Committee on Budgets Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
BUDG European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
Strengthening economic, social, and territorial cohesion is indispensable to increase Europe's competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the world, to tap into the potential of every region. It also proposes merging shared management funds into a single fund delivered through national regional partnership plans, whose sector priorities could compete and weaken an integrated approach. This is why we warn against cutting the funding available under heading number one, and we call for a dedicated and ring-fenced budget for cohesion policy, separate from common agricultural policy and available to all categories of regions. Funding for cohesion should be kept at least at the current level. We also welcome competitiveness as a key EU objective, but we believe it must be built from the ground up starting in our regions.
This requires empowering the regions and ensuring that all of them have access to the resources needed to address this situation. In particular, multilevel governance and the partnership principle must be firmly anchored in the NRPP fund's regulation. In other words, we need clear legal guarantees that local and regional authorities will be fully involved in the preparation, governance, implementation, and evaluation of the shared management programs. Ladies and gentlemen, my time is up, and I would like to conclude that our message today is very simple. We need a pragmatic and ambitious budget that delivers efficiently on our objectives, but without becoming territorially blind.
Speaker 3
I wish you good luck, and I really appreciate the fact that we can talk together as the Committee of Regions and the European Parliament. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Droba. I think that the regions are very important for the European Union, and thank you very much for your contribution. I would like now to give the floor to Konstantinos Diamanturos. So Diamanturos, you have to tell me how it is spelled. You're better than I am.
Speaker 5
Chair, you were impressive. I have to say it's Diamanturos, so you got it 100%. So, well done. So, you know, good morning from me, and thank you very much to this house, chair, honorable members of the committee, ladies, and gentlemen. On behalf of the AC, I mean, we would like to really welcome the opportunity to present our opinion to this important debate today.
And we would like also to thank you for the very good cooperation we've had with the rapporteurs, mister Murison, miss Tavares, miss Lopiath, and miss Nerudova. It's been a very good exchange, and we believe, actually, together with the European Committee of the Regions that we are your ally in this question. I think we will hear a lot of things which go in the similar spirit. Let me come to the substance of our political recommendations. You know?
The starting point is clear. We also believe that the proposed budget is not sufficient because Europe is facing indeed unprecedented challenges at all levels: social, environmental, security, technological. We need to be able to enhance our strategic economy, boost competitiveness, and at the same time, implement the European pillar of social rights to ensure that this transition is just. And this comes at a time when we also have the repayment of the Next Generation EU. This will put pressure on the budgets, which means we have to preserve traditional priorities like cohesion and the cap while financing new priorities.
And what we see is that, indeed, the commission has proposed a proposal which is marginally bigger, but we do not think this is sufficient, so we align ourselves with other stakeholders on this matter. Clearly, on the revenue side, the commission has proposed new own resources. We, in principle, do believe that you need a strong revenue base and new own resources to be able to finance the budgets, and we believe these have to be embedded in EU policies. Having said that, we do believe that new own resources should not undermine competitiveness. So there we are skeptical towards the core proposal.
This has been noted in our opinion. And when it comes to the new own resources on the ETS and the CBAM, while we do understand, you know, the need to boost the budget, we also kind of ask policymakers to make sure that these industries who pay these allowances actually have the support they need because they're facing very, very high energy costs, and they are basically under extreme pressure. So we need to also make sure that our energy-intensive sectors can survive this very difficult moment. In similar spirits to what our colleagues from the core said, we are opposed to the reductions in the cohesion and the common agricultural policy because we think they remain central pillars to the EU budget, and they have demonstrated, especially cohesion has demonstrated its contributions to balanced regional development, economic conversions, and a resilient internal market, and it is one of the flagship, let's say, policies which citizens identify with. So we think actually reducing this is not the right way to go.
In similar spirit, we are against this merging, this mega fund. So this idea of merging cohesion policy, ASF plus, CAP, fisheries, migration, we believe it will create actually competition between the different funds, and we would argue again for going back to the traditional model of having earmarked and separate budgets. You will not be surprised to think that in terms of governance, you know, we believe that there is a very big centralization. So we would like also to make sure that social partners, civil society organizations, regional local authorities also have the chance to be involved in decision making, especially when it comes to programs which are on the ground, for example like cohesion. That was the pillar one.
Now going to competitiveness. We do overwhelmingly support the fact that you have an enhanced, you know, focus on competitiveness. We do like the fact that you have a competitiveness fund, you know, with significant resources. Very important also that Horizon Europe has been increased, because we need to boost our technological leads. And very important also that the Connecting Europe Facility sees a big increase both in energy and transport interconnections.
This is very positive, and we've welcomed this in our proposal. And, of course, one thing, you know, which is constantly the debate, and we also caution that, you know, flexibility has to come also with predictability. And you know what we see at the moment, you have a lot of flexibility there. But when you try to get answers about what this means, you don't get any. So this is something, you know, we're also concerned about, and I think we're your ally in this respect.
So wrapping up on the members, we think this will be a long process as it tends to be, and we want to contribute constructively with you. And we have very much welcomed, you know, the cooperation we've had to date, and we hope we will have the opportunity in the future to liaise with you and collaborate with you again, and thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to intervene today.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Now I would like to give the floor to our first general operator from the EPP, Siegfried Morrison.
Speaker 6
Thanks very much, Madam President. Good morning, dear colleagues. Good morning to also the colleagues from the committee of the region's economic and social committee. Thanks for joining us. And I would like to congratulate the colleagues from the Economic Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions for the work that they have done so far on the multi-annual financial framework.
I would like to thank them for the very close cooperation. Clearly, we are united as institutions in our will to have an MFF which is transparent and inclusive, both in the adoption, in the decision making process now, but also in the implementation. And because we want the budget to be adopted in a transparent and inclusive manner, we take the opinions coming from the two institutions seriously. And indeed, Carla and me, we have engaged in continuous dialogue with institutions. We've attended many meetings there, and we're thankful for the openness that we received there.
Also, on substance, we think there is a lot that we share. We believe that indeed the union has new priorities: security, competitiveness. We have to become stronger there, but not at the expense of the traditional priorities, and not at the expense of the predictability of the budget. The budget has to be a budget for investment. It needs clear long-term objectives.
It shouldn't just become a crisis response mechanism where, basically, we talk about flexibility, but in fact, we take away all predictability from the beneficiaries. And based on the work that the institutions did, we would really appreciate more details if colleagues will speak again in terms of what their expectations are for predictability and what the lack of predictability would mean for the beneficiaries on the ground, including for regions. We advocate for a clear and strong role of the regions. We believe that there are, from the recovery resilience facility, several lessons to be learned, and one is that if we tell governments that it would be nice to involve the regions, then they will not involve the regions. We believe that the role of the regions has to be clarified in legislative terms at European level, and it has to be clear and binding.
Also, we believe that good accountability, transparency are essential, and we are not sure that the centralization of the budget through the NIPPs as designed initially, would help us meet that objective. This is why, but of course, the rapporteurs on national regional partnership plans will say more on this, but our objective as a parliament is to make sure that there is, under those plans, accountability, transparency, and predictability for all types of beneficiaries. On own resources, our colleagues, the own resources, rapporteurs, will say more. But linked to the revenues and the expenditures, of course, is the size of the budget. We, as a parliament, have always believed that the repayment of Next Generation EU should not be made at the expense of the programs.
So this is why we think that the 1.26, 27% of the GNI put forward by the Commission for Programs and Next Generation EU should be allocated for programs only, and the repayment of Next Generation EU should be done above that. Basically, to conclude, of course, we believe reforms are something can be something positive, but the lessons learned from the recovery resilience facility show that if the link between reforms and investments is not clear, that doesn't lead to more transparency. So, basically, we do have some concerns regarding the performance-based model. And what we do not want is beneficiaries that have no responsibility for implementing reforms to suffer from delays when it comes to reforms. And this is why we also have the question to the committee of the regions, what are eventually the ideas, the safety nets that you see on making sure that EU funds continue to flow to local and regional beneficiaries if national authorities do not comply with the reform request.
So we do not want beneficiaries, particularly at the local and regional level, to be harmed by national governments not implementing reforms. That's it from my side, and I think Carla will speak about the rest of the budget. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Thank you, Cher. And first, I would like to thanks the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions for the old work it was possible to do together during the last month. We start, I think our first meeting was in 2024. So during this whole month, we have a very important work together, in particular, in adding one of the national and regional plans and the rule of regions and municipalities.
So, now I will speak in Portuguese. It's more easy. Just two or three points about the next MFF and the work we are doing together during the last month. About the wedding
So when it comes to competitiveness, we've already discussed this here, and we all feel that it is extremely important, and we're very happy to see what is actually going to be included when it comes to competitiveness. And here I'm referring to the commission's proposal. We have had this discussion on a number of occasions already, and we have always said that competitiveness and cohesion policy are fully complementary, especially when it comes to aiming for territorial and economic convergence. There's another aspect that is equally important, and that is the rule of law in the context of the future CFP. Conditionality, respect of the rule of law continue to be a steering, a guiding principle of what we do because obviously this is all about respect of the finances, the principle of respect of the finances of the European Union.
The parliament is always going to be demanding a very strict implementation of conditionality and the rule of law. When it comes to heading three, there is an increase in the amount for the budget when it is requested by the council when it comes to the union's foreign policy. We feel this is important, of course, but over the coming months, I think the major challenges are those that come under heading one, cohesion. And we know that if you take a look at the commission's proposal, there are certain essential policy areas when it comes to the more traditional actions carried out by the European Union. And we have been working over the past few months to define consensual positions that will continue to do this with the EESC and the Committee of the Regions.
And the work that we have done has allowed the European Parliament to have a stronger position and a stronger voice, and to be able to stand up for itself better vis-à-vis the Council. And we need to stick to our position because we realize, of course, that things are not going to become any easier over the coming months. And the future MFF and again, the proposal made by the commission, you can't do more with less, even though maybe that's what they want. We need to have an ambitious MFF in order to be able to meet the challenges that we're going to be facing in the future. So that's all I have to say.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Carla. Now we have our own resources. First, Danusi Niedudova. Danusi, you have the floor.
Danuše Nerudová
Thank you. I would like also to start by thanking the committee of regions and economic and social committee for their variable work. Your opinions ensure that different levels of government and economic and social actors are properly reflected in our discussions. As corroborative of own resources, I shared a key message from both committees. New own resources must serve two purposes.
They must fund new priorities and help repay NGEU while strengthening the EU's financial autonomy, competitiveness, cohesion, and climate goals. At the same time, we must learn from past deadlocks in the council. With NGEU repayments starting in the next MFF, we can no longer postpone the introduction of new own resources. The council must live up to its commitments. Linking the own resources decision to divide the MFF package will be crucial to reaching a political agreement.
That said, supporting the commission's proposal doesn't mean accepting it without concerns. Many share worries about the competitiveness impact of core, especially for companies already facing the green and digital transitions. This is why we believe the digital service levy should return to the discussion. It's a credible opinion that would mainly target large digital companies benefiting from the single market. Finally, the proposal is not only about new revenues.
It also simplifies existing resources, such as customs duties and value added tax, and introduces a crisis mechanism where the European Parliament would hold a veto, a responsibility we take seriously. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Danuzzi. We all wish you the best for the own resources. Thank you very much. Now I would like to give the floor to the shadow reporters. I'll try to find them if they are here.
I start first with PFE, but I don't see anybody. ECR ? No. Then Fabienne? I tried one after the other.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much, madam chair. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be speaking French this morning. I would like to thank the representatives of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions for their work on the next MFF. My French colleagues from the regions have talked to me a lot about the work that you do, and it's created a really fruitful debate. And the same applies for the EESC.
So thank you not only for your opinion, but also for the debate that you've started on this very important subject. As an introductory remark, I'd like to say that I absolutely share what the two co-rapporteurs have said. I'd like to just highlight a few of the points that you mentioned. One of them is the governance of the MFF with a strengthened role for the parliament and the committee of the regions and the economic and social committee, those who really represent citizens on the ground. More simplification, yes, but in order to facilitate access for the final beneficiaries.
So you're going to be able to monitor that over the lifespan of the MFF. For my group, the rule of law is a huge priority, as was mentioned earlier by Carla, as well as the implementation of smart conditionality. In other words, if one member state doesn't respect the rule of law, the funds and policies will still be channeled to the final beneficiaries. On the subject of competitiveness and import, the importance of the role of Invest EU and the European Investment Bank to increase our ability to invest has been very clearly described in the Draghi report. On competitiveness in Europe.
Lastly, own resources that Miss Merodova just spoke about very clearly. We all know that in order to get an ambitious and robust budget, we have to continue to work on these resources. It's a prickly subject, but we can't go on endlessly having two-thirds of our budgets coming from national sources. So we need to be able to levy on imports, particularly for external actors. But the devil is in the detail, and we must continue to work on it with zeal in order to improve the situation of our own resources.
Thank you.
Rasmus, you have the floor.
Speaker 13
Thank you very much. And thank you to both of you for coming here today. I mean, we had an exchange. It's like almost a year ago now when we were discussing the own initiative reports from the various institution. And I remember the discussions we had.
And I just looked through my notes before this meeting again, and something we really agreed upon was the need for flexibility and simplification across the MFF. And I think when we're having these discussions, we also have to be honest with ourselves in commission came with.
Speaker 13
Proposal that's more flexible and simple. There's a lot to criticize in it. But I also think when we have this discussion, we need to then go into saying how can we then keep a flexibility and not just losing it by ring fencing everything. We also want to have new priorities, but keep the old. We want a larger budget, but we also know the financial situation in the member states.
So we need our own resources, and we say no to a lot of what's on the table. And I think a bit we have to, us three institutions, and I might not become very popular by saying this today, but we have to also point a bit to ourselves and come up with some of the real answers to how then to do this and not just saying no, not just pointing, and because it's the same we hear from the council. I mean, they're not gonna pay more, but we want a larger budget, but we don't want the own resources they're proposing. So it's a bit catch 22. And, therefore, I have two questions I just want to evoke, and that is, first of all, to committee of regions.
With the simplification of flexibility we see presented from the commission, where do you see the biggest problems? Because I see them in governance. I see them in the performance regulations. And that's what we've been trying to push from the green side, is actually to get the role of regions into this NRPP setup. But if you see it the same way or it really is the ring fencing, and aren't you scared that we're actually gonna lose when it comes to cohesion policy because we have new priorities.
So even with a slightly bigger MFF, we have to cut somewhere. And for the economic and social committee, a bid on this on resources because also I hear it's a no go sum that has been proposed and that's a bit been the story for years. Council say no to a lot. We say no to some. You say no to some.
So where is the room to find the way to actually get money in so we don't end up as madam Keller is saying that too much is coming from the member states. Sorry for not just being happy and smiling, but also be a bit critical about our positions. Thank.
Yes. Thank.
Speaker 15
Thank you very much, madam chair. I'm going to be speaking in German. And I would like to echo the previous speakers. I think it's become quite clear in the reports that when it comes to the European Parliament's and our committees' power of scrutiny control, we want to strengthen that. That's something we all share in common.
And we've already touched on a number of aspects. We feel that in the MFF, we are somewhat concerned that we want to include these rule of law mechanisms because we know from the past, from experience, the rule of law measures only address one country, Hungary, maybe Czechia is going to be added to them as well. So as the ESN, we would reject that. Obviously, in the MFF there are very many positions that we do have questions on whether we should be doing this at all. One hobby horse is investment for rendering something competitive.
I don't think the kind of people they're targeting necessarily want these kinds of measures. They just want a cutting of red tape, less bureaucracy. That's because some of these EU regulations make the economic activities of the companies more difficult and complicated. So I think we have to question all of that, which means that then we would have to question the amount that is being earmarked for the MFF. We do see possibilities for making cuts, and that would mean that we would need fewer own resources as well.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
So thank you very much. Now I would like the floor, if Anders catches the eye, somebody would like Carlo.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much, and thank you also for the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, for the presentation, but also for the opinions. Really, shortly, a lot has already been said. The bottom line is that the main, underlying problem with, especially with the, national and regional partnership plans regulation is this tension between, ideas of integration in a single fund, quite different models with this hybrid model interchangeably combining really different time horizon, different objectives, but also different logics as ECA has also warned, and this definitely risks trade off. Secondly, I do agree to some extent to what has already been said in the fact that we are now in this phase where we should try to move beyond the criticism only and try to especially provide good ideas and ways forward. So in that sense, I think that the opinions will definitely feed into not only the interim report, but also to our work on the national and regional partnership plans.
It is not an easy task. There is this underlying problem that I just mentioned, but I think that we should all now focus and be as constructive as possible and in the end, try to make it better and enhance what is possible to be enhanced.
Merci, madame. Thank.
Speaker 17
Thank you very much, madam chair. This report confirms one thing. We are kicking the can down the road when it comes to policy and budget. We're told that we need to increase the European budget once again, even though this is already at 200 or 2,000 billion euros. We need more own resources, which means more European levies. As I already said in committee, we just have to end fraud, especially VAT fraud, in order not to need these new own resources, and to pay back the huge loan that we took out.
Speaker 19
We're also told that we need more flexibility, more centralization, more conditionality, and we're also told that the European Union needs to intervene more in social policies, in education, the economy, territorial governance, and even in defining the policy priorities of local authorities. We have to consult local governments and intermediaries and condition these funding to social criteria. In other words, it's no longer just a budget. It's a tool for political transformation, and that's the heart of the problem. It's becoming a lever to set national policy to condition choices in order to worm its way into areas that should come under state competence.
We reject that logic. As you know, Europe should focus on its core missions, not sprawl ever outwards. What is presented as a budget tool is going to become a political competence tomorrow, and what is presented as a European resource is going to become obligatory tomorrow. This is drift, and we're against it. Thank.
Stine Bosse
On that note, yes, of course, the budget is also a political instrument and should be. And it might be that there are colleagues that do not see, watch television, or engage with what is happening all around us as we are speaking. But for me at least, and for my group, Renu, it is very clear that we need to do so much more together. And I want to quote our commissioner, Sarafan, who said very clearly, I think it was about 3 months after our mandate started, what we can do better and cheaper together, we must. I mean, this should steer us.
And we all know that money will not be coming down from the trees, so everything is connected with also competitiveness and so on, but we have to be more bold. And I want to echo both what Rasmus Norquist said, and also Fabienne Keller. Of course, we need an own income that is stronger. If not now, whenever. We have so many things at our hands that we really need to do better and more simply, more transparent, of course, but also easier and at a much higher pace.
We haven't got all the time in the world to sit down and discuss 15 different areas. And then just one final comment. I think it was you, Fabienne, who talked about InvestEU. For me, InvestEU is such a good example of what we can do. I mean, and honestly, it is, if ever there was one, a no brainer.
We have paid back 14 times. And the mere fact that the commission comes up with a suggestion that we should lower the investment there, I just don't get it. So if anything, in all the areas where we can actually beef up our own economies, let's get going and doing it. Thank you.
Merci.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much, madam chair. Thank you, colleagues, and thanks to the representatives of the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee for being here and for shedding light on their views. I have three comments to make on the debate that we're having today. Firstly, as we see it, the commission has made a huge mistake, which can be summarized as follows. It gives the idea that we can predict the future in terms of defense or the economy, and global Europe moving ever further into the international sphere, sacrificing the past.
Speaker 24
In other words, the solidarity policies towards farmers and towards the most disadvantaged regions. I'd like to thank our two co-rapporteurs for making their best efforts to correct that. However hard we search, I don't think we can create common rules for the regions and for farmers. So I think we need separate funds. Secondly, it's not about spending more, necessarily.
Speaker 28
Not necessarily. It's about spending more in Europe. Let's look at defense. 4,000 billion is going to be spent to meet the 3.5% GDP on defense as accepted or as expected by the US from OECD countries. And there would be only 75,000,000,000 of European spending on that.
Speaker 26
So the idea is that we have European defense that takes up a lot more space, but could be replaced by national spending. Third point, what we in Europe need to do, whether at national or European level, is transform the capital of our economies, which today is polluting and doesn't sufficiently include new technologies into green capital. Any company, any entity that is thinking about how to totally transform the capital of its economy has access to loans. You can't just use your running or operating income. So we can't solve this Gordian knot without using our own resources, that's been said.
Speaker 31
But we also need loans, which can be reimbursed by these own resources. If we have a tax on tobacco to fund clean and renewable energy, just to take one example, I'm fairly sure that all Europeans would agree to that. So those were the three comments I had. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jean-Marc.
Speaker 23
Share. I will speak in Portuguese. Firstly,
I welcome the work of the two committees, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. As a previous member or former member of the Committee of the Regions, I'm particularly interested in the work done by them. And as a former local government worker, I'm sorry that cohesion is one of the areas that has been sacrificed in this proposal. This proposal is taking us towards a less cohesive Europe and a several-speed Europe. This is what we've always tried to avoid.
Having said that, I would say that as a former local government representative, I think that local and regional governments have bowed their head to this proposal. We heard Mister Ressler and Jean Marc Germain. And in the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg, we don't hear local government representatives express their discontent with this proposal. The governance of national and regional plans will be guaranteed by the national governments. And those national governments all tend to say yes to the proposal because they think that the better they can control it, the better they'll be.
The less power that goes to local and regional authorities, the better it is for the central government. So I would just pick up on what Jean-Marc Germain was saying. There are other areas such as the CAP in which we've been able to keep a minimum of MFF funding, but I would say that cohesion is the biggest loser in this proposal. And as a result, my question is very clear. What is the Committee of the Regions going to do, and what is the Economic and Social Committee going to do, with the commission in the corridors of power in Brussels and Strasbourg or in national parliaments or regional parliaments even?
Because there are sector organizations that are quite passive on this issue. So the question I have is, is it just going to be the European Parliament that's going to defend cohesion policy and the role of local and regional governments? If that's so, then we're going to have to come up with another strategy, because I really see that it's going to be a battle when it comes to the cohesion policy. And we'll come out losing because it'll win at the cost of Caucasian policy.
Speaker 1
From the Committee of the Regions. As you see, you have not only a lot of friends, but you have a lot of supporters here for the regions. And I think, really, that regions are very important and should have the possibility to negotiate themselves their cohesion policy. So, you have an important role. You have the floor.
Speaker 3
And I very much appreciate that. Thank you very much for very kind, very constructive words from many of you. I think the future of the budget must remain an essential tool to strengthen competitiveness of Europe. I mean, let's not lie to ourselves. We lost the train.
We missed the train, and I think we need to build a new, stronger train, which will start being faster than the competitors around the world. To mister Morishan's question, draft opinion on ARPP adopted will be in May, and it builds on the concept of regional checks. This is proposed by the commission president, and there is also the subsidiarity clause and multilevel governance assessment. The regional checks guarantee that we always have a place at the table for NRPPs. And I think it's very important that the regions really, you listen to not only formally, but we do have things to say that will drive our European economy further.
I think we must be indispensable in delivering the policies, because we are on the ground. We are the ones who actually make European policies happen in the regions and in the countries. And in order to increase the competitiveness, I think we need to really provide more freedom of enterprise and think about lowering the taxes, etcetera. But this is my old liberal soul inside me. So I think I said what I wanted to say, and we should proceed and really think about how to make Europe more competitive.
Speaker 5
Thank you, chair. Maybe on a personal note to say this, I fully support the call. If we are more competitive, we'll have a bigger denominator, so a bigger budget automatically. There were quite a few elements to touch upon. Maybe I try to kind of wrap them up quickly.
You know, mister Vares talked about competitiveness and cohesion being fully compatible. Yes. We do actually fully believe this is not a contradiction. We don't like it when you talk about cohesion versus competitiveness. Mister Murasan, he mentioned, you know, about specific examples of predictability and what we could give.
I can give the example of unpredictability when we talk about the European Competitiveness Fund. We have no idea how this will work. We know how Horizon works, usually with annual work programs and different financing schemes. But when you talk to the commission about how the ECF will talk about, they say it's all about flexibility and being flexible, and you say it. I mean, if you don't know anything about how it's gonna be implemented through national plans or through the financing schemes.
You know, it's very difficult for stakeholders to prepare on this. Also, on the conditionalities and the regions, you know, what we have said this year is that you need these conditionalities in the NRRPs to be linked to the specific aims of cohesion policy. They cannot be macroeconomic. There was some questions about, yes, own resources and by Mr. Nordwist. We were not against the own. The only thing we're quite skeptical about is the core.
I mean, we do understand otherwise the need for that. I mean, in the proposal, we have said that we would support somehow the DST coming back, you know, provided that geopolitics allow this. You know? So this is a big if, you know, because the but, otherwise, we have supported all the rest. There were comments on the social conditionalities.
I just want to make clear that what we do is we have insisted on having social conditionalities in the NRRP, but these have to be agreed by national social partners. So they're not European social conditionalities. They fully respect social dialogue at the national level. And, of course, yes, VAT fraud. You know, that's a very good way I can say, but my own country, you know, has a very good job now in Greece, you know, minimizing VAT fraud, and that is translating into higher revenues.
Last but not least, yes, there was a comment on Invest EU. Yes. Full support that has proved to be a useful instrument, and I think we can leverage the budget to increase investments. And the more we can also use private sector instruments, that will actually be to the benefits because whatever we do, the resources will be fine in the end. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We wish you the best for your work. And as you said, as governance structures are not clear, and as a lot of other questions are in different files, we will have to find the horizontal issues concerning the different links from one file to the other. This will be very challenging for all rapporteurs and for the US Committee of the Regions and Committee responsible for all economic and social affairs. So I think challenging time for us all.
Thank you very much for your visit and for your time, and we are waiting for your further contributions in very interesting negotiations. Thank you very much. So now I would like to go to the agenda point number five, the pilot projects and preparatory actions in the budget 2026 and '27. I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur for the 2027 budget, Niels, to present the working document on pilot projects and preparatory actions.
Nils Ušakovs
Oh, thank you, Chair, dear colleagues. In agreement with my colleague, Kange Khalidzky, who is a reporter for the 2026 budget, I will present the working document on pilot projects and preparatory actions both for the budgets 2026 and 2027, if I may. Pilot projects and preparatory actions are tools in the European Union budget designed to test new policy initiatives or prepare the ground for the adoption of future programs. Article 58 of the financial regulation provides a derogation to the principle under which appropriations may only be entered in the EU budget if a legal act has been adopted, enabling PPPAs to be enacted via a budgetary decision taken prior to any legislative decision. The total amount of commitment appropriations for pilot projects is €40,000,000, and €100,000,000 for preparatory actions, and a maximum of 150,000,000 for new preparatory actions.
Looking back for PPPAs into budget 2026, of the 155 projects initially proposed and sent for pre-assessment to the commission, the European Parliament compromise package consisted of 24 new and continued PPPAs. So response was 16 PPs and eight PAs. The total amount adopted in the 2026 budget was 28,000,000 in the commitment of preparations for the PPPs and 47,500,000 for PAs. It's important to remember that every year, parliament must weigh its priorities between the preparations for existing programs and actions on the one hand and creating or extending PPPAs on the other hand. Now going for the 2027 budget.
Members reaching the low threshold committees or political groups have until 03/26/2026 to submit proposals for new or extended PPPAs to be sent for pre-assessment to the commission. Today, we will vote on 28 proposals for PPPAs that have been submitted to the budget committee by members or substitutes of our committee. The commission will evaluate the feasibility of all proposals and will publish the results of its pre-assessment in mid June. Proposals will be graded from a to d, and then members seek reassessment to correct or improve the proposal further by July 31 to seek a better category. Let me recall that all PPPA proposals submitted for pre-assessment in March, as well as those reassessed in July, must also be tabled as budgetary amendments by respective deadlines in September.
On the basis of all budgetary amendments, I will draft a compromise package of PPPAs, take into account both the evaluation by the commission in the pre-assessment and reassessment phases, as well as the political support within parliament and depending on the availabilities. Only proposals with grades A or B by the commission will be considered. PPPAs offer a powerful vehicle for translating political ambitions into concrete EU policies and programs. Past experience has demonstrated that significant impact lies in laying the groundwork for major initiatives, most notably the regions of Erasmus, as well as generating dedicated actions and strengths within existing programs. I remain fully committed to working with you to identify a balanced compromise package, one that reconciles new and ongoing projects and actions, budget headings, and semantic priorities, while securing the support of the relevant committees and political groups, all within the agreed priority framework.
Thank you, chair.
Speaker 34
Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you for the 2027 report there, for the presentation. I'm totally aligned with what he has just said. And to highlight the importance of the pilot projects and the work that this committee does in that line. He's described perfectly well the procedure we have ahead of us.
I think that the 28 proposals that we have are good proposals that deserve to be analyzed and studied by the commission. For the citizens that are listening to these committees to highlight the importance of these pilot projects. Because from these initiatives, we may have ahead of us in a few years important programs that have a real impact on their lives. So, full support to the 28 proposals that they should have a chance. They should be analyzed.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Any other shadow operator? Because I can't see one. Then for Mister Sanchez, I think. You take the floor.
Do think I'm shadowing it. But.
I'm not sure.
But I think I can see it. Okay.
Speaker 17
When we look at these pilot projects, we understand why citizens no longer have confidence in the European Union. We're talking about over €30,000,000 to finance what? Studies on loneliness, AI, perception, and travel for retired people while taxpayers are paying in, Europe is funding gadgets. But that isn't even the most serious thing. These projects are Trojan horses.
They're an experiment. A few years later, they become a permanent European policy. Little by little, the union creeps, erodes democracy. What is presented as a pilot project today will become a new European competence. Obviously, we oppose that.
Speaker 1
We will not be voting on the preparatory actions today. We'll be voting on the commission carrying out an assessment. We won't yet be determining what the preparatory actions will be, just so that's clear. I'd now like to give the floor to the commission.
Speaker 36
Thank you very much, madam chair, and thanks a lot to the rapporteur for the very clear report that sets the scene for the pilot project, but also very much for the intention to really propose then as a budgetary amendment only the assessed project. They were assessed as fully implementable or implementable with only small adjustments. I also wanted to stress and confirm that as in previous years, the assessment is purely technical, really, to assess not the merit of the proposal or political merit or whatever else, but whether the implementation of the project or preparatory action is something new, something which is within the competence of the EU. It hasn't been done before, or it can't be done on the existing instruments. Also, we want to reassure that we will do our best to provide as detailed assessment as possible also for those projects that we believe can already be financed under existing instruments under the category C.
Speaker 37
But it is really important that we receive a reasonable number of the proposal, as was the case actually in the recent years. So if we receive 150, 180 proposals, then it gives us and our colleagues time to really go in detail. At the time when we were receiving close to 400 proposals, it was really difficult within the limited period of time to do so. So we really appreciate the procedure and the fact that we get the selection of project and then we have time to really look at them very carefully. We have also provided you with the interim report in February to show how we intend to implement the new pilot projects and preparatory action.
Speaker 36
And as always, we will also present the draft budget in early June, the working document that provides the full description of all the projects that are included in the budget, how they are implemented. So, again, we are looking forward to the good cooperation on the pilot project and preparatory actions, and we believe indeed that there can be a valuable project. But given the limited availabilities, as already the reporters said, it is really important to concentrate on the ones that we believe can really bring value added. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
So. Thank you very much. To say anything as a final word? No. Nils doesn't want to have a final word, so we would make a post for two or three minutes so that all colleagues can, oh, do we, ah, at 10:30.
Speaker 38
So the votes will be at 10:30. So we have a longer break. Twenty-five minutes. Time for some coffee. So, dear colleagues, I think that now all colleagues should have arrived.
Speaker 1
We will vote. We have now our voting term. I have to look at this one. The first is number nine, mobilization of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund for displaced workers following an application from Belgium. I'm doing very slowly to wait for all colleagues coming in.
Everything fine now? Okay. Fabienne, everything is fine. Let's first have a test vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Okay. All machines are working. Then the mobilization of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund. Does the rapporteur wish to take the floor?
I don't think so. So we proceed to the vote. The first is amendment number eight. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions, it's rejected. Number nine. Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted.
Compromise number three. In favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. Then we go to 14 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
13 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. 17 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 16 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 15 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise two in favor, against abstentions, adopted.
Then we go to 21 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 23 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 24 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 25 in favor. Against, abstentions rejected.
26 in favor. Against, abstentions rejected. 27 in favor. Against, abstentions rejected. Then, citation number one.
Speaker 1
I said mix it up. So amendment number one on citation five. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions rejected.
Then amendment two. Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions rejected. Compromise one.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. Then we go to amendment six. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Seven, who is false. False. False.
Yes. Now final roll call vote. I open the vote. Close the vote. 29 in favor, one minus, and one abstention.
So then we go to 10, the mobilization of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund for displaced workers following an application from Austria. Does not want to take the floor. I think so. Absolutely not. Janus is confirming it.
So we vote on amendment number 5. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions rejected. Number six, who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Seven in favor? Against? We have to check.
Vote is open. The vote is closed. So 16 minus 15 plus, so it's rejected. Number eight, who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions rejected. Nine in favor? Against, abstentions rejected. 10 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 12 in favor, against, abstentions rejected.
11 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 13 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Then 15 in favor, against abstentions, rejected. 16 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 17 in favor, against, abstentions rejected.
18 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 19 in favor. Against. Abstentions, rejected. Now we go to four compromise one, who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Compromise two in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted.
Then amendment number four, who is in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. Now we go to the roll-call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote. 29 plus two minus and one abstentions. Congratulations. Now to the European Chemicals Agency amending regulation, and I don't tell you all the numbers. Then it's better.
Amendment 25, not, in a it's not, it's inadmissible. Twenty-seven and twenty-six, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions rejected. Then 29 and 28 are identical.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions rejected. Then we go to 32 and 33. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions rejected. Then 34, who is in favor? Who is against? Ah, we have to check.
I open the vote. I close the vote. 18 plus 13 minus, so it's adopted. 35. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions, I think it's adopted. 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Speaker 2
Abstentions rejected. Yes. Amendment number three, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted.
Speaker 1
Number four, who is in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. Number five, who is in favor? Against abstentions, adopted.
Six in favor? Against abstentions, adopted. Seven in favor? Against abstentions, adopted. Then we have compromise number one.
Who is in favor? Against abstentions, adopted. Then we have 42 and 43. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions are rejected. 15. Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions, rejected.
Now we have 16 split vote on part one is not a no vote because it's inadmissible, but part two. So who is in favor of part two? Who is against? Abstentions are rejected. Then seventeen, eighteen, who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions rejected. False because we have voted positively on 3, 4, 5, and 6. Then one who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions are adopted. Then twenty-three and twenty-two, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, it's rejected. Then two, who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions are adopted. 11, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are rejected.
Speaker 2
12, who is in favor? Against. Abstentions are rejected. This falls. This falls.
Speaker 1
9. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions rejected. 10.
Who is in favor? Who is against? We have to check. Vote is open. The vote is closed.
17 plus and 15 minus, so it's adopted. Now we go to the roll call vote, who I open the vote. I close the vote. 26 plus, six minus, and no abstentions. Now we proceed to agenda point number 12, the proposal for pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2027 Union budget.
This time, we have to vote on every pilot project. And as I identified that there are several plus, minus, and abstentions, we really cannot do a single vote. That's not feasible. So let's start with the first one, Batch PPPA 1. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions are adopted. Number two, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted.
Three, who is in favor? Against. Abstentions are adopted. Then we go to 4. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions are adopted. Five in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted.
6 in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted. Seven in favor. Against.
Abstentions are adopted. Eight in favor. Against abstentions, adopted. Nine in favor. Against abstentions, adopted.
10 in favor. Against abstentions, adopted. 11 in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted.
12 in favor. Against. Abstentions are adopted. 13 in favor. Against.
Abstentions are adopted. 14 in favor. Against abstentions, adopted. 15 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 16 in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
17 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 18 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 19 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 20 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 21 in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
22 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 23 in favor? Against abstentions, adopted. 24 in favor? Against abstentions, adopted.
25 in favor? Against, abstentions adopted. 26 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 27 in favor, against abstentions adopted, and 28 in favor, against abstentions adopted. Now we have a roll call vote on the PPPA badge package.
I open the vote. I close the vote. 25 plus five minus three abstentions, so the package is adopted. Then we go to number 13, the budget section three of the commission. Any wishes to speak?
I don't see. So it's a single vote. On deck three. Who is in favor? I roll call vote.
Sorry. We a roll call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. Twenty-nine two minus one abstention.
Deck four. I open the vote. Close the vote. 30 plus 2 minus 1 abstention. Deck six.
I open the vote. I close the vote. 27 plus 2 minus 4 abstentions. So on the budget other section, there is no transfer request. Building policy, no building request.
So voting time has ended. We go to point number 16, estimates of revenue expenditure for the financial year '27, Section one, European Parliament. I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur, Michalis Hachipantela, to present his draft report on the estimates of the Parliament's budget for 2027. You have four minutes.
Okay.
Speaker 41
So perhaps one minute pause so that everybody can listen to you. So please finalize your talk. I tell it to the greens, either. Dear Greens, the rapporteur would like to take the floor. And I try to, Fabienne, thank you very much.
Michalis Hadjipantela
Have the floor. Dear colleagues. Sorry. Dear colleagues, today, I'm presenting the draft report on the parliament estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2027. Parliament's budget is the budget of our house.
Therefore, it is very important to establish good cooperation to work towards a united approach. Last week, the bureau approved the parliament's preliminary draft estimates for 2027 that amounts to euro 2,670,000,000 and represents an increase of 2.33 or euro 60,600,000 compared to 2026 budget. There is an increase of 2.01 for statutory financial obligations and 2.21 for nonstabulatory expenditure. Our goal is clear, to maintain the credibility of the parliament, which depends on its ability to deliver on its core budgetary, legislative, and scrutiny work to the highest standard. The principles we adhere to are the prudent and efficient spending while reflecting today's economic realities.
Allow me to briefly highlight the main elements of the draft report that will accompany the estimates once agreed with the shadows. We note that since January 2025, four new thematic direct DG generals have been operational to reinforce parliament's role as co-legislator, budgetary authority, and discharge authority. Resources have been redeployed to strengthen the expertise available to members, including increased funding for external staff and external expertise. Regarding the digital transition and given the current geopolitical context, cybersecurity remains a key priority with €16,900,000 allocated, including a significant increase compared to 2026. The IT budget amounts to euro 205,000,000, representing 7.6% of the total budget.
Imperative to highlight is that parliament is also investing in artificial intelligence, which will help streamline administrative processes, while ensuring appropriate safeguards. Moreover, the parliament's building policy now focuses on consolidation rather than new acquisitions, with attention to sustainability and accessibility for people with disabilities. A key project is the renovation of the SPAC built in, with financing expected to involve loans included from the European Investment Bank. The new concept of Europa experienced member states is expected to attract European citizens and allow them to have a better understanding of the factioning of the union. Significantly, there are still capitals that do not have Europa experience yet, and we would like to prioritize how Europa experiences in these capitals as well, using the new concept while also ensuring that their development and operation remains cost effective.
Regarding the green transition, the estimates include €8,970,000.00 for energy efficiency and environmental investments in parliament buildings. We also highlight that parliament continues to strengthen accessibility with funding allocated to ensure the independent use of buildings by persons with disabilities. We deem it important to emphasize the significance of multilingualism in the European Parliament's work and how all can help, as well as the importance of achieving fair geographical representation to foster in general European public service. In conclusion, the 2027 estimates aim to equip parliament with the resources necessary to fulfill its institutional responsibilities, while supporting digital transformation, sustainability, and accessibility. I look forward to working closely with you.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, dear Michalis, for your dedicated work. And I ask the other groups. Ah, Niels, you're replacing Sandra. You have the floor.
Nils Ušakovs
Yeah. It's true, Monica. Thank you. I would like to thank Roberto first, and then about s and d priorities. So the main s and d priorities are to respect the institutional agreements, that is to limit increases of nonstatutory to 2%, and to respect the stable staffing principle.
This will allow the European Parliament to focus on real priorities in the EU budget that matter for people, and will make our job easier in defending Parliament priorities and negotiations in Council. So the list of our group's priorities is further on. Our long standing s and d priorities list didn't change. Parliament budget needs to focus on core responsibilities, and savings need to be generated in those areas that are not core responsibilities. On NAPA's mission rights, the recent revision in the mission guidelines has not addressed the continued need to allow NAPA to participate in official missions.
There are numerous examples of missions where members could not be assisted by advisers from their group. In such cases, having an APA accompanying the mission would support our members, thereby strengthening the European Parliament at no additional cost. Parliament repeatedly expressed itself in clear terms on this issue in the past years. Number two, we want to ensure decent working conditions, including for external staff. The people that work in the canteen, in the daycare, in cleaning services, etc., provide invaluable support to parliament as an institution.
So the least they deserve is fair working conditions. This is why we think that working conditions need to be a key eligibility criterion for any public procurement of the parliament rather than solely focusing on costs. Number three on buildings. We welcome that the parliament has now entered a period.
Speaker 43
Please, would you slow down a little bit for the interruption? Thanks a lot.
Nils Ušakovs
Thank you, Marni. On buildings, we welcome that the parliament has now entered a period of consolidation. We don't see the need for a further expansion. On Spark, we expect a maximum level of transparency, including on the evolution of expenses and possible delays. Another priority is on cybersecurity.
We would like to underline that this has been a longstanding priority for parliament. We would like to caution against seeking too many savings in this area. Clearly, the geopolitical situation requires parliament to do more in this regard. The next one, on communication. We consider that parliament needs to reassess its presence on platform x, former Twitter, in light of reports about the high share of bots present on this website, the increasing number of violations by the platform of EU regulations, and the open hostility of the company owning it towards the European Union.
We see limited added value in these resources that parliament puts into this platform. Rather, these resources could be used for other communication activities. And finally, on members' voting rights. We take note of the developments on the changes in the EU electoral law to allow the possibility of proxy voting. We do note, however, that this proposal, even if adopted, falls short of the long standing demand for remote voting possibility, not just for members in the perinatal period, but more generally for members with long term absence due to illness, paternity, or mortality.
Thank you, chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Niels. Is there anybody else who would like to raise the floor? Michalis, a further final comment from your side?
Michalis Hadjipantela
About the because they about the APAS missions, this is something that is divided by the president's committee of presidents. If the committee of presidents decides on this, we will be happy to discuss it. But, even if we want, we cannot do anything about it. Just a comment on some issue that is coming all the time again and again.
Speaker 45
You taking the rounds of questions? Are you taking the rounds of questions?
Speaker 1
Yes. The group? Already asked, but you didn't apply. That was why I gave back to Michalis.
Speaker 46
Thank you, Chairwoman. One issue that I would like to raise is regards to parliament's budget. It is sometimes that when we talk about political groups, foundations that we support, and that is according to legislation, there is an anomaly. The biggest ones have an understanding in the first years. They save up for the elections.
This makes all of the smaller ones, and that includes Renew, Greens, Left, everybody else, and sometimes also the SNDs suffer because the entire line is considered as being underspent. Because the big money goes to the big parties, if the implementation is smaller on the big parties, then the smaller ones suffer. And this is an issue that we need to address sometimes somehow because they have to abide by Belgian law. That means indexation of their personnel costs. However, their revenue source is stalling.
It's fixed. It's flat. Outside of the election years, obviously, when it goes up. So I would kindly like the rapporteur to reflect on this and take it into account.
So thank you very much. Michalis?
Michalis Hadjipantela
About the political foundations, there is a proposal of our increase. We have to take into consideration the opinions of all the groups. Some of them don't want an increase. Some of them want an increase. So when we all meet together, we'll try to find the most common, we have to decide, with the majority what everyone wants to do.
But I agree with what you have said. I know. I we already this year, we have another two foundations, political foundations, so the budgets must increase. I'm aware of this. But, just have in mind, there are political groups that they don't, they are not happy with an increase in the political foundations.
Speaker 1
So thank you very much, Michalis. So I think that the point of the agenda is now finalized. We have the deadline for amendments on March 20 at 12:00, and the amendments can only be tabled in English, please, because if not, we would have a problem with the timeline. So thank you very much. Dear colleagues, we go to 17 if nobody raises any opposition because we are a little bit earlier.
So if Matthias would be ready, then I would like to give you the floor.
Speaker 48
Thank you, chair. Colleagues, this file that we discussed now concerns the mobilization of the European Collaboration Adjustment Fund following the layoffs at the Liberty Galati Belgian branch in Liège. You might know that a total of 507 workers lost their jobs at Liberty Steel, and it is obvious for everyone who is dealing with that that the steel sector is under strong pressure from energy costs, from global competition over capacities, and restructuring. But it has to be clearly stated that these layoffs are not only the result of global pressures, also company specific factors have led to these mass layoffs. And it's once again the workers who pay the price.
The EGF, as you know, allows the EU to demonstrate solidarity with the workers affected and helps them to return to quality employment as soon as possible. The commission here proposes to mobilize 2,030,000 from the ETF, which would cover 80, 85% of the support package. Well, the fund will, amongst others, finance career guidance, training, reskilling, entrepreneurship support, and also startup positions. Also, a lot of relevant measures and the case illustrates why the EGF remains important because industrial transformation is accelerating regardless of what you think about the circumstances, which I think are debated in this parliament all the time. And at the same time, workers must not bear the costs of that.
European solidarity must accompany structural change, especially in industrial regions. I mean, the EGF is not it's only like a fix for worse things that happen, but most important are other European guidelines, other European funds that help the industrial transition. So, but we also see that since this transition is intensifying, the EGF will likely become increasingly relevant. And for us as the parliament, it must be a key point to ensure this: industrial transformation is socially fair. So let me please propose that the parliament supports this mobilization of the EGF in that case, so the effective workers can receive the support as quickly as possible.
And I also expect broad support for the reports that the mobilization can be quick and the programs continue without delay. And at the same time, I think we must discuss the future of the EGF or similar funds that will help support workers in the industrial transition in the future also in the next MFF framework. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Matthias. Now, Helder, would you like to raise the floor?
Speaker 50
Thank you, Cher, and the dear rapporteur Matthias, and the dear colleagues and the dear reps of commission. Firstly, I thank the rapporteur for the assessment of the commission proposal and the work carried out in preparing the draft report. Secondly, I would like to point out the importance of the mobilization of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund to provide assistance to the 507 workers that lost their jobs. This is a real expression of European solidarity and ensures a direct benefit on the lives of the affected families following the bankruptcy of Liberty in Vallonia. Thirdly, I want to stress that this case illustrates the urgency of continuous investments in the European businesses and in the resilience of our economy because it is not strong enough.
This case also manifests that we need a business-friendly environment in Europe, which strengthens competitiveness, reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens, and simplifies bureaucratic procedures. Additionally, I would like to recall that the EGF is a limited and complementary instrument, not a structural economic policy tool nor a substitute for competitiveness. Strong and competitive businesses are essential to sustain high-quality jobs, to drive economic growth, and to promote territorial economic and social cohesion. In conclusion, while agreeing in general terms with the draft report, we will table some amendments to reinforce the importance of the competitive, resilient, and business-friendly environment in Europe. Thank you again for the rapporteur and for all the colleagues.
Thank you, Cheryl.
Olivier Chastel
Thank you very much, madam chair. Firstly, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the work that's been done. The failure of liberty in Liege has left about 550 people out of work. And thanks to the intervention of this fund, over 500 workers will be able to benefit from different personalized measures. They will be retrained and provided with vocational training in IT, but also subsidies to help them set up businesses.
This is going to be about $2.32.0 euros over 85% will be covered by the fund and the rest will be covered by the region of Wallonia. Our group obviously supports European solidarity in this area and Belgium's request to activate the European Globalization Adjustment Fund to support all these workers who have been laid off.
Speaker 46
On behalf of our group, we also support the mobilization in this case, but I would also like to say one thing to echo mister Eke in what he said, that there's a wave of restructuring, as they call it, across Europe, via different causes. Believe it or not, it's not the greening of Europe that's the cause of restructuring. It's artificial intelligence. It's other factors that contribute to people laid off in the country I know best. I get 1,000, 2,000, 500 every single week.
We have a lot of employees that are being trained by the AI to be replaced in the workplace by AI agents every single month. So I think EGF will have a very important role. I'm not sure if you will ever be able to have such a strong role as the restructuring wave that's ongoing across Europe. But I do call on the commission to have a joint effort of rethinking the program, because I think we will apply it more and more.
Speaker 1
So thank you very much. Any further colleague who would like to raise the floor? I don't see it so. So Lenka Filipkova from the Commission is responsible.
Speaker 36
Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you very much to the rapporteur for the very clear presentation, but also for the report and for the support to the proposal. I don't think there is much more to add to this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Now the rapporteur, meet Matthias, guess the final word.
Speaker 48
Yeah. Thank you. I think it became clear that we both need to help workers affected in their family in the specific case here in Belgium, but we also need to discuss how we can best provide structural incentives for our economy to be future proof and to transform to climate neutral future. And I'm really looking forward to the debates and discussions, agreements on this specific report. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Matthias. So, I would like to recall that on March 20 at 12:00, the amendment should be tabled in English. And the vote will take place on April 8. Now we go to point number 18. If Erasmus is not opposing because we are a little bit earlier, so I always have to ask, then I would like this to be the first of a long series of draft budgetary assessments that we are doing on all MFF sectoral programs.
Last week, the conference of presidents confirmed the budget committee's role in ensuring overall coherence of parliament's positions across the MFF files on all budgetary aspects and budgetary governance via our budgetary assessments in close cooperation with the lead committees. It is therefore important that the content of all our budgetary assessments related to the next MFF is tightly coordinated across the various files. So now, Grasmus, you are the first one. You have the floor.
Speaker 55
No. It's historical. No? I mean, it's the first budgetary assessment, like, in the context of the MFF, as you already pointed out. And I think on this one, my goal is I think we can hopefully easily agree on a stable compromise, because the goal of the instrument is to promote nuclear safety and radiation protection both within and outside of the EU.
And I think no matter where you are on the content of nuclear safety and radiation protection, I think we can all agree. And what is part of the scope of the budgetary assessment is also, of course, a bit limited. The instrument merges to current MFF legislation. So first of all, the instrument for nuclear safety cooperation, and secondly, the nuclear decommissioning assistance program. And it's a new program merging those two aspects so that we are also having a financing instrument to promote nuclear safety in the next MFF.
What we did in the assessment is to focus on sufficient human resources and also on effective implementation. And those two aspects are the ones which are, like, I think, important for the budgetary assessment we have to do. This also means that we need to have a closer look at the budgetary guarantee as an instrument and what kind of implications borrowing and lending operations under this instrument actually have. And thirdly, on the volume, this depends, of course, on the MFF interim report. And I guess all of the repertoires for the different budgetary assessments will mention this.
So this means that if there should be an increase in the budget allocation, the volume should be changed and so on. This needs to be coordinated, of course, with the debate on the interim report. So this is what we are waiting for when it comes to the volume. So what we tried is to apply Rule 58, which means that this is a limited scope for the assessment. And I would also like to ask the shadow repertoires, of course, looking forward to different amendments on this, to limit the amendments to the scope of the budgetary assessment.
And if this will be the case, then I think we can end up with a stable compromise and the broad majority. The deadline for the amendments is April 9 at 7PM, and I'm looking forward to the work on the compromises.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. For Celine. Yes. Please, Michalis, you have the floor.
Michalis Hadjipantela
Dear chair, I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague Selini Malta. She's not here. In this budgetary assessment, our role is to ensure that the proposed resources are consistent with the objective pursued, and that they are used efficiently. The commission proposes 966,000,000 for the period 2028-2034, including 350,000,000 for international nuclear safety cooperation and 660,000,000 for decommissioning, radioactive waste management related to the joint research center. This structure reflects a clear responsibility, maintaining the highest nuclear safety standards while fully addressing the universe.
Speaker 56
Would you please slow down a little bit for the interpreter? Thank you very much.
Michalis Hadjipantela
Sorry. This structure reflects a clear responsibility, maintaining the highest nuclear safety standards, while fully addressing the union's obligations across the entire nuclear life cycle. The proposal also moves in the right direction by rationalizing uranium commitments and reducing the administrative burden through the merger of existing instruments. At the same time, while the external component complements the global Europe instrument, maintaining a dedicated euro term instrument remains essential to preserve transparency, budgetary traceability, and proper parliamentary oversight of nuclear related expenditure. This balance is key to ensuring both simplification and accountability in the European Union budget.
For the APPN Group, one point must be clear. This budgetary assessment should not be instrumentalized for anti-nuclear purposes. Nuclear energy is a strategic technology for Europe's energy security, industrial competitiveness, and decarbonization. All these efforts must now be aligned with Europe's emerging nuclear strategy, which has become a new priority for the Union after the President of the Commission acknowledged that reducing the share of nuclear energy in Europe had been a strategic mistake. In this context, ensuring the necessary resources for nuclear safety, expertise, and responsible decommissioning is not only a technical matter.
It is a strategic investment in Europe's energy future.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Michalis, in the name of Céline. Is somebody else would like somebody else of the shadows to take the floor. This is not the case. Then I remind again the deadlines for tabling amendments is April 9. Yeah, at 05:00.
Speaker 57
And perhaps Lenka Filipkova from the commission would like to raise the floor.
Speaker 36
Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. You already presented it, indeed. So the idea of the new instrument that merges the internal external parties indeed to promote nuclear safety, radiation protection, and the safe management of nuclear materials in the EU and in the partner countries. We believe that the increased envelope that we propose is an increase of about 26% is rightly balanced to the needs that we will have in the next period that the joint instrument will actually allow us to better manage the resources and provide some flexibility and synergies between the internal external part.
Of course, we will also monitor all the guarantees because we are what we also proposed is to allow, if need be, to provide guarantees to Ukraine, under the resources of the Ukraine Reserve, but also for the nuclear safety if need be. But that will all be very carefully managed and reported, of course. So thank you very much.
Much for the support.
Speaker 55
Yes. Very briefly, and thanks to the colleague from EPP, but also to the commission for reacting, and also coming with additional information. I just would like to make one point, listening very carefully also to the intervention made by the colleague. I would really like to ask the colleagues to concentrate on what is actually the scope of the budgetary assessment. If we are starting a bigger debate on if we like nuclear energy or not, I'm afraid that we are having like a kind of ideological debate inside of the budget committee where this is not up to us to decide.
I fully understand some arguments made by the colleagues, so that's not to oppose, not in my role here at least. But this is not up to the budget committee to debate and decide on this. This is up to the colleagues in Ytre, and I think also on different files, actually. So this is an instrument which is really at the core of the instrument. It's about safety and radiation protection.
And I think we should have a broad majority on this year in the committee, when it comes to the budgetary assessment. And all the other things, it's up to Ytre. And I'm watching carefully the debates on this in Yitzhche, but I think our scope is a bit more limited. But I think we will find some stable compromises, and I'm of course looking forward to all of your amendments, but I just wanted to react in that manner on some of the comments made by the colleague.
Speaker 1
So thank you very much. No further comment, I see. Thank you to the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs. Now we go to point 19, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response, and repealing the related decision. I think of our two co-rapporteurs.
The first one would be Laira Payin from Envy. She cannot be there, but we have a further co-rapporteur. It's Aurelius Veriga from Sandd. You have the floor. At the end, we're sorry.
Speaker 2
Sorry for the budget assessment. First, our operator clarified. Sorry. I have to give the floor to Nicolas Stefanuta.
Speaker 46
Have to Mr. Verga, don't take it personally. It's our committee. Thank you, madam chair. And we work well together on this because I think the three reporters who have, in different capacities, all understand the need for civil protection. And, we have prepared the draft budgetary assessment that examines the proposal to establish a UCPM, support for health emergency preparedness in response to the MFF 28 35.
The commission has proposed to expand the current UCPM by bringing funding for health emergency preparedness and response into the same programme. I support this idea, especially in light of our experience during the previous mandate at the time of the pandemic. If I remind you in the time of the pandemic, it was very hard to put, any, put your hand on any resources. I remember the former commissioner had to show his empty pockets when he came in the beginning of the pandemic because there was nothing in the voluntary pool. Monica, you might remember in February 2020, March.
First, there was nothing, and it was very embarrassing, to be honest. So while working on the draft, I have visited the emergency response coordination center of DG ECHO in the Commission and have seen the important work that is being done there. And the EUCPM is a special program which works well, saves lives, nature, homes, and brings European added value. I think no matter how rich the country is, they all appreciate the EUCPM, including Sweden, during forest fires that they never expected, including Greece, but also countries such as mine and others. So including also candidate countries, by the way, Moldova might need such intervention after the pollution of their Nyster River via war.
Therefore, I think it is very important that this program is endowed with sufficient funds to address the crisis, sufficient flexibility as well. And the current world sends us more disasters, unexpected crises. I believe that the flexibility required is fine to give. I trust it. However, with a view to find the balance, I also suggest considering some indicative sum envelopes in the basic act to preserve the Parliament's prerogatives as core legislator and budget authority.
I also suggest introducing a twice per seven-year reporting structure in order to better align to frequency, within the programming period with the reporting frequency. And we propose to amend Article six of the regulation to align the financial envelope, currently around 10,700,000,000, with the amount that we will adopt in the MFF interim report. One final word, civil protection against external attacks can also be something valid. We don't live in a world of, you know, butterflies and flowers, but in a very concrete world of danger. So we might start thinking, okay.
How do we strengthen our civil protection against foreign attacks? As you can see, I've tried to apply rule 58 and not overstep budget competencies. I believe distinguished coroppers that we will work well together, and I would ask you to work in a spirit where we each respect our committee's com, especially when we draft the budgetary assessment, the deadline for which is April 10. So thank you for your attention, and I look forward to listen to mister Veriga.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Nikolay. Now I would like to give the floor to Michalis as shadow.
Michalis Hadjipantela
Dear colleagues, firstly, I would like to thank our colleague Nikolay Stefanuda for his draft budgetary assessment. The Union Civil Protection Mechanism, including rescue, remains a key pillar of solidarity among member states. Its importance has grown significantly in recent years as we face an increasing number of natural disasters, both in frequency and intensity. From devastating wildfires to severe floods, this crisis demonstrates that preparedness and coordinated response are essential. In light of the evolving risk landscape, it is clear that we need to allocate sufficient funding to ensure that we further strengthen the union civil protection mechanism and guarantee can respond effectively.
This is also evident considering the proposed establishment of a regional firefighting hub in Cyprus. Such an initiative will enhance our capacity to respond to wildfires within the Union, but it will also enable us to assist Middle East countries. These developments demonstrated the added value of European cooperation and also underline the importance of ensuring that the necessary financial means are in place. Flexibility is also key for achieving the UCPM plus objectives. Finally, I would like to stress the importance of upholding the principles of sound financial management and also to fully respect the prerogatives of the European Parliament as co-legislator and budgetary authority.
We will add a few amendments, and we look forward to good cooperation to ensure an effective and efficient mechanism. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Michalis. No further shadow operator, but Helder Hess.
Speaker 50
Thank you. Thank you, Cheryl, and the dear rapporteur. Nearly €11,000,000,000 to protect European citizens from disasters, pandemics, and armed aggression. This is an instrument we want to succeed. It clearly materializes the true nature of European solidarity.
However, the commission has designed a single and divided envelope, with no indicative breakdown by expenditure category. This means that during seven years of implementation, the commission alone decided how much goes to prevention, how much goes to rescue, how much to health preparedness? Parliament's role as a budgetary authority is reduced to approving a number. We also have concerns about the reporting cycle. Five years between progress reports means this house could reach the end of the programming period without a single structured opportunity to correct any misalignment.
In a program designed precisely for unpredictable crisis, that is an accountability gap we cannot accept. Flexibility is not the enemy of accountability. The best managed crisis funds in the world combine operational agility with robust democratic oversight. We can have both, and we should demand both. As parliament, we should insist on indicative sub-envelopes, a midterm review with real budgetary consequences, annual reporting on herb activations, and minimum preparedness indicators defined jointly with the parliament.
Thank you so much.
And Madam la president.
Speaker 17
Thank you, madam chair. Nobody here is arguing with the objective. Europe has to be prepared for this crisis. We have over €10,000,000,000 here. That's very good.
But exactly what are we financing with this money? How much goes to prevention? How much goes to stocks? How much to react in the case of a crisis? None of that is clear.
And the commission can redirect the course of funding without any debate. The program comes alongside regional funds, social funds, and external instruments. So the question is simple: Are we going to coordinate this better, or perhaps finance the same thing several times? We're not against the mechanism, but we are against a blank check. We need clear rules, proper controls.
Speaker 60
We're not against the objectives, but the manner in which this is done. Thank you. Anybody else?
Speaker 1
I perhaps would first give the floor to Aurelius, and then a final word to the commission, that you, as a reporter, have the final word. Aurelius, you have the floor from Sand.
Speaker 62
Thank you, madam chair. I would like to thank rapporteur Stefanuta for the report as well as the shadows and all the colleagues for working together so far. Let me give the perspective from me as a corruptor from the sun. And I believe that in light of the increasing frequency and severity of natural and also human-made disasters, we must recognize the urgent need for the European Union to become stronger and better prepared. COVID pandemic, war in Ukraine, climate-related disasters have demonstrated how vulnerable we are and how crucial it is to enhance our resilience.
Speaker 61
As emphasized in the NINISTO report, a whole of society and a whole of government approach are essential. We need to build a comprehensive framework that involves all sectors and levels to respond effectively to these challenges. The indicative total budget for UCPM and HPR, of 10,700,000,000.0, is not ambitious enough, taking into account changing circumstances such as the geopolitical situation. For the first time ever, the commission mobilized its own rescue transport and logistics capacities following a request from Romanian authorities. This operation marks an important milestone in expanding the response tools of the EU civil protection mechanism.
Concerns are about the impact of broad flexibility without predefined budget allocations between civil protection and health emergencies, and between prevention, preparedness, and response. Health funding needs clearer boundaries, stronger coordination, and greater budgetary transparency. There are huge concerns about the proposed repeal of the EU health program and the creation of a European competitiveness fund in which health would be grouped with biotechnology, agriculture, and the bioeconomy. This could crowd out health spending and have called for ring-fenced health program. In the commission's proposal, EU for health crisis preparedness activities are incorporated into the UCPM and HEPR framework.
I would like to stress that at the same time, it is essential to ensure that all areas of preparedness receive substantial funding. Therefore, our proposal as co-rapporteurs suggest a clear dedication of 40% of the funds to rescue for preparedness and civil protection actions, and another 40 for health emergencies prevention, preparedness, and response. Recognizing that the future remains unpredictable, we also propose allocating the remaining 20% of the budget to ensure necessary flexibility, allowing us to respond rapidly and effectively to unforeseen challenges. As commissioner Labib stated, for the first time, rescue planes are in disguise to repatriate European citizens' strength in the Middle East. Our civil protection mechanism is working day and night to bring European citizens home.
Speaker 63
I think it's, again, a good example. And I would say that for this, it's very important to have a big enough and clearly dedicated budget. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Thank you very much, madam chair. Thank you to the rapporteur and to the honorable members, for the support to the instrument itself and to the support to merge actually the UCPM and the health, health preparedness part because we really believe that it can help, our crisis response and preparedness. I would also like to add that, the whole MFF proposal, not only this one, is based on the preparedness by design, logic. So all money under the national plans, Horizon or Competitiveness Fund, but also in the external instrument, should really have that in mind. Whatever we do, we should do better and be better prepared, whether it's for environment, health, security risk.
So it really should combine this objective. And then, obviously, when there is a disaster, we need to be able to react quickly. So but, I I've heard all the requests to, while there is a recognition that we need to be flexible to still preallocate bits here and there, which we propose not to do, not because we want to just decide ourselves what needs to be done, but because exactly we don't know now, until 2034 what will need to be done and where, whether we will need more health or more civil protection. So, obviously, there are some things that we need to plan and that are a bit more programmable stockpiling, firefighting planes, or whatever. But we also need to have really enough flexibility to react to whatever happens in the next years.
So any indicative amounts become spending targets. And then there are groups that are behind it, and then we expect this to be spent for that what we, in '26, believe was really necessary for that part. So we really would, you know, plead to understand that the flexibility there, especially for this instrument, is there for a reason and not the reason of the commission to do whatever we want because, obviously, the planning and then, the actual spending goes through work program. And then, and then the reporting, obviously, can be more often or more frequent than originally proposed. But especially in this particular instrument, any preallocation, even if deemed indicative, might actually prevent in five, seven years what we really need to do when we might end up again with our hands tight.
Thank you very much.
Hopefully, not my final word.
Speaker 46
I've seen the program in action, madam Fure, in the Alps, Alp Maritime, the Alp Province, with the forest fires. There's a need for this program. You said so yourself. Often, if you're working on a voluntary basis, member states aren't willing to donate their planes. There's a risk of them burning, being destroyed.
It's important for Europe to have its own fleet, and it is very small. The EU always draws on its member states. Romanian firefighters are well known in Greece. They often go on missions there. This solidarity is very important.
Think the flexibility that the commission needs is not in order to pocket or hide the money, nothing like that. It is because genuinely nobody knows what's going to happen in the next 5 years. Prevention is better than a cure, but you need to know what you're preventing in all of these crises. I think it's very important to have stocks of certain strategic medicines in Europe, for example, so we don't find ourselves in the same situation as 5 years ago again. I don't know, but I feel that it has already been proven that it is beneficial to have stocks.
And I'd like to remind you that in 2020, we voted through an amendment against strategic stocks of medicines. That was in February. That's what it's like with politicians. They stick to their ideologies until reality proves them wrong. I think we're all going to support this program because we desperately need it throughout Europe.
Speaker 1
That's a true word. If we would know all catastrophes in advance, that would be easier. But it happens otherwise, so that's the problem for the budget to be flexible enough to have the possibility to react. So a perfect plan on catastrophes is a little complicated. So, but there are some mechanisms that are in the experience, you know.
We wish you the best, and I think that our deadline for amendments is on April 10 at 12:00. So if there are no further comments, then I just have to announce that the next meetings are on the seventh and eighth April, April 20, and April 27 in Strasbourg. And I wish you a nice day. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.