphasises the lack of policy responses to the impact of demographic challenges with an ageing population due to declining fertility rates and extended life expectancies;

Or. en

Amendment 4

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 19 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

19a. Highlights, in particular, the importance of enhanced support to address the EU-wide housing crisis affecting millions of families and young people; welcomes the Commission’s plan to address the European housing crisis and the nomination of a Commissioner responsible for housing, including the use of EU financing for socially inclusive and sustainable housing systems;

Or. en

Amendment 5

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 33 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

33a. Stresses the importance of universal access to public services in order to reduce regional development disparities and offer equal access to quality education, infrastructure and healthcare for all; calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider impacts on social, territorial and economic cohesion at all levels of public policy decisions;

Or. en

Amendment 6

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 60

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

60. Stresses that the next MFF must be designed so as to simplify the lives of beneficiaries, harmonise rules wherever possible and cut unnecessary red tape and must be implemented as close to people as possible;

60. Stresses that the next MFF must be designed so as to simplify the lives of beneficiaries, harmonise rules wherever possible and cut unnecessary red tape and must be implemented as close to people as possible; highlights the need to prioritise women, children, youth, older people, persons with disabilities, families, and persons in vulnerable situations, and to advocate targeted measures to combat youth unemployment, precarity and child poverty;

Or. en

Amendment 7

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 62

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

62. Insists that a simpler budget must also be a more transparent budget, enabling better control of spending and reducing the risks of double funding; underlines that any reduction in programmes must be offset by a far more detailed breakdown of the budget by budget line, in contrast to some programme mergers in the current MFF, such as the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI – Global Europe), which is an example not to follow; calls, therefore, for a sufficiently detailed breakdown by budget line to enable proper accountability and ensure that decision-making in the annual budgetary procedure is meaningful;

62. Insists that a simpler budget must also be a more transparent budget, enabling better control of spending and reducing the risks of double funding; underlines that a reduction in the number and volume of programmes must be offset by a far more detailed breakdown of the budget by budget line, in contrast to some programme mergers in the current MFF, such as the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument – Global Europe (NDICI – Global Europe), which is an example not to follow; calls, therefore, for a sufficiently detailed breakdown by budget line to enable proper accountability, including better control by the co-legislators of the objectives and governance of the programmes, and ensure that decision-making in the annual budgetary procedure is meaningful;

Or. en

Amendment 8

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 66 a (new)

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

66a. Believes that spending programmes should ensure a balanced approach between budgetary flexibility and parliamentary oversight, ensuring that any flexibility reserve remains tailored to the specific needs of each programme; underlines that, while flexibility in financial programmes is necessary to address unforeseen challenges, such mechanisms should not weaken Parliament’s and the Council’s codecision rights in each regulation relating to the internal functioning and resource allocation of relevant funds; insists that the decision-making process for mobilising flexibility reserves must ensure meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, with sectoral committees playing an integral role in the allocation of resources within their respective policy domains; stresses that the possible use of delegated acts or other EU instruments could be considered in order to strengthen the involvement of sectoral committees, such as the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, in decision-making during the implementation phase;

Or. en

Amendment 9

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 69

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

69. Considers that the post-2027 MFF should include only two special instruments - one dedicated to ensuring solidarity in the event of natural disasters (the successor to the existing European Solidarity Reserve) and one for general-purpose crisis response (the successor to the Flexibility Instrument); insists that both special instruments should be adequately funded from the outset and able to carry over unspent amounts indefinitely over the MFF period; believes that all other special instruments can either be wound up or subsumed into the two special instruments or into existing programmes;

69. Considers that the post-2027 MFF should include only two special instruments - one dedicated to ensuring solidarity in the event of natural disasters or unexpected and significant job losses arising from major restructuring events (the successor to the existing European Solidarity Reserve and the European Globalisation Fund) and one for general-purpose crisis response (the successor to the Flexibility Instrument); insists that both special instruments should be adequately funded from the outset and able to carry over unspent amounts indefinitely over the MFF period; believes that all other special instruments can either be wound up or subsumed into the two special instruments or into existing programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 10

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 70

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

70. Calls for the future Flexibility Instrument to be heavily front-loaded and subsequently to be fed through a number of additional sources of financing: unspent margins from previous years (as with the current Single Margin Instrument), the annual surplus from the previous year, a fines-based mechanism modelled on the existing Article 5 of the MFF Regulation, and decommitted appropriations;

70. Calls for the future Flexibility Instrument to be heavily front-loaded and subsequently to be fed through a number of additional sources of financing: unspent margins from previous years (as with the current Single Margin Instrument), the annual surplus from the previous year, a fines-based mechanism modelled on the existing Article 5 of the MFF Regulation, and decommitted appropriations, which should be re-entered in the original programmes’ budget envelope

Or. en

Amendment 11

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 74

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

74. Underlines that the RRF can help to inform the delivery of Union spending under shared management; recalls, however, that the RRF was agreed in the very specific context of the COVID-19 pandemic and cannot, therefore, be replicated wholesale for future investment programmes;

74. Underlines that the RRF can help to inform the delivery of Union spending under codecision; recalls, however, that the RRF was agreed in the very specific context of the COVID-19 pandemic and cannot, therefore, be replicated wholesale for future investment programmes;

Or. en

Amendment 12

Motion for a resolution

Paragraph 75

Motion for a resolution

Amendment

75. Points out that any application of an RRF-style delivery model in the next MFF would have to correct the RRF’s fundamental flaws, by involving regional and local authorities from design to delivery through a place-based and multilevel governance approach, ensuring the cross-border dimension of investment projects, focusing on results and impact rather than outputs, guaranteeing full transparency in relation to final recipients of Union spending and safeguarding Parliament’s role as legislator, budgetary and discharge authority and in holding the executive to account;

75. Points out that any application of an RRF-style delivery model in the next MFF would have to correct the RRF’s fundamental flaws, respecting the ordinary legislative procedure, namely institutional codecision, for each regulation, by involving regional and local authorities from design to delivery through a place-based and multilevel governance approach, ensuring the cross-border dimension of investment projects, focusing on results and impact rather than outputs, guaranteeing full transparency in relation to final recipients of Union spending and safeguarding Parliament’s role as legislator, budgetary and discharge authority and in holding the executive to account;

Or. en

ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The rapporteur for the opinion declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.