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 sittingsSiegfried Mureşan
Last sentence on heading one, and I'm coming towards the end, Mr. President. The European Commission initially had proposed that 25% of the first heading, about €200,000,000,000, remains non allocated, not doing fence for the commission later to see with the governments and member states what they do. We think that we, as a parliament, should have a say on everything related to the budget, and this is why here in this first heading in the national regional partnership plans, our proposal is to ring-fence everything for agriculture, for migration, for cohesion, for social, and so on. Then, of course, there will be flexibility within the policies. And, of course, there are also flexibility instruments, but we can't accept as a parliament to leave €200,000,000,000 there without us later influencing what will happen there.
Just one sentence on heading two, the competitiveness fund. There as well, we have the 10% increase. We are proposing to restore the, in fact, we have within the heading two, we have the competitiveness fund, and we are proposing that within the competitiveness fund, we ring fence a specific amount for EU for health as the respective committee in the parliament has demanded, and also earmarking an amount for life related actions, but also with strong provisions on transparency and tracking. So what happens with the money there is, of course, important. One of the flagship projects of the Parliament is Horizon Europe.
We're focusing on that. €200,000,000,000 should be the allocation there. We are also increasing the allocations for the Connecting Europe Facility because of the importance of military mobility and energy, and we're increasing Erasmus by 16% in comparison to the draft budget of the commission. That has always been a flagship program of the Parliament. We think that's important.
So this being said, we try to work in a very inclusive manner with all political groups and also with the opinions of the opinion-giving committees. We thank you for the support of everyone. We thank you for the work. We spent many hours in discussions with you. And, of course, more than anyone, I would like to thank Carla Tavares, our co-rapporteur, for all the work that she did.
Thank you, President.
Carla Tavares
Thank you, dear colleague. Sorry if I'm late. So I will speak in Portuguese. In first, I would like to thank the well,
First of all, I would also like to thank the extraordinary work carried out with Siegfried over the past few months. Just very happy about how we've cooperated with the different committees. And now we have this proposal, which has a lot of safeguards, safeguarding European values and what our European citizens want. And as Sigrid has said, we've looked at what's of concern in the next MFF, the our mission to do more, but not with less. We want to protect European values, we were ready to look at the new challenges the EU faces.
Obviously, defense, defending, traditional policies, culture, passé, pesh, cohesion, the ESF, life. And in this proposal, as Siegfried said, all the different committees have given their opinions on this. Just three points I'd like to add when it comes to governance and simplification. On various occasions, we've been able to discuss this. We've been constructive in the different committees, all colleagues together, saying that everybody in parliament is in favor of simplification, but we can't have this to the detriment of our mandate when it comes to our competence, when it comes to the budget.
So simplification can't be something that just calls into question the final users, the end users of all this money. And in the proposal we have here, we have some very clear ideas as to the rule of law, how we preserve the rule of law, our values, the values of the EU. Another question, which I think is also key and which will be even more important to the next few months. Well, between parliament, council and commission, we will need to look at own resources. So thank you to the two shadows who, all for the work you did on the own resources. We worked together and tried to strengthen this area and even provide extra credibility in our proposal.
We've been able to discuss the CFP, obviously, not forgetting what council wanted by 2020, and the own resources issue there. And the two co-rapporteurs, well, we didn't want to create new problems. We just wanted to get to the solutions. So we wanted to make that possible, these own resources having a more ambitious budget, more investment. So either you have member states paying more.
That's complicated. Or we look at a significant reduction in EU policies. And, again, here, when it comes to cohesion policies, that's difficult. And thirdly, this is what we think we should go for, is look at own resource. And I think now is the time to have that discussion.
So, hopefully, we will have colleagues supporting this. We're able to move on to the next step, the April plenary. Just to remember, parliament, obviously will be completely ready to look at the various positions represented. The very clear positions we have in the text, especially when it comes to relations on the budget negotiations with the council and commission. Hopefully, they will do the same.
It'll be a negotiation between peers. And hopefully, quickly, we'll get the council and commission on board because we think we've been very constructive and hopefully be able to be specific when it comes to negotiations. Thank you, chair.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you, Carla, and thank you, Seifried, also. We go to the shadow reporters now. Given the time limits I have to obey, I can give only, well, and be strict about it, one minute to each of the shadow reporters. First of all, mister Bucek for the PFE, please. The
Tomasz Buczek
Patriot Group is critical with a single plan for each member state. This leads to centralization and is contrary to proportionality or subsidiarity. The proposals failed to react to major problems identified by the Court of Auditors on RRF and the way the budget is to be implemented. We cannot accept new own resources, which should not be acceptable to sovereign member states. We cannot agree to the conditionality mechanism, which is used for political purposes.
We cannot see the budget being extended. The RRF for 28 to 34 are at 1.27 of GNI. Of the EU, this percentage doesn't reflect the dramatic situation in the budget, such as next generation EU being repaid, we're against drawing more debt together, follow the court says that the level of indebtedness in the EU might reach €900,000,000,000 in 2027. So tenfold of what we had in 2020. The European Commission wants to spend €200,000,000,000 within Global Europe just to give money away to third countries.
This is wasting the money of the European taxpayers. On the one hand, we're in debt. On the one hand, the commission wants to draw on common debt.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Minute and 40 seconds. I asked you to conclude. You don't conclude, so I pass on to the next speaker, Mr. Zile.
Roberts Zīle
Thank you, chair. And I would like to start thanking Sigfried and Carla for not an easy task, but you managed so far, and I'll be I'm sure we will manage also in the future. Also, as our shareholders, we perhaps as a group, of course, are not completely happy with all the issues, but anyway, we will be very constructive with the approach here. And I would like to say that the issues like proposal for the next generation euro payments to put a whole balance and to get us to 10%, what is agreed already mentioned. I think it's a good step forward for the dialogues in the future.
And the same, I would like to point out Europe, eastern border regions, of course, coming from the Baltics and also attitude to defense. Issues also on common agriculture policy, proposition for the proposal, and some other issues on European social funds and similar. So thank you very much.
Fabienne Keller
Thank you very much, chairman. I'd like to thank all the, in particular, two rapporteurs, Gutter and Siegfried, for the excellent working atmosphere, given all the rapporteurs and amongst all the rapporteurs from the pro European groups. As Coler said, in the text, we've reflected the European priorities in the general thrust of the report, like the rule of law. It's ambitious, as you said, Siegfried, with a strong will, with a competitiveness fund to strengthen strategic autonomy in the EU, and a number of key programs. But there's the importance, as has been said, of the outermost regions and the life program, which were also supported by Rasmus Andres and my colleague.
We need own resources, which are significant to reflect this ambition and this 10% increase that we're proposing to the council. From Renew and Luchis, the coordinator, and for myself, we have full support for the report. Thank you very much.
Rasmus Nordqvist
Thank you, chair. And first, let me thank the two co-rapporteurs and the colleagues, not least former speaker Fabienne Keller, for the collaboration on this report. I think we managed to achieve a balanced reported position from the parliament. I think nobody's gonna be overly and 100% happy, and that that is perhaps why we exactly found those balances. Particularly, we are very happy about, of course, that we continue the funding for life.
It has been a key for me and my group. And not least as well the horizontal issues both with the performance regulation being strongly positioned in the report and, of course, rule of law conditionality, the European values. So I think we have achieved a good balance that we can all say, yes, let's go ahead. And then we have very difficult discussions with, of course, the council and commission from here on. Thank you.
Thank.
João Oliveira
Thank you very much, chairman. There are positive elements made by the robot vis-à-vis the commission's proposals, but there are fundamental issues which are still negative when it comes to our evaluation of this draft text. There's a weak increase of the fund or the budget, an increase for the European social fund, even if the amounts aren't what we would like to see per se. There are some important points. But in a negative way, there's the strengthening of the militarization, rush for armaments and the loss of weight for farming and fisheries, which dropped to less than 50% in the current configuration with the concentration of powers in the hands of the commission, given all the commission's criticism of the pensions.
Alexander Jungbluth
But all this will be under the control of the commission. Thank you. I'll speak German. That I can say that we don't agree with this report as it is. We have a number of points of criticism, and these are partly fundamental.
In the ESN, we criticize the fact that the reference that we choose here when we talk about financial planning is GNI with an earmarking, as it were, of 1.38%. We should have a needs-based approach as a committee. Rather, we have a reference to an economic performance. So we're criticizing the fact that we think the overall approach is absurd. A lot of things have been said.
There are positive factors. It says in almost every report that we need an agreement, but this is not going to be difficult to find. And it says that the funds will have to be increased. I think there'll be huge opposition from the council. I think we won't succeed when it comes to own resources, and that's actually a good thing.
Johan Van Overtveldt
The own resources, corporatists. First of all, Miss Nerudova, please.
Danuše Nerudová
Thank you, chair. Thanks to the corporatists for the very few words about own resources chapter. We want more on the expenditure side because we have new challenges, but we are very timid on the revenue side and on how to finance them. In this sense, the parliament reiterates its support for new own resources. It's important that we link the two files, and that is why it is important to have a strong section on this issue in this report.
Without new own resources, the EU will need to cut its budget by 15 to 20% each year because we need to repay pandemic debts. As a parliament, we say we do not want to cut the important programs that are helping citizens in all regions. We also create state that if the council wants to remove some elements from the package, especially those that could hurt the competitiveness of our firms, we say yes, but we propose alternatives. One of the alternatives we propose is a digital levy on large technological platforms. It is a question of tax fairness, but it can also bring substantial revenue into the budget.
Thank you.
Sandra Gómez López
Thank you, chair. I'm going to speak in Spanish. First.
Of all, just to say thank you to the care reporters for some excellent cooperation when it comes to own resources. I'd also like to thank my co-rapporteur and the shadows. I think we've got to a very good agreement. It really is a step forward to a position that we've been maintaining as Parliament up until today. So he wants an ambitious IMF.
And for that, what's on the table is this need for a package of own resources that is just as ambitious. So financial autonomy vis a vis member states, and that will allow us to cover the new priorities that are there on the table as well, without cutting from the traditional policies that are also a symbol of the EU. I think, therefore, it's a good step forward. We've linked the MFF to some sort of agreement on the own resources package. This is the first time we've done this.
And therefore, we are moving forward when it comes to the financial autonomy that we need in this institution. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. So this concludes the part of the discussion of this item, and then we go to the plaza resistance, which is the voting on this, MFF text. First of all, I have to say that there will be a technical amendment introduced orally on amendment number one, but that will be done when we arrive at the voting at amendment number one, compromise one. So we start with compromise three. Let's first do the test of the machinery.
I open the vote. I close the vote, and apparently, it's working. So, first, compromise three. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise 4. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise five, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise six, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise seven, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise eight, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise nine was in favor. Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise 10. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise 11. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise 12. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise 13. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. And then we arrive at compromise one. But as I said, there will be no introduction of a technical adjustment by the rapporteur Maurizan. Please.
Siegfried Mureşan
Thank you very much, Mr. President. Indeed, we would like to inform you about a technical modification to the compromise amendment one because there was an omission in the shared text, in the text that we shared with you, and we would like to include two citations mentioning the European Economic and Social Committee opinions on the MFF and own resources. We have included in the citations the reference to the opinions of the committee of the regions, but we simply forgot to mention the reference to these two opinions. So, basically, under citations, we would add having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the multi-annual financial framework 2028-2034 adopted at the plenary session on 22 January 2026. And the second reference says having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the own resources proposal adopted at the economic and social committee plan recession on 22 January 2026.
So that's it. Just the reference, the citation. I hope we can all accept it, and I hope no one opposes this technical adjustment. Thank you very much.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. I dare assume that we all can accept this, which seems to be the case. Thank you. Then we vote on this, compromise one. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise two, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. And then we vote by roll call vote on the draft text as an amendment. I open the vote. I close the vote, and it is adopted 26 in favor, 9 against, and 5 extensions.
Congratulations to the reporters. Congratulations to the reporters. Thank you all. Mister Oliveira, just a minute. Just a minute.
Mister Oliveira.
João Oliveira
Taking into consideration rule 56 number four, I request to present in the written form a minority position on this voting.
Okay. Thank you.
Test. Test.
Okay. We're.
increasing the
Volume a bit. Speak a bit more.
Speaker 36
Test. Just give me a minute for the languages, because I wasn't ready. I mean, great. Okay. We can start.
English.
Spanish.
Speaker 27
Estonian. Latvian. Lithuanian. Hungarian. Polish.
Slovakian. Slovak. Slovenian. Bulgarian, Romanian, Croatian. I can't hear Christian.
Speaker 45
Okay. Good. And can we also go back and do the German? Because I skipped it by mistake. Okay.
Perfect. Thank you very much.
Have a nice meeting. Bye.
Anna Cavazzini
Welcome to our afternoon session. I think we can restart with a slight delay. Before we go into agenda item 11, I have two announcements. And the first is that the adoption of the minutes of the twenty-third of March 24 is postponed. And the second announcement is that you know that we have commissioner Sheftevich coming this afternoon for a structured dialogue, but he will arrive fifteen minutes earlier, because he has to also leave earlier at five.
So please be a little bit more on time or fifteen minutes earlier, to have enough peace here to question commissioner Shefkowitz. So, with that, we come to agenda item 11. We are working on a draft of an opinion on the establishment of European business wallets. The rapporteur for the draft opinion is Miss Veronika Sifrova, but she cannot be here today and will be replaced by Santro Gossi. And today, we have the opportunity to basically discuss the draft opinion.
So I give first the floor to the rapporteur or his her replacement.
Sandro Gozi
I couldn't hear you. Thank you. Thank you, chair. As you say, I'm here to represent Veronica Sifrova, a member of our renew group and the rapporteur for the CEMIMCO draft opinion on the establishment of the European Business Wallet. The European Business Wallet legislation aims to provide and harmonize digital instruments that are trusted and user friendly for economic operators and public sector bodies to securely identify, authenticate, and exchange data with full legal effect across EU borders.
Built on the European digital identity framework ecosystem, it extends its use to economic operators both inside and outside the EU. For us, as Renu, it was important to focus the amendments on three key areas. First, interoperability of the future European business wallet ecosystem, including strengthening the digital single market, ensuring seamless cross-border functionality, and guaranteeing compatibility between wallets and existing digital systems. Second, usability and accessibility for all businesses in the Union. If the legislation is to be successful, it must not create additional administrative or financial burdens for small and medium-sized enterprises, sole traders, and self-employed persons.
These economic operators are as essential to the functioning of the single market as large companies. Therefore, the wallets must be accessible, affordable, and easy to use. The third area of focus is an innovation-friendly ecosystem supported by strong governance. The draft opinion aims to ensure that the wallet ecosystem remains open and competitive, while being underpinned by robust governance. Effective monitoring, reporting, and review mechanisms are essential to prevent market concentration, address implementation challenges, and guarantee long-term trust and accountability across the single market.
These priorities, together with ensuring the security and technological neutrality of European business wallets, are of key importance to this committee. Our rapporteur remains fully open to cooperation on additional priorities that shadow rapporteurs and political groups may wish to put forward. Thank you, chair.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much to Santro Gossi for replacing the rapporteur. We now come to the round of shadows, and start with EPP with Mister Bugallo.
Sebastião Bugalho
Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues. I would first off like to congratulate the rapporteur and, of course, Sandro too for the draft opinion presented today. The text amendments, on our view, reflect the strong commitment to the commission proposal, which, of course, we also salute to the fact that it boosts innovation and competitiveness and, of course, the full potential of the single market, something that we believe should be done as soon as possible. I would also like to commend the commission for this timely and forward-looking initiative.
The business wallet presents a model where businesses share verifiable data in the form of electronic attestations issued by authorized providers. So it creates that dynamic, but it's secure at the same time, and we think that's good. Enabling a secure digital interaction between businesses and public authorities is not just desirable. It's essential, namely to cut red tape, but at the same time, to fight corruption in our countries. It is just for us to have a perspective.
We esteem that this simplification effort will save up to 5,000,000,000 in administrative costs between now and 2029, and the business wallet as a whole should unlock at least 160,000,000,000 in saving for business each year. So it's definitely something that we should do. Just to finish and to conclude, I have to white light. I apologize to my non-Portuguese colleagues. The fact that our government in Portugal became the first European Union country to launch a national digital business wallet, which has been a pioneer in developing this idea that should be truly European in a near future.
So to conclude, we look forward to work with the colleagues, with the rapporteur, and with other political groups so this can be done as soon as possible for us to develop our single market as soon as possible too. Thank you very much.
Marc Angel
Yes. Thank you, chair. And I would also like to thank Veronika Chiflova, the rapporteur, for her excellent work, and I think it's a good basis to further strengthen the Commission's proposal. Indeed, we all know that businesses today face a heterogeneous landscape of digital environments across member states, and a lack of interoperability when it comes to digital public service solutions. And when I look at my own member state, Luxembourg, where due to our small size, we have a lot of cross-border economic activity, companies often have to adapt to and accommodate different requirements and systems when they interact with companies or also public sector bodies from the neighboring countries.
So the European business wallet could hence be a crucial tool to bridge the current heterogeneous landscape and lead to a more coherent European framework with regards to digital identification, authentication, and also data exchange for both the cyclic sector, public sector bodies and businesses, and thus reduce unnecessary administrative requirements. It would notably simplify cross-border economic activities or specific procedures like know your customer processes, permitting, or public procurement, and ultimately strengthen the internal market. We somewhat regret that there was no impact assessment, as it could have provided a more granular understanding of the needs and constraints regarding the adoption of business wallets. As socials and democrats, we support a gradual approach with voluntary use for companies, and we hope that by making it a trustworthy tool that covers the specific needs of legal entities, we will see significant uptake. In our view, this means ensuring a high level of data protection, cybersecurity, and interoperability, as well as accessibility and user friendliness.
The transition to digital-by-default interactions should not create barriers to participation in the internal market. We must therefore ensure that European business wallets take into account affordability, user friendliness, and the needs of small and medium enterprises, self employed persons, and users with limited digital skills, including persons with disabilities. Public sector bodies, especially at the regional and local level, should receive support in implementing their obligations with regards to the use of the European business wallets. We welcome the provision specifying that the European business wallet providers need to be established in the European Union and have their principal place of business and main operations in the EU. Considering the role of European business wallets in the EU digital infrastructure, we believe that this can be further strengthened by expanding these requirements to providers of supporting infrastructure, such as cloud providers.
And additionally, we believe that in view of the sensitivity of some of the data handled by the European business wallets, that data should be solely processed and stored within the EU. This will strengthen the European Union's digital sovereignty and reduce vulnerabilities and the risk of dependencies. And we finally think that supervision, as well as the provisions governing business wallets offered in third countries, can be reinforced. We will introduce amendments in this direction, and I'm really looking forward to constructive negotiations with all the colleagues. Thank you very much.
Klara Dostalova
Thank you very much, and I will continue in the Czech language. First.
Of all, allow me to say thanks to the reporter for her draft, it is going in the right direction. Amendments aimed at the protection of small and medium enterprises can be supported by us. We have consulted this draft also with our digital agency in the Czech Republic, which is in charge, among others, of e-government, and we have a few comments. First of all, what we're missing is a clear solution for the coexistence of this wallet with the existing national systems or the recognition of the existing systems if they are able to provide all of the functions according to this regulation. In the Czech Republic, we have had this sort of system since 2009.
It cost hundreds of millions of crowns. First, we need to clarify the definition of an authorized representative. It must be clear from the text that this position, the position of authorized representative, only applies to the administration of the wallet as such, and it doesn't concern any other legal actions which are binding for the owners of the wallet. Thirdly, what we also need to clarify are the legal effects of deliveries through the wallet. The system is one thing, but the legal effects are another matter.
Procedural rules, such as the administrative code, should not be affected. In The Czech Republic, we have this rule of fiction of service. If a document is delivered into a so-called data box and it's not opened by the owner, it is deemed to be opened on the tenth day. And it's also linked to fines and things like that, and then the legal effects also stop. But I believe that similar technical matters will also be discussed during the meetings of Shedeur Raportez and the technical meetings, and I look forward to cooperation.
Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you very much. I think that concludes the round of shadows. But is there any other member wanting to come in? If not, then I give the floor to the commission, and I welcome from DG Connect. If I'm hi.
Welcome.
Speaker 43
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for inviting the commission to this very important meeting today. We are pleased to see that the draft opinion supports the core aspects of the commission proposal, recognizing the potential of the European business wallet to facilitate the digital transformation of businesses and public administrations, and in particular, maintaining the obligation for all public sector bodies to accept European business wallets is essential to ensure widespread adoption and usability. A fully functional and integrated digital single market is at the heart of the One Europe, One Market strategy. The European business wallets are, therefore, a crucial tool for our businesses to be able to thrive in this environment.
The European business wallets complement the other initiatives, such as the recent EU Inc. Proposal for the Industrial Accelerator Act, and they will play a central role in making the digital by default approach a reality. Because by enabling businesses to operate in a fully digital environment, the business wallets will help to reduce bureaucratic hurdles, increase efficiency, and, of course, enhance the overall competitiveness of the EU companies. However, it's also to be noted that the business wallets are a strategic initiative that goes beyond enhancing the competitiveness of the EU single market. The business wallets play a crucial role in promoting.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.