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 sittingsKarlo Ressler
First of all, priorities towards Europe's real strategic needs at a time of fierce global competition and growing geopolitical pressure. EIB should focus even more strongly on competitiveness, innovation, but also on defense and security and support for SMEs and startups. Financial discipline and AAA rating have already been mentioned. We welcome the report's clear recognition that preserving the AAA rating is essential. We also welcome the report's message that the EU level action should complement, not replace, national but also sometimes private investments.
And we also see it as quite positive that there is this support for cohesion in agriculture also in the context of the next MFF and the wider use of financial instruments to attract private investments. So the EPP supports an EIB that is stronger, that is more strategic and more effective, but also more disciplined, transparent, and firmly focused on the new priorities that we all have. Thank you.
Carla Tavares
Thank you, Sherri, colleagues. Good morning. I will speak in Portuguese.
Of all, I'd like to begin, of course, by thanking our colleague for the excellent work that has been carried out by the rapporteur on this draft that we have now to work on. It is an excellent starting point for the joint efforts that we're going to have to carry out over the upcoming days. I'd also like to.
Underscore the importance and the central role of the EIB in the EU that is impacted by geopolitical tensions and some uncertainty, and therefore, the EIB has to continue to strengthen the confidence of investors as well as have the flexibility to meet our objectives in an international context that has some uncertainty or very relevant uncertainty at that.
Like the EPP, we would like to also underscore the triple A rating of the EIB. This is really fundamental, of course, and it should continue to be a priority in upholding it. And when it comes to the perspective of the s and d, there are just a few points that I should like to underscore. The first is the EIB when it comes to its climate action and its role there too, also when it comes to affordable housing. We understand that the EIB's role is essential when it comes to defense and competitiveness.
However, this should not be done to the detriment of the other policy areas that we have focused on here in the European Parliament, housing, etcetera. And we know that the EIB has an important role to play there, and its role should be strengthened to make sure that it really is indeed a veritable investment bank and to be able to continue to assist us in meeting our European objectives. Thank you.
Thank.
Angéline Furet
thank you very much, chair. Colleagues, we have to stop having these fuss facades of the 100000000000 of the EIB. It is not wealth that has been generated. It is debt, and it uses the financial guarantee of our member states. So to be clear, Brussels uses France's signature and other member states' to borrow on international markets.
Christelle Petex
Were there to be a failure, it would be EU taxpayers that will be on the hook. Moreover, this is getting worse by technocrats that are focusing on ideology, not looking at nuclear, but investing in gadgets. For example, green coaching. Yes. You heard me correctly.
Angéline Furet
It is, it infringes on our ability to invest. And in fact, there's so much opacity here. What exactly are we investing in? There is a radio silence. They do not explain to us, and they keep focusing on the wrong things when our workers, our farmers, and the entire country of France are collapsing.
They are strengthening the ideology. The EIB is not a political party, first point. Second, when it comes to European priorities, it should be financing our defense factories, not other countries' factories. And we do not agree in pooling debt, which is a stranglehold on member states. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
For ECR, it should be Mister Oberfeld, but if he's present, he should take my place. I don't see him. For asking for Greens, dam Damian Berzelliger is also not present. Over left, anybody for the left? Not quite.
But SNN, I have no nomination. Therefore, catch the eye if there are candidates. If not, the floor is for EIB representative Mikoway Dovgelevich, deputy secretary general.
Thank you very much.
Mikołaj Dowgielewicz
It's a pleasure to address you in the context of the draft resolution. I would, first of all, like to thank the rapporteur, mister Johim Streit, for the thorough work and very solid data and numbers, which are evidence in the report. We welcome your positive assessment of the EIB Group as the financial arm of the European Union, and its key role in supporting EU priorities. I think it's clear that the EIB has an important role in mobilizing public and private financing to address investment gaps in the European Union. It focuses on Europe's structural challenges, technological leadership and independence, affordable and predictable energy, security and defense, deeper capital markets, and economic convergence, all priorities that are fully reflected in the EAP group's objectives.
I would like to share with you three points. First, the crisis in the Middle East reminds us that we must urgently address our strategic dependencies. First, which is on everybody's mind these days, predictable and affordable energy is vital for our competitiveness. What we need, okay.
Too much.
Mikołaj Dowgielewicz
What we need is investment. This is where the EIB Group plays a central role, with its speed and scale. Last year, we financed 33,000,000,000 for Europe's energy security, supporting almost 110,000,000,000 in investment. We already supporting close to half of the total investments in European grids and a fifth of all solar projects. Secondly, we are sharpening our contribution to the savings and investment union.
In '25, the EAB Group reinforced crowding in private investments and nurturing Europe's venture ecosystems. We have developed and consolidated successful European tech champions initiative, and we launched TechEU, the largest program to finance tech innovation for scaling up that product as well as, we recorded very good numbers in securitization and green bond issuance. We aim to mobilize investments of up to 340000000000 over the next three years towards savings and investment union objectives, and this is absolutely key for sustaining our economy in Europe in the years and decades to come. We will also, and this is what I want to flag, deploy our exit toolbox for companies that normally would exit the European market and go to seek capital, for example, in the US or Asia. And we want them, of course, to stay in Europe.
And we are very much looking into how to strengthen the toolbox that Europe can have to keep them in the European Union. This, of course, also directly responds to the parliament's call to de-risk viable projects, co-crowding private investors and avoid permanent public financing structures. My third point is about the next MFF. We are very pleased to see the European Parliament calling for the strengthened role of the EIB, notably under the European Competitiveness Fund. I would like to leave one message with you on this.
To face the current investment needs, we need a guarantee capacity at size from the outset, which means 40 instead of 17,000,000,000 in the commission's proposal. It would ensure access for all implementing partners across the European Union while maintaining the current share of the EAB at 75% to protect the single market and equally deploy the instrument in all European regions. I want to flag one issue, which is maybe not in the report, and which is Ukraine. We have also.
Reached. Okay. I'm just going, sorry.
Mikołaj Dowgielewicz
Last, just last sentence to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs, and the secretariat for the work on this report. And, if I had more time, I would also speak about how important transparency, accountability, responsibility, and sound risk management are to us. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Our reporter would like to reply to sum up this debate, mister Stride or not. So just to remind you that the deadline for amendments is 16 April at 12:00, and now we are moving really to budgetary assessments and starting with establishing global Europe. Therefore, I invite our rapporteur, Erasmus Anderson, for three minutes, whose draft budgetary assessment.
Rasmus Andresen
Yes. Yes. Thank you so much. I think it's a very good opportunity to start also with Global Europe because I think it's a very important program organizing, I mean, the whole architecture of the EU's external action and neighborhood policy, and so on. We are, I guess, all aware of that.
But in the main debates on the MFF until now, Global Europe didn't play a strong role because other debates were more present. But I also think it's very important to end up with a strong assessment for the Global Europe program, and also to rely on a strong collaboration we will have with the main committees and the two rapporteurs, both Robert Biedron but also Michael Galla. On the structure of the assessments, there are two parts, basically: one, which is amending the regulation and some articles we are responsible for, and secondly, on the resolution where we have the possibility to assess it a bit further and maybe come out with some more in-depth going analysis of what we think from a budgetary perspective should be part of Global Europe and whatnot. And then afterwards, it will be quite important to work together with the two colleagues in the main committees. So first of all, what we did is to amend, amongst others, Article 19 to ensure that the debt service costs are not funded from Global Europe.
Secondly, we also amended Article 24 to propose a ceiling for the provisions. This is basically a recommendation the Court of Auditors came up with. So for the colleagues working on Global Europe, I think it will be quite important also to read the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors made. They already came up with some good assessments. Thirdly,
Rasmus Andresen
Limited the role of private entities for the different budgetary guarantees. And on the thematic questions, we are proposing some minimum amounts for some essential policy objectives, like humanitarian aid or development of global health. And we also introduced some thematic pillars, for example, for human rights and democracy or for civil society organizations. We will insist that decommitments and amounts that are carried over from unspent funds should be made available again to the budget line of origin, so that we can ensure that the money there is some flexibility, but we also can ensure some predictability. So this is, I think, some of the main points we put forward in our assessment.
I'm looking forward to the amendments from the different political groups. The deadline for taping the amendments will be April 17 at twelve, and the vote in batch should be taking place June 23. So there is still a bit of time to go.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Now time for Shadows, and I see for EPP the name, Lewandowski. So very, very shortly, as I share your, Erasmus, concerns, this is all about predictability, transparency, democratic scrutiny, and I am sure that there's going to be a recurring melody during our morning session about the role of parliament. Very limited role, really, and with use of implementing acts for policy based loans, this is really almost nothing. What was indicated by the court of auditors was the increase in contingent liabilities, and that is what deserves parliamentary scrutiny.
We are also not quite happy with what is on Ukraine. Of course, parliament is in line with commission to support Ukraine, but there is no clear distinction between various types of support, pre accession assistance, reconstruction, post war recovery, and also loans without provisioning. Oh, I am self discipline for me now, so I am now inviting madam for patriots.
Angéline Furet
Thank you, chair. Now we are analyzing a blank check for 100,000,000,000 to help everyone except the Europeans. And then there would be 100000000000 for Ukraine. Our workers, our public services are falling foul of EU policy, and meanwhile, the EU is going to shower the rest of the planet with EU money. And our rapporteur's approach is just making things worse, essentially a money-generating factory for NGOs to fund the green deal. In addition to that, you are planning to spend 70,000,000,000 in Africa without asking for even a baseline cooperation in the area of illegal immigrants.
And without any conditionality, when it comes to migratory policy, we are calling for full conditionality. The patriots for Europe will vote against this type of approach that would not allow us to be able to veto this lack of cooperation. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Gomez Lopez, because and catch the eye. In the catch the eye. So I am moving now to ECR, Mr. Ratzak.
Why? I'm shallow.
What? What?
Janusz Lewandowski
On the absence of conflict of interest. That is why catch the eye, but time is reserved. We don't make it. This isn't the rules for shadows. So now, why? PCR, it's
Janusz Lewandowski
We have time for S and P, of course. However, foreshadows that was obligatory to fill the declaration of absence of conflict of interests. Interests. Sir?
You did it?
No. Of course, I did.
Of course.
you did. It's a mistake.
Janusz Lewandowski
Okay. If so, I am wrongly informed. The fourth time for you. Yes? No.
Sandra Gómez López
Okay? So, yes, please.
Well, I'm this is a mistake. No doubt. I did this at the outset of our terms, so there is no doubt that this is a mistake. Well, whatever the case may be, yes, I did want to comment on the s and d position on this file. We agree with the report because it guarantees that the European Parliament will maintain its position as the budget authority, and flexibility should never run to the detriment of inter-institutional balance.
Moreover, it also promotes this instrument so that it be in line with promoting the EU values and development cooperation in a much more solid way. And also, this instrument should be able to maintain the strategic position of Europe in the world. On more specific points, we think that it is not enough. What has been earmarked for the instrument to make sure that the global Europe in terms of its percentage in the MFF, and when it comes to Ukraine and the reimbursement of the loan, we understand that that should be based on Russian assets, it shouldn't, that the MFF shouldn't have to be in charge of all of the support for Ukraine in the conflict. Moreover, we wanted to state that, yes, we have the power when it comes to guarantee and that we have the responsibility to make sure that the EIB and other guarantees are in line with the European Parliament's position.
This should be clear in the report that has been tabled. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. So we are back on the track. And, for ECR, Mister Ratza, not present. For renew, I am asking shadow from Renew. From the left, PSN catch the eye.
Okay. So, time for commission. As usual, missus Filipkova, please.
Lenka Filipkova
Thank you, very much, mister chair, and thanks to the rapporteur for the report and the support to the global euro. We absolutely agree that this is extremely important and that there is usually more interest in the other pillars and not so much maybe in this one. We believe that it really is important that there is a sufficient support, so we proposed a significant increase to the external heading by about 744%. Of course, it could always be bigger and double and triple, and it will never be enough, but we also have to calibrate it within what is possible, for the next MFF. I would also like to clarify or maybe plead, and I will do it, I think, several times this morning to also think about the flexibility because we saw in this period, and we saw it every day, especially in the external world, how unpredictable the situation is and how it is important to be able to use the right tools.
It doesn't mean transferring wherever we want to, but making sure that we can do strategic partnerships, that we can choose the right tools, and that's how the instrument was proposed. So, also, you know, proposing too many targets, too many additional budget lines, might look like we are increasing transparency, but it might also block our hands when we then need to act because, as you might know and, again, the budgetary nomenclature will be discussed and agreed when we discuss the first budget of the next MFF. So for '28, there can be more detail, and it will be definitely discussed. But, going too far will limit our flexibility because with the budget, we will also propose financial programming in the detail of the budget nomenclature. So if we go down to very detailed parts, then it will be assumed as a promise or something. And if we then need to transfer the money, with the approval of the budgetary authority, then it might look like a cut.
And I also want to stress here that actually the role of the budgetary authority, we believe, has increased, especially for the Global Europe proposal compared to the NDK as we have it now, especially in the budget nomenclature because what we have proposed for the cushion and for all the geographies is that they are in at the level of the nomenclature where any changes between those have to be basically approved by the parliament and the council. So we're obviously looking forward to working with the budget committee and the lead committees on the proposal, but we would really plead to keep the predictability but also maintain the flexibility because that's one of the main features that we really need, for the next MFF. Thank you very much.
Rasmus Andresen
Just very briefly, thanks to the colleagues and to the commission for their first remarks on this. And, as the Chair already also said, I think it will be quite complicated but also an interesting task to strike the right balance because on there is a need for flexibility, especially dealing with foreign policy and all of the different crises we are facing. On the other side, there is also a risk with not earmarking or not putting some additional criteria in that maybe some of the conflict and some of the regions will be forgotten because others are more dominated. And this is what I think we need to do, to find good compromises. But thanks to the colleagues, especially them mentioning they are constructive and interested in finding good compromises, good and stable compromises.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. As our reporter indicated, deadline for amendment is April 17 at 12:00. So now the next section to be assessed from a budgetary point of view, it has this amending decision on the association of overseas countries and territories with the European Union, including relation between the European Union on one hand and Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other. It has a distinct legal basis, therefore, is somehow separated from the global Europe. And the floor is for Bogdan Czanca.
For Fremen is, our rapporteur.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much. I speak Polish. Now, it's a draft decision of the council. And here the most important issue is Greenland, whose geo-strategic role is growing. We would like to improve cooperation in the area of critical resources or sustainable tourism, among others.
I support €530000000 appropriation from Greenland. It is justified by its growing importance as far as access to critical resources, human resources, and this country needs support. But I have some reservations on the transparency of the budget, and I'd like to criticize the lack of divisional funds within the program because this gives too much freedom to the European Commission to set priorities. And this can restrict democratic oversight. So I propose different envelopes for the individual regions.
There is also too much aggregation, which restricts our oversight and the oversight of the council on spending. And therefore, I think we should have specific budget lines. This would improve transparency. Another issue, important issue, is granting loans through global Europe. To sum up, we generally support this proposal, but we would like to improve transparency and strengthen the role of the Parliament.
Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Inviting shadows starting with EPP and for missus in part, mister Hajipantala. Yes.
Michalis Hadjipantela
Thank you. I will speak on behalf of my colleague Selinda, that she cannot be here. Dear colleagues, at Shadora Bortel, I support the objective of strengthening the budgetary framework of the OCT program in the next MFF, while fully preserving the prerogatives of the budgetary authority. From a technical perspective, greater clarity in the budgetary nomenclature is essential to ensure full traceability of expenditure and to enable effective parliamentary scrutiny. An overly aggregated structure risks limiting the capacity of the budgetary authority to define priorities and properly monitor implementation.
In this regard, indicative sub-envelopes could improve transparency, predictability, and accountability in the allocation of funds. Ensuring stable and adequate resources throughout the programming period will also be key to maximize the impact of a relatively limited financial envelope. The predictable and well-structured allocation framework supports long-term investment planning and strengthens the effectiveness of European euro expenditure. In this context, it is important that the financial framework adequately reflects the diversity of all OECDs. While the specific characteristics of Greenland are recognized, a balanced allocation contributes to ensuring continuity and consistency of European Union action across all associated territories, including those located in the Indo-Pacific where Europe where European Union or linked territories represent a unique and tangible extension of the UN's economic premises.
The evaluation confirms that the OECD framework contributes to improving coherence within the Union's external financial architecture and reinforces the European added value of European Union spending. Thank you.
Sandra Gómez López
Thank you, chair. Generally.
Speaking, we support the text that has been put forward. It's a balanced report. We'd like to look at the amendments though. We'd like a more general political declaration on the growing importance of OCT countries, particularly Greenland, given the geopolitical challenges we face and the Transatlantic tensions. And we will be presenting some amendments linked to what I've just said.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. I don't see Mister Sanchez for patriots. So moving to renew, and we have Missus Yarf for Shadow.
Lucia Yar
For Stine Bossa. Thank you. Thank you, chair. So I will be speaking on behalf of Shadow Stine Bossa, who largely welcome the commission's proposal, which lays out an ambitious direction for investment in the EU's overseas territories and Greenland. She's particularly pleased to see the allocation of €530,000,000 in funding for Greenland.
With the rising geopolitical challenges, it is crucial that the EU strengthens the engagement in the Arctic, emphasizing security, respect for international law, and sovereignty. Ensuring investments and equal partnership with the overseas territories and Greenland are essential for the union's long-term competitiveness and strategic autonomy. It enhances diversification of strategic supply chains and access to critical raw materials while also ensuring protection of biodiversity and climate resilience of the world's most climate-exposed regions in ecologically rich ecosystems. Furthermore, Stinebossa welcomes the proposal for integration of the Invest EU instrument with its 14 time multiplier effect. It is a crucial instrument to leverage public and private investment.
Finally, it is essential that spending is used strategically to maximize impact, efficiency, and address investment gaps together with a high level of transparency.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. I'm looking for the Greens. That is Mr. Marino, but I don't see him. The same for the left and ESN. Anybody for left and ESN.
So now the floor is for chair of DEVEC committee and rapporteur Barry Andrews for two minutes.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, chair. Good morning. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share the opinions of the development committee this morning on this, what has become obviously a much more significant file given the geostrategic strains that have been mentioned by my colleagues previously. And I have to say I agree fully with their assessment that we need more transparency. We need more autonomy for the budgetary authorities, and the same could be said, by the way, for Global Europe.
I think we heard that in the previous exchange. So we will have an exchange of views in the development committee on May 5, and then we will have a deadline for May 11. I've already had a lot of exchanges with other MEPs, particularly from Denmark, from France, The Netherlands, and, of course, with representatives of, for example, the Greenlandic parliament, but also from Aruba and other places. So our areas of focus will be on critical raw materials, as just pointed out, but also on sustainable tourism and other education in particular. We will try to reflect the priorities as expressed by the OCTs in the exchanges we've had in the last while, and it's notable to say that there will be a forum with the OCTs taking place next week in Aruba, and the development committee will be represented at that forum next week.
We also have to recognize the limited capacity that some of these territories have in terms of technical capacity, administrative capacity. And this is relevant to the role that the Global Gateway plays because it's complex.
Slow.
Barry Andrews
Okay. A little bit slow. It's a complex model, and it's very often, the territories will require as much technical assistance as we can afford. So I think it will be important to reflect the importance of capacity building and technical assistance in the way that we approach the OCTs in the budgetary period after 2028. I think we also want to make one final point, which is the sources of finance.
The global gateway strategy underpins Global Europe, but we also have the European Competitiveness Fund. And, clearly, if there is no development objective in relation to funding, it should come from the European Competitiveness Fund and not from the Global Europe instrument. And I think that we will reflect that in the amendments suggestions that we will come forward with from the development committee. So thank you very much, Chair.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Good opportunity to say thank you for good cooperation between budgets and effort endeavor on Global Europe. Missus Filipkova, please.
Lenka Filipkova
Thank you very much, chair, and thanks to the rapporteur and, from both committees. And thanks a lot for the support of the proposal, which is actually not a fully fledged new proposal, but it's an amendment of the existing one because as such, it works better. I mean, just aim to improve the implementation and significantly boost the resources, as we all agree, of the strategic importance of the region and Greenland, especially. So we are basically proposing to double the budget. It is also very important to indeed help the countries with the absorption capacity because their resources are rather limited.
So to help them to actually fully use the full amount, but also because they not only have access to the envelope of the OCDs and the Greenland envelope, but as was already said, to also Erasmus to competitiveness and horizon. So it is important that we actually help them to be able to propose project and implement project that can be financed also from those instruments. So that's what we also aimed at when proposing to allow them to use a toolbox under the Global Europe. So to also use potentially loans, especially for some of these projects on the global gateway and for the critical raw materials cooperation. On the budgetary role, again, this is not a change.
We had the same budgetary structure now. It was flexible enough and also predictable enough, so we don't believe that we need any more anymore. We don't need specific amounts in the legal basis. And, actually, the increased role of the budgetary authority is by not having too many details in the legal, like, legal proposal, but rather discuss it in the budgetary process. But, again, the predictability is important.
Again, we are discussing with the countries, and we are listening to them what is really necessary to help them to use the potential and the support that we are providing to the forest. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. I don't see candidates for Catch the Eye, perhaps, on Bogdan Ronsa. Not. If not, just a reminder of the deadline for amendment is April 1 at 12:00. And now we should move to the next section for the budgetary assessment that is a single market and customs program.
But for this, we need Miss Narudova, rapporteur. So I suggest a short break, as we are ahead of time. If the pause is too long, we are switching to the next item, but now a short break.
Janusz Lewandowski
Until missus Narudova is in the room. If not, we are changing the order. We are resuming, and this is on the next section to be assessed from a budgetary point of view. This is establishing the single market and customs program for the period 2028 to 2034 and repealing relevant regulations. Our rapporteur is with us, Tanusha Narudova, for 3 minutes.
Danuše Nerudová
Thank you, dear chair, dear colleagues. I am pleased to present the opinion of the committee on budgets on the new single market and customs program. This proposal brings together several existing programs into one. This is a good step. A stronger and more unified single market is essential, especially in today's difficult global context.
We need to reduce barriers, support growth, and make sure our rules are properly enforced. However, there are some important concerns. First, the proposed budget of €6,200,000,000 is too low. The challenges we face are growing. Ecommerce is increasing very quickly, leading to more imports and more pressure on customs authorities.
If we want proper control and fair competition, we need more resources.
Danuše Nerudová
Okay. Second, we must not forget human resources. Without enough staff, even the best programme will not work. Customs and market surveillance authorities need the capacity to do their job effectively. At the same time, we are seeing a strong increase in import, in particular from ecommerce platforms.
This trend is putting additional pressure on customs authorities. Recent policy changes, including the introduction of handling fees for low-value consignments, require proper administrative capacity to be implemented effectively. Third, we are concerned about transparency. The proposal doesn't clearly explain how the budget will be divided. This could reduce the role of parliament.
We believe there should be clear budget lines and stronger safeguards. Fourth, monitoring and evaluation must be improved. We need clear and reliable indicators that focus on real results, not just activities. Finally, cooperation with other EU programs is important, but it must be well-coordinated. We must avoid double funding and make sure spending remains transparent.
In conclusion, we support the goals of this program, but to succeed, it needs a stronger budget, better governance, and proper oversight. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Inviting shadows for S and T, Mister Matthias Eke, please.
Matthias Ecke
Thank you, chair. Thank you, Rappature, for the presentation of that draft report. And I'm really looking forward to negotiating this file in good cooperation because I think that this SMCP is a cornerstone of our union's economic strength and resilience, and a well-functioning single market is essential to support our businesses and to reinforce Europe's capacity to act in an increasingly hostile and uncertain geopolitical environment. The program as proposed by the commission is expected to address a broad range of challenges from digitalization, green transition to supply chain disruptions, and geopolitical pressure. So it's a lot of things to do, and the increased responsibilities are not matched by sufficient resources.
I agree with the rapporteur, and there's a risk of policy overreach here without the necessary and appropriate funding. The budgetary nomenclature needs to be sufficiently granular. This is a matter of transparency. It needs to be sufficiently detailed to allow the budget authority to scrutinize and readjust the program in the course of the annual budgetary procedure. While recent crisis have demonstrated the need for flexibility, I see the point on flexibility, but it should not come at the expense of transparency, and this is what the commission's proposal is like.
Additionally, a complementarity between programs and synergies, they are welcome, of course. However, their governance structures must preserve their distinct objectives, legal basis, and decision-making autonomy. As S and D, we believe that the SMCP should retain a specific focus on the proper functioning and enforcement of the single market. It should not be driven by broader competitiveness objectives. Furthermore, digitalization remains a key priority, but the persistent fragmentation of IT systems poses challenges.
It is important to ensure that entities involved in the development, deployment, and the use of IT systems and digital tools under these programs retain full control over critical infrastructure and data, stressing the importance of relying on the use of open standards, ensuring transparency of software components, and safeguarding against strategic dependencies on third country providers. So when we talk about digital sovereignty, this, dear colleagues, is one of the programs where we really need it. It's highly sensitive, maybe more sensitive than most of the other programs. Last but not least, as S and D, we consider that it's within the remit of the batch committee to ensure the programs are fully aligned with the principles laid down in article 33.2 of the financial regulation, giving their link to the performance framework as well. We take note that the commission proposal, the SMCP does not appear to take general mainstreaming into account without a clear justification on this regard.
And I believe this aspect can be further addressed in the upcoming negotiations, and our amendments will surely seek to address these considerations. Based on that, I'm really looking forward to the discussion. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. I don't see Mister Sanchez for Patriots for ECR, anybody. No. So, Fabienne, please. And I am now more flexible, as we are ahead of time.
Thank.
Fabienne Keller
Thank you very much, chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. I'd like to thank the Rapho Tezanousa Nedodova for our work on this file. We are very much in agreement. We think that the single market and the customs union is very important if we want to have a strong single market.
So thank you very much, Danusa, for this work. It might seem quite technical, but having a well-functioning, custom system is very important for safeguarding our single market. I will be tabling amendments on this budgetary assessment. But as you've given me a little time here, customs duties are a very useful European resource. It's a shared resource for the budget.
So I very much welcome the council's decision to increase customs duties on small packages. We have seen amounts almost double in terms of the small packages entering every year. And there's, obviously, a massive drop in the controls, as there are limited resources for customs and technology for checking these small packages. So I would call for a complimentary increase in these European customs duties. I think the gap in prices when we look at the Asian Chinese distributors and our European market is considerable.
So I think we could have perhaps a multiplying factor of 10 on the current duties which are being applied. There you go, chair. It's not an own resource exactly, but customs duties that could be increased if we're a bit stricter on these smaller packages that are causing a lot of work for customs. There's also potential security issues as dangerous products could enter. So thank you very much.
Janusz Lewandowski
And now I am looking around and not finding mister Stefan Uta for greens. Far left. Anybody? I
I would like to step in here, asking.
to do so. Please.
Rasmus Andresen
Thank you so much. So I will just read his notes. Colleague, Single Market has been the foundation of the European Union since its inception. It enabled movement of workers' investments, businesses, and greatly contributed to the prosperity of all member states. However, after 70 years, there are still gaps and barriers to the proper functioning of the market.
I welcome the commission's proposal to merge four instruments and simplify the existing framework to strengthen the single market.
Janusz Lewandowski
Slowdowns, please, as usually, as we are now more flexible in time.
Rasmus Andresen
Okay. To strengthen the single market and increase national capacities to tackle fraud and corruption. Proposed instrument, the proposed instrument is relatively small, but highly important to the achievement of these objectives. Strengthening administrative cooperation between member states and the EU institutions, and digitalization of the processes, are essential for elimination of the trade barriers. Provision of support to SMEs is of pivotal importance.
SMEs are the backbone of our economy, and they must be empowered, not overwhelmed by the complexity of the single market. We also need to bear in mind looming enlargement. Access to the program of the candidate countries will facilitate their integration into the EU and make the accession smoother. However, we must go further. Enforcement cannot focus solely on removing barriers.
It must also safeguard our standards, especially those related to the environment, agriculture, and food safety. We also need to stop drug trafficking from abroad to preserve the health and future for our children. With the level of e-commerce that we have now, costumes' role in fulfilling those tasks depends on its capacity, and sufficient resources and smart innovative tools are key to this. Finally, as the scale of global crisis increases and the number of our priorities expands more and more, we need to protect our economy and our budget. Currently, 45,000,000,000, which is over two thirds of the estimated damage in the cases that are under investigation of the EPO, comes from VAT and customs fraud.
We need to increase our capabilities to stop this because we do need this money for our citizens, for social justice, for the environment, for energy, for defense, and for many other priorities. I thank you for your attention and look forward to the productive work.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. As I am inviting left, but nobody is also not present. A reporter from Imco, Mr. Dibrani, was invited to the session but not present. So as usual, catch the eye. Yes.
Anybody? No. If not, as usual, missus Filipkova invited to comment.
Lenka Filipkova
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And as usual, I can only thank the rapporteur for the support to the instrument and recognizing the usefulness of having one single instrument that would help the single market and protection of our customers and enforcing our customs union. There is, of course, while there are no details on the financial envelopes in the proposal itself, there was a quite a detailed nomenclature already included in the legislative and financial and digital statement that shows how we plan to implement the program per the different strengths, where most of the expenditure is, in fact, given because we need to respect our legal commitments, but which still gives us some flexibility and a say of the budgetary authority. Also, on the customs, I wanted to thank also the parliament, and the council as you achieved an agreement on the customs code and the customs authority, I think, last week or the week before. So it will be possible to address the issues with the ecommerce, small packages handling fees, very, very soon.
And also the fact that we will refinance and establish the new IT data hub, and I think the agreement also for the customs authority for the budget was increased to make sure that we can implement these measures faster than originally proposed. So we believe that these two need to be seen together because especially for the customs, it should help. The IT data hub should provide protection, but also help the national authorities to.
Lenka Filipkova
Okay. Thank you. So, indeed, with also the agreement on the customs code and the customs authority, we believe that the whole system should work more efficiently and also help the national authorities and bring additional resources. So, I think, with that, I can just conclude and look forward to further discussions on this file as on the others. Thank you very much.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. With this, we conclude. Deadline for amendment is 22nd April at 5PM. And moving to the next section for budgetary assessment, that is the connecting Europe facility. And here, I find the rapporteur named Lavandowski.
So three minutes for the rapporteur. And what I am restating always is that MFF is never business as usual, always something exceptional, and oh, slow down. So this time, we are to face unfriendly geopolitics while in Ukraine, a war with Iran, and that is chaos in energy markets. So what our new vocabulary is all about is security, resilience, dual use infrastructure, and military mobility, and now nobody's contested, but really cross border energy and transport infrastructure is essential for sovereignty, strategic sovereignty of European Union. This was not understood when the ongoing program was programmed, that is 2021 to 2027, as military mobility was strongly cut.
And now I think nobody's contesting, but 17,000,000,000 is a minimum. Generally, I expect in our interim report more for connecting Europe facility. Also, our concern expressed by me is what is this new steering mechanism, but we are sure that it shouldn't replace normal established budgetary authority prerogatives. What is needed in this investment as long term investment is predictability and stability of funding, welcomed synergies, but synergies doesn't mean double funding. And as usually with guarantees and lending operations under this program, it deserves and strongly demands parliamentary scrutiny.
The same for clear rules for assign external assigned revenue and performance monitoring, again, call for transparency, democratic scrutiny, and realistic evaluation of results. The last point is on sufficient human resources. And this is the end of my beginning of this procedure. So now I am inviting shadows, and I know that for s and d shadow, Mister Usakov is Mister Eke. Yes.
Matthias Ecke
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Usakov. Apologies and asked me to step in as the rapporteur, the chair. This is a very good draft that addresses a number of important issues, and the Connecting Europe Facility is, of course, a somewhat particular case. Unlike many other programs, its budget number has not been reduced.
Although, admittedly, it already is relatively limited, and this is something that we should dive in the negotiations. So, in particular, the proposed regulation introduces a sub-objective on renewable energy within the energy strand. And in our view, as indeed, this should also be clearly reflected in the budgetary nomenclature. Furthermore, we should consider structuring the three programs of connecting your facility as budgetary chapters rather than articles in order to ensure a stronger budgetary oversight and to limit excessive flexibility at the disposal of the commission, something we know from all the funds. From the perspective of the S and D group, we believe that any potential top-up to the program following the ongoing negotiations on the MFF interim revision should primarily reinforce the energy and transport strands.
At the same time, we consider that the level proposed by the Commission for Military Mobility is already appropriate and does not require further increase. In addition, it is clearly within the remit of our committee on budgets to ensure that programs are implemented in full respect of the principles set out in article 33, paragraph two of the financial regulation. That is, again, the do no significant harm principle, gender equality, social conditionality, and these elements are closely linked to the performance framework, and they should therefore be adequately reflected in our budgetary scrutiny and assessment of the single file. So finally, I would also like to underline that the current target of 70% of climate contribution expenditure under the CF appears rather conservative. It is kind of the same amount that under the current financial period already is in place, and that should be duly taken into account.
So once again, thanks to the rapporteur, and Mister Uchtakov in our group is looking forward to working on this important file.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Nobody for patriots as a shadow. So for ECR as well. But I know that, missus ECR is to replace shadow of Renu, and flow is yours.
Lucia Yar
Thank you, chair. I will be speaking on behalf of Stine Bossa again. So investment in our transport and energy infrastructure is the backbone of Europe's economy, competitiveness, and resilience. Therefore, Cineboss is very pleased to play a role in this important file. In the current geopolitical context, it is clearer than ever that we need to enhance our energy independence, and the best, cheapest, and most sustainable way to this is by expanding our renewable energy sources.
Therefore, strengthening investments in renewables should be a key priority within the Connecting Europe Facility. When talking about scaling the EU's energy independence, it is evident that we have an urgent need to invest in the grids. Right now, our underdeveloped grid infrastructure is one of the main barriers to the energy transition. We cannot allow this to continue. In the budgetary assessment, we should highlight the EU added value of combining EU grants with loans, as well as public and private financing.
This is already successfully applied in other programs such as the alternative fuel infrastructure facility, and has demonstrated effectiveness in attracting additional investment and mobilizing private capital. In that regard, it is also essential that the provisions and governance arrangements of the facility support decision making by the budgetary authority, and ensure a robust parliamentary scrutiny.
Rasmus Andresen
Yes. Thank you so much. And I can echo what most of the colleagues already said, and I also would like to thank the repertoire for the draft. Additionally to what the colleagues already mentioned about predictability, I would also like to stress the question of parliamentary scrutiny, which I think, I mean, is important for all of the different assessments we are discussing today, but this is also true for the Connecting Europe programs, of course. And then for the greens, added European value also for this program means a lot, so that we are not just like thinking national categories when it's about some of the infrastructure program projects, but that this is really like also about added European value, meaning cross-border cooperation and so on.
This is a very important priority for us when it comes to the file. And this, of course, needs to be covered in some of the other committees as well, but it's true for the work in our committee, I think, as well. And this, of course, is also linked to the goals of climate neutrality and the protection of biodiversity, which is covering, as Lucia also mentioned, renewable energies especially, but not just renewable energies, but it goes beyond that.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. I have no nominations for the left. On this occasion, rapporteur from Itre, missus, has been invited, but probably she knows that according to the timetable, my point, Connecting Europe Facility should start twenty-five minutes past ten. So we are strongly ahead of time. The same for co-rapporteur.
And for Catch the Eye, we have Fabienne Keller.
Thank.
Fabienne Keller
Thank you very much. Chair, perhaps the speakers are coming in now. So thank you very much. I'll speak in French. I would like to support what was said, vice chair who's speaking on behalf of STENA.
Now transport is normally more an energy and more masculine subject, but we're very pleased to highlight the success of these programs. So let me say that as a French person, I am involved in some of the big transport projects in France. And this European, this European financing is a real, gives us real leverage, and really helps working with neighboring countries as well. We have more cooperation at a local level or cross-border level, and this really allows us to better connect our countries for transport, for people, for goods. And as a number of colleagues have said as well, in terms of energy, there are very clear challenges at the moment.
It is very important to better connect and to optimize energy mixes to rebalance whether it's more traditional energy sources, renewable energy sources, electric. So thank you very much for your work, Chair. And thank you to the commission for being ambitious, even though perhaps we could go further. I think the Europe of Energy perhaps hasn't always been as far ahead as it could. But connecting Europe in this area, I think, is very important.
Transport really connects people, activities, so having more and more connections. And we've had a long history, where people only dealt with transport at a national level. I think this is very strategically important, and the work should continue. So thank you very much for what I think is a report with broad consensus.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. And now commission missus Filipkova, and this is not the last appearance of missus Filipkova this morning.
Lenka Filipkova
Indeed. I'm very sorry. Maybe I should pass the floor to my colleagues so that you don't have to listen to me all the time. But thanks a lot, again, to the chair as in his role as a rapporteur on this file and the support, to the program, also to the speakers. Indeed, I think we could go even higher, if we had unlimited resources, but we believe that the proposal that we tabled is sufficiently robust.
It really provides significant increases both for transport, but there we double the envelope, the military mobility where we, I think, proposed a tenfold increase and five times increase for energy, which we also believe, Elif, it's increasingly important as we again see around the world now. And, again, it is very important to clarify that we really with SF, we try to concentrate on the cross border sections that are more difficult and to make sure that actually the connections work. And then we want the member states to use other sources to work on their national sections, be it the plans or maybe the competitiveness fund, to make sure that we combine the funding, not double fund, but make sure that the whole project can be funded, that we fill the full grid, that we have intersection of very important transport corridors that can some of them also be used for dual use if need be. May on the budgetary nomenclature, I think we actually have not changed this as, I think mistake already mentioned. What we did is we proposed to also include military mobility in the same heading to actually make sure that we can have some flexibility.
But also to clarify, it doesn't mean that we are transferring during the year because, as you all also said, these are big projects. They need predictability. So we plan. So we don't actually do many transfers during the year, but maybe with one or two exceptions. I think there was one where one call for the energy strand didn't actually receive sufficiently good proposals.
So rather than lose the money, we transferred it to transport, and then we rebalance in the later years. So it is noted that we, during the year, just do whatever we want in the commission. We really follow because we have to plan these big projects. So the flexibility is necessary. If there are some implementation issues, that doesn't mean that we change the intention how to use the money unless there is a really big need, and then it would be with the agreement of the budgetary authority because, again, these projects can't be implemented within one year.
Maybe I will also use this occasion to refer to the steering mechanism as, as mister chair, you referred to it that it shouldn't replace the budgetary procedure, and it is really not intended to. The budgetary procedure should run as normal as based on the treaty or in their institutional agreement. What we are proposing with the steering mechanism is to have one step ahead of our budgetary procedure because with the increased flexibility in the MFF as such, we want to have a policy, a political discussion based on a report that we propose, in the, at the end of year end, let's say. So at the '26, we would propose the report to allow both the council and the parliament, according to your own procedures, to have a discussion on what is really important, and then inform maybe your budgetary guidelines so that when we then start our budgetary procedure that we discuss the policy priorities that we all believe should be addressed and maybe some of the flexibilities should be aimed in that direction or others. So, again, it is not replacing our budgetary procedure.
It's to inform the budgetary procedure after a strategic discussion. And on the external assigned revenue, maybe I use this occasion as well because it's mentioned in all the budgetary assessment. Of course, they are set by the legal base, by the financial regulation to be used for a specific purpose, so we can use them in any other way, and we do report fully on them in the budgetary document in the new annex that we included after the last discussion on the MFF. And, also, we provide the details in the working document when we present the draft budget. Thank you very much.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. I note your point on steering mechanism not as replacement for budgetary authority, but now sharp on time, twenty 10:25. Corporter from Itrem, Missus Kamila Gazuktihovich is arriving. We are finalizing the point, but you are right on our original timetable. It should be 25 minutes past ten.
Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz
Please. Thank you very much. I would like to thank the reporter for his work on the budgetary assessment. As the ITRA reporter for ZEF, I can only say that we fully share the perspective and priorities presented by Mr. Levandowski. These were reflected in the draft reports sent to the translation at the end of the last month.
TCEF is one of the most successful union funding programs. This is demonstrated by a strong oversubscription in both previous and current iterations of the program. TERF has been a key element for advancing on major infrastructure projects with high European added value, even when they could not demonstrate commercial viability from the beginning. Given its success and achievements over the years, as well as the constantly increasing interest, there is a strong case for increasing the TEP budget in the next MFF. The commission proposal already goes in that direction, but the rapidly changing geopolitical context demands us to adapt TIF to the new reality.
I fully agree with the rapporteur that military mobility has become a central priority for our security, and this needs to be clearly reflected in the structure of and the allocation dedicated to the program. Together with military mobility, we also need to adapt our energy infrastructure to the new challenges. This the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East confirmed that energy infrastructure plays a critical role for our security. The next step needs to invest in the protection of critical infrastructure, in securing our energy supply, in diversifying our energy supply sources, and in producing our own necessary energy stocks in Europe. These needs must be met, with the appropriate budgetary allocation.
The work conducted on the MFF interim report already goes in that direction. We, therefore, count on the batch committee support in the upcoming MFF negotiations for securing this increase and equipping the self with the much-needed financial resources. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. From my point of view, it is good to note broad agreement between Shadows and Coraporteir with recurring melody of predictability and transparency, democratic scrutiny, and oversubscription indicating that we should ask for more. With this, we end this point, and the deadline for amendment is 22 April 2026. And moving to the other sections for budgetary appraisal, point number nine, that is establishing the Erasmus Plus program for the period 2028-2034, and repealing relevant regulations. And we have with us our rapporteur, Lucia Yar, for three minutes, please.
Lucia Yar
Thank you, chair. So far today, we've heard about some of the most successful EU programs. But when we talk about Erasmus, it is the most successful and the most visible EU program, for sure. I believe that, everybody of you here sitting, will agree with me. So few European programs show the spirit of our union as clearly as Erasmus Plus.
For millions of young people, it is a life-changing opportunity, the first real experience of Europe, living abroad, learning in a new environment, meeting more people from different cultures. Erasmus plus has grown with each multi-annual financial framework, and it also has learned from experience, and it has adopted to the new needs. This is what makes your Erasmus Plus so strong. So our task is clear here. We must protect what works well, and we must improve what does not.
I believe we share this approach with the cult reporter, Mr. Droyevsky. I also welcome him here. And I would also like to thank him and his team for the constructive cooperation so far. Let me highlight several key points from the draft budgetary assessment, which I hope we can work on together. First, the overall budget.
The demand for Erasmus Plus is much higher than what it can currently support. This is not acceptable for such a high-value program. With the merger with the European Solidarity Corp and new initiatives like a scholarship scheme, that will be included. The pressure on Erasmus Plus budget will only grow. The proposed €40,000,000,000 will not be enough, especially in light of inflation and rising housing costs.
Many stakeholders actually point to a need closer to 60,000,000,000. And we should not forget our own targets. The Europe On Move recommendation sets clear goals for mobility by 2030. And if we are serious about reaching them, we must provide the necessary funding. I'll take longer than 3 minutes.
Sure. Second, synergies with other programs. Erasmus Plus should not stand alone. It should work closely with programs like Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund. The commission has a key role here.
It should map these opportunities and integrate them into an annual budgetary cycle and the work program. At the same time, the new NRPPs under the new multi-annual financial framework will be important. Member states can use them to invest more in young people and skills, and we should encourage this, including through regular coordination at national level. With examples from some member states on the complementarity between Erasmus plus and the European Solidarity Fund plus, now to be pulled into the NRPPs, should be promoted and supported across the union. Thirdly, support for participants.
If you ask young people what holds them back from taking part in Erasmus, one answer comes up again and again: it is money. Grants are often too low. They do not reflect real living costs. And that's why if we want Erasmus Plus to be open to all, we must address this. We know the program cannot cover everything, but it also should not cover only the rich kids, when I have to be blunt about that.
We therefore need to rethink the grant setting mechanisms and make it better adapted to the realities on the ground. Fourth, respect for the rule of law and EU values, because Erasmus Plus is built on these values and the vast majority of projects do reflect them. But we also see growing attempts by actors who do not share these values to access EU funds. We need a common approach, strong safeguards, and effective tools to detect and prevent misuse. At the same time, if rule of law issues in the member states affect the implementation of the program, we must be ready to protect the final beneficiaries and participants.
Young people should not pay the price. This is where a smart conditionality approach becomes important. And we need to explore ways of ensuring that in such cases, final beneficiaries and recipients can continue to benefit from the programme. So colleagues, these are some of the key points I believe we need to address. I am, of course, ready to strengthen and develop them further through amendments, and I look forward to your contributions.
Erasmus Plus has already changed the lives of generations. It builds skills. It builds confidence. It builds Europe. And as we look ahead, let us remember what is at stake, not just numbers, but actually opportunities.
Not just funding, but the future of a more united and resilient Europe. Let's work together and deliver it. I would like to thank the advisers, shadows, and secretariat for very good cooperation so far.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Yes. Yes. Persuasive. And no request for slowing down with time.
So now I am inviting shadows. And Danusha Narudova is for APP.
Danuše Nerudová
Thank you, my dear rapporteur, for this presentation. I think that we all agree that Erasmus plus is one of the EU's most successful programs. And precisely for this reason, our level of ambition should match that success. On the budget, I have to say I'm not fully convinced. 40,800,000,000 sounds like an increase, but in reality, Erasmus Plus is shrinking as a share of the EU budget from 2.5 to two percent.
And with demand continuing to grow, this is simply not enough. Even to meet our own targets, we would need at least 60,000,000,000. That should be our reference point. At the same time, predictability matters. Universities, students, and national agencies need to be able to plan ahead.
This is why clear sector allocations are important to ensure quality and access across the whole program period. In this context, maintaining a strong share of higher education is essential. Second, on scholarships. If one scholarship equals the cost of 25 mobilities, we need to make sure they truly support innovative and interdisciplinary programs. This is how we built the skills for a competitive Europe.
At the same time, Erasmus Plus cannot carry every policy objective on its own. If we want to address skill shortages in strategic sectors, this should be co-financed, especially through the European Competitiveness Fund, where I have tabled amendments to enable synergies, as well as with Horizon and other instruments. We should also encourage direct engagement of business in the program. In a shifting geopolitical context, Erasmus Plus is a strategic tool. It builds partnership, trust, and long-term influence.
With stronger support from Global Europe, we could significantly expand this role and position Europe as a leading hub for academic cooperation. So overall, the program is strong, but the proposal needs more ambition, both financially and strategically. Thank you.
Victor Negrescu
Thank you, chair. And I would like to thank the rapporteur for the extensive presentation of what she tries to point out, in this report. Indeed, Erasmus plus is one of the most visible and most successful EU programs. And we always notice the fact that many EU leaders like to take pictures with young people who are part of this mobility. But when it comes to funding, they forget Erasmus.
They forgot about the pictures. They forget about young people. They forget about the universities. They forget about the schools. If we look in the drug report, we are supposed to allocate to Erasmus plus and educational programs almost €150,000,000 for it to be successful and generate the added value expected in our economies and, of course, also to reinforce our competitiveness, and we are not there.
€40,000,000,000 is simply not enough. It simply does not cover the inflation or the new expectations and goals of the Erasmus plus program. So, of course, we cannot be happy with it. In the same time, we have to make sure that with the money that is available, we have the impact expected by citizens, by young people, by US organizations, by universities, and by schools. So we are coming up with new ideas, and this is great.
And I'm supportive of this specific scheme related to the scholarship. But at the same time, we should not forget about the final beneficiaries, those people that are part of the mobilities, and the fact that they need to be able to afford those mobilities with the money that they receive. We should not forget the youth NGOs that are applying for grants. We should not forget the EU diplomas that we just created. We should not forget about those schools that are lagging behind and that count on the Erasmus funding to simply catch up or at least make sure the kids that are going to those schools have more opportunities.
So indeed, there are a lot of things that need to be done. Synergies is one of the solutions, but at the same time, we have to make sure that we are consistent in our approach, that we are coordinating our approaches, and at the same time that we still push for additional funding for skills and education in those other different programs. I also believe that we should have a proper allocation for sports, and I'm gonna ask for a 5% allocation for sport in Erasmus Plus. This is also very important for the goals of this program. So thank you again.
I'm confident we'll be working together and provide good input to our colleagues in the specific committee, working on the Erasmus program. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Looking for Patriarch's shadow, madam Pierre. Yes. Please replace.
Angéline Furet
Thank you very much, chair. Madam Rapporte. I will give you a second just to put your headset on. I know you didn't want me to be the shadow because I'm not a part of the broad coalition, but I hope on this subject you will allow me to give you my input because apparently your feminism stops depending on what the political party is and that women from the right aren't like other women. When it comes to Erasmus Plus, it is a success and it is currently being held hostage.
Christelle Petex
For example, the budget, there has been no merging. It's been siloed, and it should be in grants for students, and that it shouldn't have a technocratic variation in terms of the approach to inflation. It comes to conditionality and rule of law, that is permanent. It is illegal. And the suspension of grants because of this approach isn't something that isn't worthy of democracy.
Are you still those in favor of democracy? Now based on values, we would like to see guarantees. No association that is close to the Muslim Brotherhood, I hope this is clear, should get a single cent from the Erasmus budget. Now public funds should fund the future of our young people. It should not be ideological or Islamic blackmail, as Catherine Grise stated in culture, a very good colleague at that.
She said that this is a program for education and freedom, and it should be protected from the commission's manipulation. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Mercy, I am not commenting your remarks, and moving now to ECR, but probably not present. Therefore, mister Stefan Uta for Greens Center.
Nicolae Ștefănuță
Thank you, Mr. President. And on Erasmus, my message is this simple, and the message of our group. Erasmus should never be a rich kid scholarship, but should be a scholarship available to everyone, no matter how much money your parents have or do not have. So for the commission, it's super important that you don't always think of another million Erasmus students who will become pro Europeans because those are kids of the elites. For me, it's more important that the scholarships are better equipped.
And in our view, there shouldn't be an Erasmus scholarship under €1,000, because with less than a thousand euros, with 670 as it is now, you cannot survive anywhere. And there's an unseen cost of non-Erasmus. The students who don't even dare to go to the Erasmus offices because they say Erasmus is not for me. Erasmus is for the kids who have a parent to pay. Yeah?
And this is a phenomenon that's all across Europe. Tell me if you can survive with €700 in Paris. Tell me. So we shouldn't look into more Erasmus. We should look into better Erasmus for the mobility part.
Because, if I if you talk to ESN, to the Erasmus student network, or to any students, they will tell you the following. They don't have housing. They go to university, and the university doesn't have dorms, doesn't have a place to offer. So then they have to go on the open market. Try going on the open market with €700 in the city of Milan.
You won't even allow you to have a flat or a room, let alone to live and the rest. Thirdly, we ask our kids to pay up to put the money upfront, and we pay them later. And that's not okay because that's a further discrimination. So the commission should be able to pay in advance a part of the scholarship, because guess what? The students have to pay in advance for their housing because no owner gives you the apartment without paying at least for security and things like that.
So we should think of all these practical things and not only look from the helicopter and see, oh, this is good for the European Union. This is good for the European spirit, and we send one more kid with measur scholarships. And I will tell you what, I'm not in favor of having top ups because top ups are a lot, it comes with a stigma of a social profile. Let's raise the ocean so that more people can go on an Erasmus naturally, without the stigma of being poor. Last point, I think we should combine Erasmus with the Solidarity Corps and the funding for projects because a lot of our NGOs and a lot of our student and youth NGOs survive from this, especially as we know in the world and also in the union, regrettably, NGOs are increasingly targeted by their governments.
Thank you so much. Good luck, Rapporteur. We are with you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Older generation also present in this room with communist past and memory remembers that surviving in Paris with €700 was quite feasible, but this is our memory. And I don't see anybody left. Yes. ESN as well.
So now I am to activate one more Polish map, Bogdanzdroyevsky. Oh, yes. Yes, please.
Alexander Jungbluth
I will speak in German.
On behalf of the ESN, let me say that this is a blueprint for whatever we say, whatever we talk about, we always hear that the budget needs to be increased. But I, as the ESN representative, think that €40,000,000,000 is fine. I don't think we need to increase the budget. Many are calling for an increase in the budget, but we think it's a good budget. We, as the budgetary committee, should push for budgetary discipline.
We shouldn't always, on every occasion, say that we need to spend more. We have to ask ourselves a question. Have we got enough? And I would say that, yes, we do have enough budget here. Then there's the issue of conditionality, which has been raised on various occasions, and we see that critically.
We're very concerned. There are so-called rule of law mechanisms. So-called rule of law mechanisms have been introduced in order to divert attention, or to divert. We know what's happened in Hungary. It's a way of exerting political pressure. There's no justified reason to cut off funds.
It's just being done because it can be done. And then if this is done using a rule of law mechanism, well, then look at the left wing organs and organizations that are present in universities, particularly in France, in Sciences Po, in Leon, and the organizations there. There was a left-wing radical organization that was organized, and this ultimately led to the death of a right-wing activist. If we are serious about the rule of law mechanism, then we should look at left wing violence and left wing extremism at universities and use that as a criterion. That doesn't happen.
And we can see that you are just using the rule of law mechanism to silence those whose views you don't agree with.
Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski
Thank you. I will speak to Polish.
I think the chair will also understand me better now, and it is very important for me that our opinion on Erasmus plus was very positive and very understandable. I'm very glad, because of today's meeting, and I feel as if I wasn't in the budget committee, but in the culture committee when I hear about wider availability, more money, higher grants, and bigger budget. And at the very beginning, I would like to thank you for inviting me, and I would like to say that we cooperate very well with Madame Lucia Iar. Thank you for that. There is full understanding for Erasmus Plus. We are aware of how successful this program is and how popular it is.
And it is shown as a certain model of programs of European programs. It's one of the flagship programs of the EU, which finances not only education, but also mobility, youth projects, sport projects without professional sport, and also some voluntary actions. And Erasmus Plus, as is worth mentioning, connects two programs. So we have Erasmus Plus and European Solidarity Corps. That's why we also think that this 41,000,000,000 euros is not enough.
And I think that a very good news that I can give you, from the first of January 2027, The UK will also come back to Erasmus plus. So this shows how valuable this program is, but it also shows how important it is to increase the budget. The general budget for Erasmus plus which we want is €50,000,000,000. This €50,000,000,000 will not allow us to return to this 2.5% of the budget that we had before, but it will give us a chance to maintain all the advantages of the program and to increase the grants, the scholarships. Thank you also for cooperation with mister Sousa Silva, who represents both the culture committee and the budget committee and who does it very well. When it comes to the budget committee, what is very important for me is to focus on the points which are in your competence, and I think that Madame Ra Porter does it very well. She does not enter the competences of the cult committee, which is very important for us, of course, especially that we are after four huge rounds of consultations and we know very well which are the envelopes or the parts that will be divided in that.
money will.
Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski
be divided into. Of course, we also have other important issues like the European social fund or European competitiveness fund, especially when it comes to the financing of grants. What I want to say, it is very important for us that the financial sectors be decided on in the CALD Committee. And thank you for the great cooperation.
Fabienne Keller
Thank you very much, chair. I too should like to join the broad majority of people here that have spoken, and specifically our rapporteur, Lucia Iar. I'd like to really state how the Renew group feels strongly about this program that has been in place for a long time, and that means that people can exchange around Europe. And to the hard right that criticizes this program, I'd like to give them some facts. Thousands, millions even of young people that we can meet in small groups around Europe and that have told us that thanks to this European opportunity meant that they've been able to have an openness of mind and a better knowledge, something that has been strengthened throughout the course of their life.
And your estimates, there's nothing new here. Cathedrals, the workers that worked there, they moved about Europe to get the best possible techniques and training, with the people with the best knowledge in those skills that was based in culture, science, knowledge, know how, and they have now applied it to our modern model. And thank you, Mister Strodesky, for his commitment, and I think the entire culture committee has been very committed to this as well. And I'd also like to state that to our colleagues from the Greens, mister, just to state that we know that Erasmus has changed a lot, that there has been a chance for people, for example, to move about Europe with trainee trainers who are there to assist them and to chaperone them, which is a huge improvement. When it comes to the improvement of the program itself, we should be doing this with national and regional players, specifically when it comes to paying out the funds as quickly as possible, and if possible, before the young people leave abroad.
That will help those who are in families or students that have a little less cash flow. And I think that's something that can also be done within the culture committee. We will also assist and encourage member states to help those young people in their times of need, specifically when they need a little bit of boost in cash. So I'd like to congratulate Lucia and all of the colleagues who have been working on this. This is really one of our flagship policies.
We have one right after the other when it comes to train, transport, and energy too, another flagship policy of the EU. It's one of the best selling points of Europe, I think, our citizens in the world around. Thank you.
Lenka Filipkova
Thank you very much, mister chair, and thanks to the rapporteur and to the speakers for their support to the program, which most of us agree is really a cornerstone of the EU and really a big success. So we also proposed a significant increase of the budget, which we believe. But, again, we are not living in a world of unlimited resources. So, within the limited resources with which we have, we believe that this increase, if we exclude inflation of about 30%, is still quite substantial. We also agree that we need to do more for the underprivileged students or pupils.
So we have already improved, between the beginning of this MFFO from the last program to the next one, if my numbers are correct, from about 10% of participation of underprivileged students to about 18 last year. But we obviously want to build on it and for the next generation to do more and reach out more to the underprivileged students and help them also with some novelties like the scholarships, that could also help, in that regard. We're also looking, obviously, in a better implementation of better synergies with other programs. So indeed, it's very important that also the national programs and the social dimensions are used to improve, in improve education and skills. The same for the competitiveness program.
Also very important to mention that, obviously, for the international students, for the third country students, they would still continue with the Erasmus Mundus, from the financing from the Global Europe envelope so that they can also participate in our, or study in our universities, or vice versa. Also, for the rule of law, the conditionary condition at the regulation continues to apply, and the final beneficiaries, of course, are protected, but it is important that all the participating institutions respect our values and principles. I would, again, maybe one last word, plead for not proposing too many, you know, allocations in the legal base, and reallocating because, again, as is the logic of the whole MFF, we do need flexibility, which doesn't mean that we will do whatever we want, but we need to be able to react. So the fewer, preallocation in the legal base, the better. That's why we only propose the indicative envelope.
And then we can always discuss on the budget nomenclature. But even there, I think we should make it workable, not at the cost of transparency or the role of the European parliament as the budgetary authority, but to actually serve the program and be able to react, as fast as we can. Thank you very much.
Lucia Yar
I just want to thank everybody. I think everybody's pretty much invested in it, also emotionally. I'm very much looking forward again to work with the rapporteur for called Missus Droyevsky. He's been dealing with the project with Erasmus before, so he knows it very thoroughly. So it's really a great experience also for me, to learn from him.
I personally have been through Erasmus, mobilities, youth, youth in action. I did a lot of things. So I am one of those that actually, through Erasmus plus, was made to even sit here. So I'm going to fight for this project for more money for those that really need it, and I hope we will all support that.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. And, of course, we respect the budgetary scope of our assessments and the responsibilities of the leading CALT committee. And with this, we are now running with slavery debate. We are running according to the schedule now, and moving to the next budgetary assessment. That is Horizon Europe.
And for Horizon, for establishing New Horizon Europe, we have our rapporteur, mister Sousa Silva.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Okay. Thank you, chair. And the rapporteur, dear colleagues, dear representative of the commission, I would like to highlight, as the chair already mentioned, that the main focus of the budgetary assessment is the financial and budgetary aspects of the proposal and to ensure coherence between the legislative and the financial aspects of the proposal. Having said that, I would like to start with my first point regarding the overall amount proposed by the Commission for Horizon Europe. Okay.
In my humble opinion, it's not enough to ensure the European economy the needed innovation boost. Therefore, we consider that the financial envelope allocated to this program should be increased in line with the amounts to be defined in the MFF interim report. We must be ambitious to guarantee a good starting point for the negotiations with the council, considering the central role of this program to safeguard the EU future competitiveness. I would like to point out that sufficient human resources must be available from the outset and throughout the entire programming prep period to ensure an effective implementation of this program. Second, our draft expresses concern with the lack of a predictable budget for many actions and the lack of detailed budgetary nomenclature as proposed by the commission.
This would give the commission great latitude to shift and decide on spending priorities during implementation without any added value for the researchers, innovators, and SMEs. Furthermore, this will hamper oversight and predictability for the final beneficiaries. It also reduces the budgetary authority's ability to steer accurately policy priorities in the annual budget procedure. We recommended fixing indicative sub-envelopes in the basic act to increase predictability, transparency, and accountability. Third, in our budget reassessment, we recognize that flexibility is an important feature of the commission proposal and the necessity of the research and innovation program.
There is also the need to ensure predictable and sufficient annual resources for Horizon Europe program considering the long term nature of the finance projects. A proper balance between predictability and flexibility could be achieved by setting an indicative budgetary allocation for each item of the program. This would ensure predictability for final beneficiaries without depriving the budgetary authority of its prerogatives. Fourth and the last point, I propose that all reserves, the commitments should be fully reused to help strengthen the union's reserves capability without artificially capping the amounts. Furthermore, in my proposal, the reflows from financial instruments funded by the Horizon Europe program should stay available within this program.
Finally, I would like to thank the shadows, the secretariat, and the assistants, and especially the ITRE rapporteur, Christian Heller, for their precious support during this budget reassessment. Thank you so much.
Mohammed Chahim
Thank you, chair. Let me start by thanking the rapporteur for the presentation of the draft support. I really look forward to the negotiations and the cooperation on this file. A couple of points on behalf of S and D. The rapporteur addresses many important points in this draft, and I agree with the rapporteur on the budgetary nomenclature of Horizon that it needs to be sufficiently granular to allow the budgetary authorities to scrutinize and readjust the programs in the course of the annual budgetary procedure.
While we in S and D welcome the scale up Europe fund proposed and the rapporteur's emphasis on the fund, we need to ensure that the public investments in this context provide added value and avoid reputational risk to the EU budget. Then on the implement the principles laid down in article 32, 33, 2 on the financial regulations, notably the do not significant harm principle, gender equality, social conditionality that are also linked to the performance regulation. We took note of the fact that introduces provisions in this draft report that aims to exempt the program from key provisions in the performance regulation. One of the things we saw that also surprised us is that he considers all Horizon activities should be considered compliant when we, with the do not significant harm principle. We, as S and D, will address these points further in our budgetary assessment in the amendments that we will provide later on.
We do not think you should make that assumption that all our activities are considered compliant. And I think we should take the regulation, the financial declaration in article 33. We should not exempt anything from it. We should be careful when it comes to addressing that rule. Then the Horizon regulation will need to strike the balance between supporting highly innovative startups and scale-ups and making the sector competitive, while also ensuring geographical balance.
As this is an effect on how the budget is spent, I believe we should highlight this in our budgetary assessment as well. And then finally, chair, I believe that as budget, we should underline that the separation of Horizon as a program for civil and dual use needs to be maintained, and any funding for research needs to be budgeted separately. That is within the ECF as proposed by the European Commission. While we support the ramp up of defense spending and, clearly, the geopolitical situation necessitates that, we should nevertheless ensure a clear distinction between civil and military spending as they are very different in nature. Thank you very much, sir.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. I don't see shadows of patriots. Even madam is not activated now. ECR as well not present for monsieur for renew.
Olivier Chastel
Chair, colleagues. I'd also like to thank the rapporteur for the work that's already been done, but also for the upcoming work. I won't speak for very long because I'm going to speak when it gets to the next point as well. But there's much overlap there. We will, of course, be submitting some amendments so that we can focus on what's important to us, particularly transparency, the role of parliament in governance, effectiveness and governance, simplification, geographical balance, and accessibility, particularly for smaller structures.
That's all I had to say at this point.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Shadow for Greens, mister Stefano Ta left. No replacement. So, also, nobody left and but just on time arrival of. Ah, yes.
Yes. Again. Again. Sorry. Yeah.
Alexander Jungbluth
Thank you. I also thank the rapporteur. This is an important program, which we welcome. Let me just clarify a few points. And this has been mentioned by colleagues, but we don't think there is a need to increase the budget.
Under the MFF, we have already had an increase of funds or a top up. We are generally positive about this initiative, but given that the funds are increasing, let me link to what colleagues have said. We need to have measurable data. If we invest more money, then it is vital that after a certain period of time, we can ascertain the effectiveness of the use of these funds. Then we should potentially address a question.
Has a lot of the funding been lost to bureaucracy or not? If you look at research institutes, admittedly the budget has been increased, but often that leads to more bureaucracy for the people working in the institutes. That's something we want to improve. It's very important that we measure the success of the programs once they've happened.
Christian Ehler
So thank you very much. Sorry for being late, but we're jumping between committees. I would like to thank the rapporteur and the committee for the close cooperation. And I think we are all aligned on the fact that R and D, and research and innovation, is the key factor for European competitiveness. And so in a way, I feel backed up very much by the budget committee and specifically by the rapporteur, by his report.
I mean, we have complex questions to answer in terms of the governance of the fund. It's we are in a unique situation that, for the first time, on the one hand, we proposed a substantial uprise in terms of R and I money. On the other hand, the governance by a third instrument, the ECF, is at least, mildly said, pretty much blurry. So we have to be really careful that we have a dedicated R and I budget and not kind of a flexibility reserve for commissions ambition. Having said that, in more principal terms, I'm very much back up also the idea that we, in terms of the EIC fund, we are reloading this fund because I think it's one of the most substantial contributions to overcome the value of death, the financing gap we have in terms of innovative deep tech technologies. So in, I think we are going to work closely together.
The budget committee, you're going to protect the money. We are trying to contribute in substance, and I really would like to welcome that we go on with that cooperation during the negotiation. Thank you very much.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Catch the eye. Not. So for commission, this time, Missus Carolina Van Derandong, please. Thank.
Caroline Vandierendonck
you. Good morning, chair, rapporteur, honorable members. Thank you very much for the draft report. A few points from my side. First of all, we concur with the assessment that we have massive investment needs and financial needs to support research and innovation in Europe, which is why the commission proposed to double research funding for the next MFA under Horizon Europe.
I also wish to flag it came out when discussing the previous programs about the synergies with other programs. We will also be contributing to research and innovation, including in shared management in the future, and RPPs, research innovation will also be a prior priority. So important to look at our policy objective in a comprehensive manner. And to also repeat that, of course, we also need to navigate investment needs facing also the revenue and the size of the budget, but I wish to insist on the very significant increase of the size of Horizon Fund under the commission proposal. The second point on the nomenclature and the overall flexibility here, I wish to really plea for creating a condition to preserve EU ability to respond to needs with a suitable tool, and ring fencing, earmarking would limit our capacity to act to react to challenges and also to opportunities.
So here, I wish to stress again the message on the importance of the annual budget process and the role of the EP as a budgetary authority. On predictability, to mention that I think beneficiaries refer a lot also to work programs, which will be annual or multi-annual as a way to see action that are supportive to their ecosystem. A point on the performance regulation that also came out. So the performance regulation is not the purpose precisely today, but just two quick points. It's designed to apply across all MFF programs to have a clear view of the impact, the output, the outcome of the investments we make in the EU to support policy objectives defined by the authority.
About the major measurement of success of programs, we have performance indicators which are extremely comprehensive, are published to date, transparently. It will continue to be the case, and it's driven by the performance regulation. And it's also the aim of the single gateway, which will also transparently publish information on the success and performance of the various programs. Finally, a short point on geographic balance. To recall that under the commission proposal, there is the objective of widening, in particular, and spreading excellence and allocation of EUR 5,400,000,000 under Part four of the European Research Area.
And we are also making every effort so that the overall simplification ambition of the future MFF also benefits geographic balance across the board. Thank you very much for giving me the floor and for the contributions today.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. I note some hope for the geographical balance, really. Our reporter would like to react.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Thank you. Thank you, Sher. Only to, I mean, to thank all the interventions from the colleagues and the commission and to express that I remain fully available to work in close proximity with the shadow rapporteur, with the rapporteur for the specific program and especially to the main rapporteur of Eitre, Christian Heller. And, of course, the final goal is to ensure the total alignment between the legislative and the budgetary aspects of the proposal, and, of course, to guaranteeing a strong and united position of parliament for the upcoming negotiations with the council because as you already said, it is a very important file in the topic. It's a priority for Europe, and we need to work closely.
And I'm ready to continue this work. Thank you so much for your words. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Deadline for amendments is April 21 at 12. And now point eleven as Horizon as well, but this is about establishing the specific program implementing Horizon Europe. And here, our rapporteur is Miss Chastel.
Chair.
colleagues,
Olivier Chastel
Framework program, the implementing framework program for Horizon 2028-2034, is essential because it is one of the main levers to boost innovation, competitiveness, and growth in Europe. Despite the success of the program, there is not enough funding to support all of these proposals. Thus, we need to significantly increase the budget so that the union can become more strategically autonomous, and so that we reach our goal of spending 3% of GDP on research and development. Let me also stress various important priorities, in our eyes at least. Simplifying administrative procedures, guaranteeing human resources, ensuring and improving budgetary transparency, and having better financial oversight.
Finally, let me strengthen the key role of instruments such as the European Research Council and the European Innovation Council. Both of these councils must have ring-fenced financing so that we can support scientific excellence and disruptive innovation. By way of conclusion, Horizon Europe constitutes a major opportunity for Europe's future as long as we equip Horizon Europe with the funds it needs to meet those ambitions.
Christian Ehler
So I'm switching committee heads. I think that the two reports should be aligned stemming from the, let's say, common understanding in the ITRA committee on the two reports that specifically the specific program should be part of an integrated negotiation process because the commission had been choosing yet again that the specific program is just a consultation process. So there is a common understanding that we put the major issues so closely related to the co decision report into the co decision report. So in a way, that is, I think, important, because otherwise, we would have inconsistencies between the two reports. What is of utmost importance from my point of view is that the independence of the ERC, which had been questioned by the commission yet again, stays budgetary wise intact, but also in terms of the institutional setting.
And I think that should be a priority for the parliament because there are renewed attempts to shorten, for example, the tenure of the president. So that is, I think, of utmost importance that by the budget and by the definition, the independence of the ERC is prevailed. Thank you.
Matthias Ecke
Yeah. Thank you, chair. Thank you to the Rappahannock Chair. I'm looking forward to a good cooperation. I think it's important that the budgetary assessment for both Horizon Framework and the specific regulations are consistent and aligned with each other.
This is something that a lot of colleagues already stressed, and that for that reason, I would also like to endorse some of the points that our shadow rapporteur for the framework program, Matraim, has just highlighted. It need the term in terms of the granularity of the budget in order to allow the budgetary authority to scrutinize and readjust the program in the course of the annual budgetary procedure, as well as the alignment with the financial regulations. So these are the most important points. The commission has proposed a close linkage between the ECF and the horizon, and this is in principle welcomed, provided we ensure a seamless support from basic research through market readiness, so the entire journey for the technology readiness levels. From an S and D perspective, however, it is important that we maintain Horizon as an independent program and do not subordinate it to the principle of co-competitiveness.
This is something that is dear to our heart, it's very important to ensure it at all levels of negotiations. For the present budgetary assessment, it is important in this regard that governance structures are in place which operate separately from the industrial and security policy coordination mechanism within the ECF. The independence of the European Innovation Council, the European Research Council, in their current form, must be preserved. This is a point that we should also include in our budgetary assessment, because it has a direct impact on the allocation of EU funds. So it is a budgetary matter, of course.
In this context, I support the repertoire in underlining the importance of a predictable and stable allocation for the EC and the ERC. Accordingly, we should not only advocate maintaining the current status quo of the budgetary nomenclature, but also work towards a clearer structure within the budget. And in this spirit, I'm looking forward to the negotiations on the budgetary assessment.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. For Patriots, I don't see shadows and ECR. And for greens, mister Erasmus, Anderson.
Rasmus Andresen
Yes. Thank you so much. I can echo what most of the colleagues already mentioned, and I think we are quite aligned when it comes to this, first of all, on the consistency of the reports. Of course, this is something to support. The same is true on the remarks Christian Ehler made on the independence of the ERC. On the question of the scope, I also think we should protect, like, the character of independent research we all know had been a quite good success story in the EU, but also with program in the past years.
Now our colleague, Lucia, is already gone, but I think that Horizon in general is quite a success history, like you can argue for Erasmus. And to protect some of the elements which made it strong will be quite important, I think, especially also for the support of basic research and to also have this present in the report here and not just in the general regulation. The colleagues already mentioned will be important for us as well, but I think most of the colleagues were quite consistent on what we had as priorities, and I'm looking forward to good compromises for the report.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you for the lift. Not. So, mister Youngblood, not. Then we have invited for on this occasion Mister Repassi. Please.
René Repasi
Thank you, mister chairman, for the invitation, for having the opportunity to say something. I realize that, except for the rapporteur, this seems to be quite a German thing with a German shadow from the EPP, the SND, the green speaking, and now a German rapporteur for the intra position on it. That doesn't take away that I fully support the remarks made by the budget rapporteur and that I'm very happy that we are aligned in that regard. That despite the fact that we have already an increase of the horizon budget in the commission proposal. Parliament is even more ambitious, reminding us that there is a certain percentage target for all of us looking at research and innovation.
It is pretty clear that growth in Europe will not come from cutting rules, but from creating innovation. And research and innovation is, therefore, where we should put all our on. Yet, if you see how the whole thing is constructed, there might be the eternal fear materializing itself. Again, namely that the Horizon budget is used as the piggy bank for other policy areas or for crisis mitigation measures when money has to be found somewhere, simply because researchers do not travel on tractors. And, therefore, it is now the moment and the task to totally shield the Horizon budget against any sort of that attempts, which is made by Christian Ehlers draft report on the f b 10 regulation, which we want to introduce with our report on the specific program, and where I hear support from the rapporteur in batch committee and full support for this.
Last remark, it was said, the very success of the Horizon program is, in particular, linked to the first pillar on the quality and excellency of the European Research Council. It is the trademark for our research funding, and therefore, the autonomy of the ERC must be reinstalled. And in my eyes, also further strengthened.
that has to.
René Repasi
be mirrored by the budgetary assessment, therefore, giving an own budget line for the ERC and for the EIC so that both have sufficient autonomy in order to continue their excellent work. In my draft report, I'm also suggesting in the review clause that the commission should come forward with creating a proposal that transforms ERC to a proper union agency, having therefore full autonomy, which would have also then the need for a supporting budget. For now, we would have to ensure ERC's autonomy with the proper budget line. And that as a remark from the ITRE side to this report, I'm looking forward to the cooperation with the budget committee on the budgetary assessment, and I see us walking here both in the same direction. Thank you very much.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Catch the eye. Nobody. Therefore, commission, and again, missus Van Deren Dunk.
Caroline Vandierendonck
Thank you very much, Mister Chair, reporters, and our members. So, again, on the budget size, I wish to stress that, we also consider there are massive needs to support our research and innovation, which is why the research, the size of the program is significantly increased for the next MFF. So I really want to stress this as a signal in the commission proposal. I invite you to look also at the broader MFF and how the different programs compare. So a very strong signal from this side.
On the nomenclature, I also wish to stress that discussions will continue. We will be more granular in the preparation of the draft budget 2024. So that's a point on the nomenclature. On the independence of the ERC and the EIC, ER also want to be clear that in the commission proposal, the independence of the ERC and the EIC board is amply mentioned. I think it's mentioned almost 19 times.
So there is no threat to the independence of the ERC and the EIC board. It's a successful project. And if anything, they are reinforced by the commission proposal. Thank you very much.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. And now we are moving to the last budgetary assessment, which is point number 12, the nuclear decommissioning assistance program of the Ignalina nuclear plant in Lithuania. And the rapporteur is Mr. Erasmus Nordquist. Please.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Yes. Thank you very much, chair. And let me begin by thanking the secretariat for their great assistance in doing this budgetary assessment. It's not really gonna be highly controversial and also, therefore, will be rather short because, of course, we are more or less in the middle of this program which started in the beginning of February and going on to approximately '49. So we are more or less halfway through.
And, the decommissioning assistant program is, of course, for Lithuania and for the nuclear safety in Lithuania, but it's also actually a great program for gaining knowledge across EU and also to third countries. I want to highlight two points in the budgetary assessment. First and foremost, that it's very important that there are sufficient human resources to actually achieve the programme. When we put money aside, there needs to be the human resources, of course, to do this. And then my second point I think is important is, of course, for the overall proposal for the MFF is the horizontal rules with the performance regulation.
That this, of course, also applies here. So if there's any change in program and architecture, so forth, of course, it needs to be reflected within the monitoring provisions on that Annex one. And I think actually that should be the words for me. It's a short budgetary assessment and I look forward to hear from the shadows, of course, how they stand.
Janusz Lewandowski
Yes. And they are coming. We have replacement Miss Missus Benjamin for Madam Imad, please.
Isabel Benjumea Benjumea
Thank you, chair. Yes. I will be taking the floor on behalf of Celine Imard, who is the EPP shadow for this file. Dear colleagues, the continuation of the Innalina program in the next MFF reflects the union's commitment under Lithuania's accession treaty to support the safe decommissioning of Soviet designed rrbmk reactors inherited from a specific historical context. From a budgetary perspective, this program demonstrates clear European added value.
The decommissioning of these legacy reactors is a technically complex and long-term process requiring stable and predictable financial support in order to ensure high standards of radiological safety and environmental protection. The proposed allocation of €678,000,000 euros for the period 2834 contributes to addressing the remaining challenges related to graphic reactor dismantling and radioactive waste management, while ensuring continuity and credibility of EU commitments. This targeted financial assistant reflects a responsible approach to addressing a specific legacy of the past, while ensuring transparency, predictability, and sound financial management within the next MFF. Thank you very much.
Janusz Lewandowski
But I don't see Mister Nagresco, Madam Fure, no longer with us. Mister Chile,
Janusz Lewandowski
The left, not. Yes. And so much activated, but not present. Therefore, catch the eye. Now we have invited mister, but I don't see him.
Therefore, again, on the agenda, missus.
Lenka Filipkova
Thank you very much, mister chair, and thanks to the rapporteur for the support to this continuation of the program. As rightly said, this is continuation of the commitment, in the excision treaty of Lithuania to make sure that the reactor is decommissioned in a safe way, that we can also share the knowledge of that process. So the budget as proposed covers also the consultation with the Lithuanian authorities, what we believe is necessary for the next seven years. We are looking also for complementarity with other programs like the nuclear, safety cooperation, decommissioning, instrument and cohesion fund to make sure that there are no overlaps, but also that the dissemination of the knowledge is used, and indeed, performance regulation would apply. So, thanks.
Thank you very much.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Deadline for amendments. Mister Nordkis would like to talk. Amendment is until April 24 at 12. With this, we conclude the long series of budgetary assessments, and we have to make a break because as for point 13, fortunately, budget section commission has no transfer request.
So we are awaiting the arrival of representatives of ombudsman because we have an agenda one transfer to be presented for ombudsman. So break should be, according to our schedule, we should take this point at half past five, at five minutes past twelve. Five minutes past twelve. As promised, five minutes past twelve. Therefore, we are resuming our session.
And after very long public assessments from the budgetary point of view, we have two last points before voting. Point number 14, that is transfer to ombudsman. And to present the transfer, I give the floor to Miss Veronica Vandel, head of budget and finance at the European Ombudsman. Please, two or three minutes.
Véronique Vandaele
The budgetary line is looking at the two requests due to the ombudsman going before the European Court of Justice. So this will cover the lawyers' fees, as well as any other costs that the mediator may have to cover. So we are working with an external lawyer, and we will take this forward as soon as the transfer is approved. Now this is made possible because the budget line due to rents will not be completely used. So we can make that payment.
So the budget in Strasbourg has been agreed for the building, as was already put forward in our written request. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Merci, I am now inviting shadows if any, but no. Not beginning with our reporter, mister Matthias Nemets.
Matjaž Nemec
Thank you, chair. Thank you, dear colleagues. As the reporter of the other section, I can confirm that we have analyzed the request for a transfer from the European Ambument one of 2026 and also the follow-up questions. The purpose of this transfer is to reinforce the item, 3205 as regards the legal cost and damages by €35,000 to cover fees and an external lawyer following two new applications brought against the European ombudsman before the court of EU. I can confirm that as a reporter, my recommendation is a positive one.
Ask the committee to support it. Thank you so much, Chair.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. So now I am inviting Shadows if there are volunteers to take the floor. If not, short conclusion by Mr. Vanderlea. Missus.
Thank.
Thank you very much for the approval.
Janusz Lewandowski
A short point. And now the last coming, that is building policy. Hopefully, we those responsible for the presentation are present in the room. Today, we have an early warning or early note from the external action service regarding delegations to Ivory Coast, Armenia, OECD, and UNESCO. And as all three are submitted from the same institution, we take one speaker to present them.
That is mister Francisco Figne, head of division for real estate, safety, and greening for three minutes.
Francisco Fini
Please. Yes. Thank you, mister chair, distinguished members. As you said, three preinformation for three building files in Côte d'Ivoire, Armenia, and Paris. In Cote D'Ivoire, we are exploring options for new office premises.
Two reasons for that. First one, the current building is not suitable and up to standards, in terms of representations. Also, very serious maintenance issues in a completely non-responsive owner. In addition, as you may remember, Cote D'Ivoire would be part of the modernization exercise of the delegation network, hosting new staff, up to 42 additional staff between '26 and '27, which means that by September 27, we would have presumably a shortage of space, especially if we want to keep our collocators. We are, therefore, looking for new premises to accommodate those two concerns.
In Armenia, we are looking for new office premises. Current offices are hosted in a former villa, as you may imagine, not designed for office purposes, but rather housings. We are also facing some security issues, and therefore, we are considering a relocation contrary to the first real estate prospection carried out in '19. The market seems much more promising now. So even if the current lease expires in 2029, we are considering starting the research right now, taking advantage of certain market opportunities.
And finally, in Paris, the EU owned offices for the delegation to the OECD, UNESCO, and Monaco, Andorra. It's their own property with huge potential, but which needs refurbishment and upgrade, notably in terms of heating and cooling, and in order to make it more also environmentally friendly and sustainable, and also to better adapt and make better use of the office space. So we are given the value of the property, we think it is sound to stay there and upgrade it to the necessary standard, in terms of office, functionalities, and environmental sustainability. So we are envisaging major refurbishment projects there, and we will, of course, for all of them come to you for prior authorization in due course. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. On our side, standing reporter for building policy, Messier.
Thank.
Olivier Chastel
Thank you very much, chair, dear colleagues. Let me thank Mister Fini for his presentation, and particularly for the responses to the questions that were sent to his service. And I believe we received all the necessary responses. Now I don't have any additional questions at this stage. I suggest we come back to this when we have more detailed information on these particular files.
Janusz Lewandowski
So now I am checking whether mister Feeney would like to repounce. Although this was not about questions. Mister Nemets would like. Okay.
Matjaž Nemec
Thank you, Sherry. It's me again, this time on behalf of my colleague, Niels Ushakov. So thank you for the mic. The plan to relocation of the new premises in Abidjan appears well motivated, and particularly in light of the reinforcement of the delegation and the limitations of the current building. From a budgetary perspective, it would be helpful to better understand the different options that were considered.
I would, therefore, like to ask, could the EIS provide a comparative cost assessment between leasing new premises and refurbishing the current building, including the long-term financial application of both options. On Armenia, the need to adopt the delegation's promises in Yerevan, the current operation and security standards is clearly outlined and understandable. At the same time, given the financial applications of a new lease, it would be useful to have more clarity on the expected cost evaluation. So my question is, could AS provide an overview of the projected total annual cost of the new premises compared to the current building and indicate over what time frame efficiency gains are expected to materialize. And the last one on Paris, renovating an EU owned asset in a prime location can make sense, but we are looking at close to 3,000,000 for a very small delegation.
In times of budgetary pressure, we need clear evidence that this investment is justified. So therefore, my question is, what is the expected return on investment of this renovation? And over what time frame will the cost be amortized through savings? Thank you, chair.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. So we have questions for the floor for mister Fini. One more intervention. Miss Madam Fires. Thank.
Angéline Furet
You, chair. I'm activated again, and I'm shadow reporter on this file. I'll speak in French. The
File that is presented to us today by the EAS shows perfectly the indiscreet way that public service is leaving, that it's completely out of kilter with their fellow citizens. We've talked about Erasmus Plus students, 750 in Paris, and here we're approving an enormous amount of money for a real estate whim. These millions just to ruin, renovate Paris offices just because you don't like the style anymore, and that is not enough. You want to rent a huge office in Cote D'Ivoire and in Armenia, €750,000. So they're looking for some 350 square meters, stating that their offices are just not luxurious enough to represent the EU.
Christelle Petex
Meanwhile, citizens have to face inflation and tighten their budgets, tightening their belts, and we're asking for palaces for these diplomats with the taxpayers' money. We categorically reject this, and we think we should put an end to this overspending. And once for all, we should respect the money of those who work for it. Thank you.
Janusz Lewandowski
Think once more of the other shadows, whoever would like to activate themselves. Normally, mister Young, Bluetooth was activated today, but not now. Yeah? 4th floor is for Mister Fini.
Francisco Fini
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In reply to the first set of questions, as I explained, we are here for a preliminary information. We are considering renting an alternative office premises, and therefore, we will be conducting this market prospection. So at this stage, we are not in a position to provide a comparative analysis. But as you know, once we have identified a suitable alternative in the questionnaire that we submit to you for approval, there will be a detailed comparison between what we will be recommending and the current option.
Speaking more specifically about Abidjan, the refurbishment of the current office building is not an option. It's a rented office building. We are not owners. And, as I said, the current owner is absolutely unresponsive, even on basic maintenance issues. So we doubt very much that you will be engaging in any refurbishment.
So this is not a suitable alternative. But once we have clarity and identify the alternative, you would have indeed the comparative analysis with the return on investment. The same for Paris. We are now starting defining the project, and there, we would have the precise estimate and would allow us to calculate the return on investment as requested. As for the remark on the Abidjan and all the others' offices, I would like to underline that I was
pound
Francisco Fini
Well, personally, I was not referring to a lack of luxury, but rather the fact that we need to have offices that have to be able to be representative in diplomacy. It is normal to have a certain level of representativeness. And when it comes to the surface area, we are very much in line with what we have. It's not a question of having bigger offices or going beyond what the minimum standard for a representation would be within the European Union. Thank you very much, chairman.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. No other comments on this point. Therefore, voting time announced, and we are on time with voting. For the beginning, I am to check the forum, although it seems that we have forum. So I am opening the vote.
Closing the vote. Yes. We have for we are proceeding to number one vote, that is decision on the mobilization of the European globalization adjustment fund for displaced workers application coming from Belgium. Amendment number 9. Who is in favor?
Who is against? False. Therefore, amendment 10, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions.
Accepted. Amendment 11, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, false. For 12, who is in favor?
Who is against? I think we have to check it. So, therefore, I am opening the vote on 12. Closing the vote. Rejected.
Now we are moving to compromise one who is in favor, who is against, Abstentions adopted. Verified number 18, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted. Nineteen twelve.
Compromise number two. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions accepted. Compromise three.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions accepted. Therefore, 29. Who is in favor?
Who is against? I think it is adopted, but we could check. Therefore, I am opening the vote. Closing vote. It is adopted.
Number 30, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are rejected. Employment amendments are covered. Therefore, number one, who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions rejected. Number two, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions are adopted.
Number three, who is in favor? Against abstentions, adopted. Number four, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions rejected.
Number five, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, I think, are adopted. If adopted. Number five.
Then that means that we are
6, 7, 4.
Janusz Lewandowski
Yeah. Other following, therefore, draft text as amended. I am opening the vote for roll call vote. Therefore, I am opening the vote. Closing the vote.
Accepted with 31 in favor, four minus, and zero abstentions. We are moving to transfers, transfer of appropriation for the general budget section three. This is a roll call vote. I am opening the vote. Closing vote.
Accepted, 32 in favor, three against, zero abstentions, and transfer of appropriations for general budget. And then, again, roll call vote. I'm opening the vote. Closing vote. Again, accepted with 27 minus one and zero and seven abstentions.
This is the end of today's very long session, and we are resuming at half past three.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.