Committee on Constitutional Affairs 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
AFCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsJuan Fernando López Aguilar
Rule of subprocedure, it's our domain. It's our competence. But as your rapporteur, I find these points, as I said, sensible and acceptable, consistent with the overall objective of the reform that we're aiming to. So insisting on the importance of a swift adoption, I'm suggesting to you that we should actually support the recommendation of the council and invite you to proceed with granting parliament's consent without delay so that we can actually make it happen, as we said, as soon as possible to make it compatible motherhood and membership, mandate and family. Thank you.
Sven Simon
Thank you very much, Juan Fernando. Now for the EPP, Laurent Vincent please. Laurent Vincent.
Loránt Vincze
Our shadow rapporteur, I want to next. I
think we have a very
to the electoral elect having a surgical intervention, and this proved to be successful, with the council as well. Our EPP group is strongly supporting this proposal from the very beginning when president Roberta Metzola asked us to accommodate the proxy voting arrangement for pregnant colleagues. For years, in this committee and generally in the house, we debated how to modernize our working methods, and this targeted revision of the European Electoral Act is a good step on that road, and it corrects a shortcoming. By allowing a member who is pregnant or has recently given birth to delegate their plenary voting rights up to three months before and six months after birth, we ensure that they are not disenfranchised from the legislative process during a highly vulnerable time. From a procedural standpoint, we must note that navigating Article 223 is usually difficult, and unanimity in the council is never guaranteed.
And that is exactly why we must recognize the swift adoption on the side of the council. It is a significant achievement. And I also sincerely hope that member states will finalize their national constitutional requirements without delay. And of course, here in AFCO committee, our work will not stop on Monday in Strasbourg, where we vote for the consent, but, indeed, we will need to adapt our rules of procedure. And we must set out the frame for a detailed and day-to-day application of this proxy voting system, and we are ready for that technical work.
So let's go ahead. No need for unnecessary delays. Our group is fully supporting, granting the green light in the committee, and enabling also the parliament to give its official consent as soon as possible. So let's get this done as a reform and have it entered into force as soon as possible. Thank you very much.
Ernő Schaller-Baross
Thank you, chair, dear rapporteur, dear colleagues. On behalf of our coordinator and shadow rapporteur, Marike Ehlers, I have the honor to speak to you. The Patriots welcome the council decision that's in line with the amendment that the European Parliament proposed last year in its own resolution. The scope wasn't broadened by the council decision, and both the scope and the time period match the intended goal. Therefore, we can fully support the draft recommendation of the rapporteur.
We applaud empowering matters and the swift procedure on this important matter. Thank you for your attention.
I was not, thank you.
Sander Smit
Thank you. I wasn't actually ready to take the floor as a shadow, I have to admit, but Mr. Borchinski is not here. I think he's our rapporteur. So really, I'd only prepared my own contribution to this discussion, and I was going to take the floor and catch the
eye. What.
I can say is that the ECR shadow rapporteur agrees with the procedure as set out by the rapporteur, the Chairman. Well, we're actually not all that formal here. So let me then add a few comments, if I may, said Mr. Schmidt. It's a good proposal.
I just think we shouldn't forget the fathers. This proposal should be adopted, but we shouldn't forget the fathers. I myself am a new father. My baby was born in November, and I had to miss that Strasbourg session. I couldn't vote.
And so I would beg all members of the committee that we do the same for fathers in the future, at least during the first days after the birth, because mothers need support at that time. And in this digital age, I think we should be able to find solutions for young fathers too. So that is something that I would suggest as a task for us during the coming years. Thank you.
Sven Simon
But it would be a pity then I wouldn't have had the chance to know the daughter of Rene if he were at home and not bringing her to the committee meeting. Is there anybody for renew? No. Then René Van Lanskrott. No.
Daniel Freund for the Greens, please.
Daniel Freund
Thank you. So, indeed, welcome, that the council has gotten back on this, that they haven't ignored our third proposal to amend the oral law. I guess the two additions that they have made on the statute and the need to change our rules of procedure, I mean, they needed to feel a bit that they contribute something to this important change as well. So, from my side as well, this is fine. No amendments needed, and let's quickly adopt this because, quite honestly, I mean, our group, and particularly the mothers in our group, have been fighting for this possibility for years that finally members, before and after the birth of their child, can still somehow contribute to the democratic process and do not lose their right to vote.
So this is important. And as the colleague has pointed out, and as I have also said when we discussed this in plenary, in 2026, we should have done this for fathers as well. Both parents have an important role to play around the birth of their child and should be able to assist without forfeiting their vote. But this is what we have now, and, obviously, this should be adopted as fast as possible, and we should then also make the necessary changes in our own rules of procedure so that, hopefully, if the ratification in member states goes ahead swiftly, that mothers can very, very soon do this and that we don't have to wait now for years until this actually enters fully into force. Thank you.
Sven Simon
Okay. Thank you very much. Any further speaker? This is not the case. Again, deadline for amendment is seventeen April at noon.
And keep in mind, Rule 107 of the rules of procedure. Thank you, colleagues. Now we move to the consideration of amendments to the Monitoring Own Initiative report on the European Political Parties and Foundations 2026 report on the application of Regulation 2445 from 2025 and on the activities funded. I give the floor to the corps rapporteur and start with the corps rapporteur from the EPP, Laurent Vincent, please.
Loránt Vincze
Thank you. You will have to stick with me because I'm also saying this on behalf of the rapporteur, Charles Gerens. And I thank you for our very good cooperation on this file. And, I would like to highlight also a very good cooperation and dialogue with the foundations on this issue as well as with the European Commission and the Digifins because it needs to be a common effort to address the shortcomings, especially regarding the European political foundations. First of all, I would like to thank you for keeping the scope of the amendments in the remit of the discussions we had with the European political foundations.
The exchange that we had with the foundations on March 18 and, of course, the other stakeholders, as I said, was very revealing of the problems that foundations are facing, from increased bureaucracy and red tape to the main concern regarding financial viability. All 10 participating foundations to our RAFCO hearing underline their financial situation, which is dire, and can threaten the existence of many of them. We all agree that European political foundations require the necessary tools and adequate, stable resources to fully assume their role. The draft report received 44 amendments, seven of them being tabled jointly by at least 3 political groups. And these amendments mainly touched the following issues to follow up on the concerns regarding the disproportionate regulatory burden: it's Amendment ten and fourteen.
The European Political Foundations to be compensated by their prospective political parties for their contribution to any joint work, Amendment 19. We also provide the possibility, and we highlight this, that national foundations become members and pay a membership contribution, Amendment 20. Article 25 of the current regulation has to be clarified to confirm explicitly that participation fees can be charged to member organizations for their involvement in activities organized by the European foundations, its amendment 21. We ask the commission to review whether any national regulatory or policy framework prohibits or hinders the payment of contributions by national entities, including political foundations, to the European ones and to follow-up with the necessary action. It's amendment 32.
This was an issue that was raised. It is not certain that there are really national regulations hindering the participation of the national members, but let's have a check nevertheless. This draft report puts forward three key messages that have been reinforced with amendments. First, that we call for a sustainable funding framework essential to preserve the independence of the European political foundations and to prevent undue private influence, to commit to revise the overall level of union funding for UPPFs under the forthcoming financial framework with a view to ensure adequate, stable, and predictable financial resources, enabling foundations to engage in long-term strategic foresight and capacity building activities. And as we have the figures just received from the commission, this is, in short.
So the budget foreseen for the political foundations will even increase in this stage of the budget planning. Third, we invite the commission to review and revise the regulation with regard to the financial provisions on foundations, including the possibility of increasing to 100% the eligible costs from EU funding. Additional ideas that we could envisage to include in compromise amendments based on the amendments tabled are the establishment of a single online reporting and disclosure system, which would improve the compliance, monitoring and reduce the administrative and compliance burden of reporting entities and which would also cover the idea of a centralized publication of public funds on the website of the parliament. Follow-up on the corrective measures for non-quantifiable and quantifiable infringements, an increase in the cap for donations as part of the diversification of own resources. So I think we are ready to continue the work with the shadow rapporteurs.
And we hope that after this resolution is adopted by the plenary, we can expect from the European Commission to come up with proposals, targeted amendments to the regulation 225/2025, 2024, 2045 as soon as possible because, indeed, the foundations need the financial viability and certainty to carry out their mission. Thank you very much.
Gabriele Bischoff
Thank you very much, also to the two rapporteurs for their work. And I think also the hearing that we had in March showed the urgency that we need to ensure really sufficient, sustainable, and predictable financing for the European political foundations that play also an essential role here as think tanks and for a European public sphere. So, and we learned again in this hearing, and we saw that the concerns and also the problems that the foundation sees are quite similar. And I think, like, in the topic before, time is of the essence. And I think also here, we see the amendments here, a lot also supported together by different groups because I think the clearer our message will be to the commission, the better.
And as I said, time is of the essence here. So, I listened very carefully to the commission statement also in the hearing. And I think, with the report here and the amendments, we will be able to give a clear message and also to indicate that it's very important regarding the financial framework to act fast and deliver really on time here. Thank you very much, and looking forward to the work together as AFCO committee as soon as possible.
Sven Simon
Thank you for the PFE. Juan Carlos Quirota Vidal. I'm gonna speak in Spanish. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Well,
Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal
What we don't want to see is European public money used for domestic matters by political parties and foundations, and we don't want to include them in any kind of centralized planning, control, centralization, interference. I mean, that is being fed by funding, which is becoming arbitrary. If you look at some of the proposals that we've got, there's not going to be any real pluralism if you have political control disguised as technical supervision. And that's key for us. Suppressing corrective measures.
So the idea of having some kind of remedy mechanism is an error. Not having that is an error. The regulation needs to contain tools that can contain errors in an appropriate, proportionate, and predictable manner because otherwise, legal certainty would be weakened and the idea of having remedies is replaced by discretionality, I. E, arbitrariness. Now there is one thing that is of particular concern here, and that is the mention of the Article 2 TF TEU treaty values.
And this recalls indeterminate legal concepts. This is something that doesn't necessarily open the door to arbitrariness, but the point is that these are legal concepts that need to be interpreted in line with the legal traditions. And these legal traditions are national traditions. The effort to try and create a new tradition on the basis of an interpretation of these concepts isn't something that we see as particularly respectful of legal rationality. Legal rationality determines that when a concept can't be defined, I mean, we can't define freedom, for example, or we can't find a definition that everyone agrees with.
But what we can do is go back to the legal traditions. So here it seems that the idea is to create a new legal tradition where freedom means what some people want it to mean, or equality between men and women, which is also an article too, means discriminatory treatment in the criminal code of some country. There's some discrimination against men sometimes. Equality between men and women in Spain, for example, is interpreted by having the existence of specific crimes for men, which don't exist for women. That's how equality is being interpreted in Spain.
And on the basis, I mean, of this logic, you could argue that equality means treating some people differently. For example, cisgender people. So these are very sensitive areas. The principles of article two TEU can't be handled on the basis of which political party you belong to or your ideology. You can only really, I don't know whether you disagree with me or whether my words aren't getting through.
I mean, if you disagree with me, then I am being interpreted correctly because I'm trying to warn you. I mean, we shouldn't call these common values because, essentially, we're trying to pretend that these are values that we all share. I mean, there are foundations that don't agree with that definition of these principles in article two. So technical supervision is all well and good, but what we don't want to see is ideological interference disguised as technical supervision. And a lack of technical supervision is well and good as well if we're trying to simplify, but it's not good if the idea is to discriminate against those foundations whose ideas aren't in line with what you think a political foundation should think.
I mean, it's very easy to take the statutes of a foundation or their request for funding, for example, and ask AI to find an error in it. And if you look for something, you'll find it. Almost definitely. So I would just say be careful when it comes to interference, and be careful with these values that can't actually be defined. I think there is a discrepancy here.
I mean, we're aware that the regulation is in force, but there is a discrepancy here. And the fact is that public money shouldn't be funding party foundations. Thank you.
Sven Simon
Okay. Thank you very much. And then we have the next speaker from the Greens, Rene van Landskott.
Reinier Van Lanschot
Thank you very much, chair. So on the European political parties and foundations, I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to both the reporters and the other reporters for the constructive work so far. And I think the draft report so far is solid. And in order to strengthen it, we should focus on two aspects. For me, those two are transparency and equity.
And we have tabled two amendments to that effect. The first is that by establishing a single online reporting and disclosure system, we can ensure adequate levels of transparency for citizens, improve compliance monitoring, and reduce the administrative and compliance board burden of reporting entities, because that burden in practice right now is often high. The second, we should encourage a more equitable distribution of funding among European political parties and European political foundations, specifically by increasing the distribution key of allocation of funds that are distributed among the beneficiary European political parties and European political foundations in equal shares. I think overall, this report of the previous two amendments mentioned brings improvements. However, those improvements are small.
In the long run, what we really need is proper European parties and proper European foundations, with politicians being accountable to European citizens more than they are now, and European elections with real European campaigns, transnational lists, and common rules and procedures. And I know we will not address it in this report, but that should remain our long-term aim. Thank you.
Sven Simon
Thank you. Is there anybody on behalf of the left? If that is not the case, then I give the floor on behalf of the ESN to Christina Anderson.
Christine Anderson
Yeah. Thank you, chair. Dear colleagues, dear rapporteurs, thank you for your work on this. We start pretty much from the same point as the draft report, which is a good draft. European political parties and foundations matter for building a European public sphere as defined in article 10, four of the treaties.
Nothing controversial here. We've tapered quite a few amendments, and with these, we aim to add a few guardrails. First, on neutrality. In amendments two and three, we make the point that union funding should remain neutral and not depend on ideological alignment, and that references to article two shouldn't turn into open-ended interpretations in practice. The same idea comes back in amendment 36: funding decisions should be based on clear and objective criteria.
Secondly, on the role of foundations. In amendment six, seven, and eight, we try to keep things clear. Foundations contribute to debate, but they are not public authorities, and broader geopolitical arguments shouldn't be used to expand competencies beyond what the treaties actually provide. Third, administrative burden. Here, I think, there is quite a bit of common ground in the room.
In amendments 26, 30, and 31, we ask for a proper look at the overall compliance costs linked to the commission simplification agenda. And very concretely, if a very small contribution ends up generating a disproportionate amount of administrative work for the foundation and the authority, then we should at least look at whether simpler rules or de minimis thresholds make sense. Fourth, let me underline one point, which in our view is actually quite fundamental. In amendment 40, we state that union funding should not be used directly or indirectly to influence electoral outcomes. I think this is a very basic principle.
Public funding should enable democratic debate, and not shape it. And making that explicit would strengthen the credibility of the whole framework. Fifth, on the consistency. In amendments nine, eighteen, and 39, we raised the question of equal treatment, that comparable EU funding actors should be subject to comparable standards of transparency and oversight. This is about coherence and trust.
And finally, in amendment 44, we slightly toned down the final wording, focusing on supporting democratic debate. So overall, our amendments are meant to make the framework clearer, more proportionate, and in that sense, more robust. And I would very much appreciate if they would find their way into some of the compromised amendments. Thank you very much.
Sven Simon
Thank you very much. Is there any other colleague who would like to take the floor? Loren Vincent Tusamov, please.
Loránt Vincze
Thank you, chair, and thank you colleagues for your interventions, which are mostly supportive towards this resolution that we prepare. You touched many important topics, even some that are not necessarily in the remits of our exercise now. And I will tell you why. The regulation on European Political Party Foundation actually has been finalized last year after more than a decade of negotiations. That represents the main framework of our work and the regulation concerning the political parties and foundations.
So what we have to do now is to have targeted amendments concerning the financial viability of the political foundations. This has not been addressed during the recast procedure. And the procedure is as such: if the topic has not been opened, then we could not do it in the last phase of the negotiation that I had the honor to report last year. So the next step to try to intervene and make things better for their foundations will be through this implementation report, and later based on the proposal of the commission to have a new recast procedure. So we insisted on having very targeted intervention and amendments, and not to reopen the whole discussion on the political parties and foundations.
Some of your interventions have their merits, of course. It, we can have a debate about how Article two can be implemented in the case of political foundations and parties, how this can be checked, how this still ensures the necessary ideological diversity in the parliament. But it's an implementation process. And we have to see the authority that is handling those matters, how they will implement the regulation we adopted last year. So I would like to ask you to understand us.
Our intention is to address specifically the financial situation of the political foundation and make sure that they can work well and according to their mission. So, this is what I will propose at the shadows meeting, and I hope that we will have a majority in that sense to be able to finalize it quickly. Thank you very much.
Sven Simon
Thank you very much for your contributions and participation, colleagues. The first part of the committee meeting ends here. The session will resume this afternoon at half past three, with the Interparliamentary Committee meeting on the institutional aspects of artificial intelligence in the context of European integration. I look forward to seeing many of you this afternoon. Thank you very much to the interpreters.
Have a good lunch time. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.