Committee on Budgetary Control Ordinary meeting CONT Committee 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
CONT European Parliament
Follow its sittingsAndreas Schwab
Compromise amendment seven in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment eight in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment nine in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Now we go further down to the amendment of Catarina. 16 in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
17 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment one in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise Amendment 7 in favor. Act two. Yes.
It's true. I went in the wrong direction. Compromise Amendment two in favor, against abstentions, adopted. Amendment 24 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment three in favor, against abstentions, adopted.
Amendment one in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Amendment four in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise Amendment four in favor, against abstentions, adopted. Amendment five in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Amendment six in favor, against, abstentions adopted.
Amendment seven in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Amendment 35 of Mister Foynt in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment five in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Thank you very much. And we come to the final vote.
Please use your machine. I close the vote, and the report is adopted with 21 votes in favor. Congratulations, Sergio. Felicitation. We thank you so much for being so disciplined because like that, vote can also be a pleasure for you. We come, therefore, after a little moment of relax, to item number five.
We come to agenda point number five, establishing the European fund for economic, social, and territorial cohesion, agriculture and rural fishers and maritime prosperity and security for the PL 2028-2034. Our rapporteur for opinion, so the draftsperson, is Eero Heine Loma. And I see also that some shadows are here. And therefore, I think we should continue today's meeting with the consideration of this draft report. We will kick off the debate by giving the floor to the rapporteur for the opinion for five minutes, and then all the shareholders will have the floor.
So Eero, the floor is yours.
Please listen to Eero.
Eero Heinäluoma
Okay. Thanks. May I thank the Conte Secretariat for the excellent work on the draft opinion. Thanks also to the Court of Auditors for their important work, valuable as always. The NRPB will be a central pillar of the next MFF, as you know.
The commission proposes to channel hundreds of billions of euros through the national and regional plans over the coming 7 years. The RRF was the first large-scale test of this kind of model, and the Commission now hopes to extend it through the NRP plans. Although performance-based instruments can have advantages, as you know, they can also bring real risks for control transparency and accountability. And this has been seen in the past, where the Court of Auditors has repeatedly identified serious weaknesses. So we must now make sure that we do not repeat the same mistakes, and instead integrate the lessons into the design of the NRP plans.
In my draft opinion, I have focused on addressing the assurance and accountability framework for the contribution to have as much impact as possible. I believe it's important that we focus on the elements within our remit. I have, therefore, limited my amendments to the articles and results falling within the scope based on the mapping provided by the secretariat and agreed by coordinators. I hope we can all agree to follow this principle. Then on substance, I believe colleagues have already done excellent work on previous files in Kont, for example, the MFF opinion and any report on firm performance-based instruments.
In my draft opinion, I have drawn on the lines we have taken in these. So some key points. First, the shift to milestone-based payments will require national management and audit authorities to fundamentally adapt their systems. I will therefore be important that the readiness to carry out these new responsibilities is verified before implementation begins, and is also supported by capacity building. Second, I propose to further strengthen the horizontal conditions related to the rule of law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the protection of the EU's financial interests.
These are principles parliament and also Kont has previously advocated very strongly. Third, the draft makes clear that simplification cannot come at the expense of transparency or traceability. Complete audit trails and the ability to verify underlying costs are essential for demonstrating value for money and guaranteeing that member states are treated equally. And finally, the draft strengthens the framework for financial corrections and recoveries. Noncompliance with applicable law must have financial consequences, and the commission should be obliged to recover amounts where milestones or targets are not met.
With this, I look forward to the amendments and the work ahead. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much for this presentation, Eero. Now we come to the round of shadows. And I, first of all, would like to give the floor to the coordinator of the EPP group, Mr. Stehofsky.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank our reporter for the draft proposal. I think this proposal is a very good step. But you know me, I every time, so I'm looking to upgrade it and make Europe great again. Also, I can make, EU found simple and easier to use.
It can also reduce too many programs and tools. This is important for member states and for the people who use the European funds. But we must be careful. If we give more flexibility, we must also have stronger control. EU money must be used in a correct and transparent way, and I will focus on my amendments on several points, and I will be very concrete.
First, stronger control of EU money and better protection of EU budget. We have to avoid the possibility that a country that has founds, we just move them to other chapter and will be able to use it again. Second, same product needs to cost the same in different countries. We need to use an effective verification system that will, in real time, verify the cost of ordered goods. One thing cannot cost 10 times more in a different country.
I can give you many examples from our mission in Slovakia or from Malta and other countries. Certain things, clear connection between money and real results, not only plans. I want to make sure that payment depends on the real progress. If there are no results, there should be no money. Four, it's simple and clear rules so people can use the funds more easily.
We want to avoid any double justification or the need for double audits. And last but not least, it's better checks and audits to stop fraud and misuse. Control must be effective, that data needs to be interoperable, and member states must show a will to cooperate. I am looking forward to our cooperation report there, and I hope so that we will make together amazing work.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Sikhovski. Next speaker is Mister Sanchez. He's not here. The next speaker for the ECR is Mister Storza.
Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza
Thank you, dear colleagues. I am very happy that we have the opportunity to express our opinion at Kont on the commission's proposal on NRPPs in the context of the next financial framework. Or maybe I should say the non, the national plans of nonperformance because this is a mixed instrument that is a mixture of two things, but not one thing. It is agriculture, fishing, and security. Basically, all the people's money will be put into one single basket, which means that all these funds will be easily distributed on political criteria and not on performance-based criteria.
This is a reality. This is a mass decentralization that basically shifts decision making and responsibility to member states, to the detriment of local and regional authorities that are often closer to the people's needs, that is to the European citizens' needs. We're talking about less money for more objectives, more confusion for people who will try to develop with the help of European funds. What we are offered is an NRPP type mechanism, but we've seen the errors in implementation at the European level. And we've seen how difficult it was, it has been to access funds.
The difference is if the NRPPs looked good on paper, this fund that we're now discussing is problematic, even from this conception, design phase. Moreover, we are promised a simplification. In reality, the simplification only concerns cutting bureaucracy for the European Commission, while for the member states, for the regions, and for the beneficiaries of European projects, the administrative burden is just the same, or it's even weighed here. So less money, less clarity, and fewer results for the citizens. The current proposal of the European Commission is no progress.
It is a clear step back, and I hope we sanction it, relevantly even at Conte. Thank you.
Thank.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, mister Storza. Now for the Renew group, Mikael Wittig. Thank you much. You
Michal Wiezik
I would like to thank the reporter for a strong and well-focused draft opinion. Performance-based funding is clearly transforming the way the EU budget is implemented. However, multiple advantages such as simplification, speed, and stronger result orientation come with a risk, which we were able to observe throughout the course of its implementation. This is why I fully support the reporters' focus on strengthening readiness, reinforcing horizontal conditions, ensuring traceability, and clarifying financial corrections. Let me add a few points where I think we should go even further.
First of all, on risk of corruption and rule of law monitoring, performance based systems rely heavily on national structures. However, unfortunately, we have cases where the national structures are weak or have become weaker, which allows risks to multiply. We should therefore push for stronger operational anticorrection safeguards, including reinforcements, cooperation with Olaf and EPO. Rule of law monitoring must also be more than a formal condition. The commission must be equipped and willing to act swiftly, including suspending payments where risks are identified.
In this context, I will also look very closely at the proposed reallocation mechanism. There is a real risk that flexibility could weaken enforcement of horizontal conditions, including those linked to the charter as highlighted by the ECA. Second, on double funding. This is a critical gap. The proposal does not sufficiently address the risks that the same expenditure could be financed twice under different instruments.
We need clear provisions ensuring that control systems can prevent, detect, and correct double funding, covering both cost-based overlaps and output-based overlaps, which are particularly relevant in performance models. Without this, we risk undermining both fairness and sound financial management. Third, on paying agencies and guarantees. The proposal maintains the requirement that payment-pending agencies provide assurance on legality and regularity. This is welcome, but it is not precise enough.
And again, unfortunately, lack of access to data on final beneficiaries, hinders public oversight, and risks wide regulators or even potential fraud. We should clarify, therefore, that these payments refer to those made to final beneficiaries and that they must be traceable in the accounting system of paying agencies. In addition, while accreditation remains a key safeguard, the proposal does not empower the commissions to set detailed rules as it has done under the current regime. Finally, I would like to come back to the audit trail. This is a longstanding issue that we must tackle to ensure a complete and verifiable evidence chain.
Therefore, the audit trail must include all data and documentation down to the level of beneficiaries and final recipients, covering both the achievement of milestones and targets and compliance with applicable law. Colleagues, we are speaking about hundreds of billions of euros in the next MFF. Performance-based delivery can work, but only if it is underpinned by strong controls, real transparency, and credible enforcement. This opinion is an important step in the right direction. As shadow, I look forward to working constructively to further strengthen the proposal and ensure that the performance goes hand in hand with integrity.
Thank you very much.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you, Michal Witzig, for that. Next speaker for the Green Group is Daniel Freund.
Daniel Freund
Thank you, chair. To the shadow for a good draft opinion. I guess the difficulty that we're in now is, well, we have as parliament in the last plenary decided that we're going with this model even though the European Court of Auditors said, don't do it, and it's gonna be way more difficult. And now we need to fix as much as we can, basically, the shortcomings within this new model. So let me be very concrete on the things that you proposed.
I'm gonna talk about two things where I'm skeptical and then outline the points that we would like to add the screens. So first of all, much support for the focus on improving accountability. Where I'm skeptical is the proposal to explicitly add the UN CRPD, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as a conditionality. So, I mean, we fully support the UN UNRPD, but our legal understanding is that there are actually stronger protections already in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. And so doubling it up with the UN system, I'm not sure we're getting where we want to go, with this.
The second one is on this new PIF conditionality. Again, I'm a bit unsure how this would work in practice and not create overlaps because the PIF report is, of course, not broken down by member state, unlike the rule of law report, for example. And the rest of the regulation already has the provisions on irregularities, financial corrections, audit, and control, and so on. So I'm not sure how this PIF conditionality and the UN Charter conditionalities really work. So what we would like to try to do as Greens is that we take onboard a few more of the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors to close or at least minimize the accountability gap.
So, three points on this. We would like to sharpen the definition of irregularity and maybe also serious irregularity. Second, we would like to oblige the commission to establish and apply clear methodologies, assessment criteria for the evaluation of milestones and targets, how this really works, when do they say it's achieved, or not. And third, we'll make a proposal on how to improve the cost estimates for achieving the milestones and targets, and make sure they more or less correspond to the actual costs. And then on the conditionality, since this is really the heart of the issue, I think what I would like to propose is that, well, first of all, there should be the same decision making on both charter and rule of law conditionality that we don't separate that out and have different majorities for those.
And I would actually say, let's try to do this via an implementing act, so that we, as budget authority, as parliament, can object, either the triggering or the lifting of a conditionality. We have seen in the cases of the governments of Poland and Hungary. I mean, we're at some point, we were talking, I think, a €140,000,000,000 where the commission decided, yes or not, this can be paid out. This is quite significant, and it can be done without any say by the budget authority. And I think this, we should fix by this implementing act model.
Second, I would propose that we extend the rule of law conditionality to democracy and rule of law conditionality. And third, then, what has already been mentioned also by Thomas, that we amend article twenty four nine to prevent the reshuffling of frozen funds. That will be the amendments from our screens.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, mister Freund. Thomas Ormazier is the next speaker, but he is not here.
On his behalf, please, Mister Justeve.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you so much, chair. My apologies for Jonas, who is not able to be present today, but I will say a few words on his behalf. So, in general, we are very much aligned with the draft. We think it's a good starting point for discussion, even though there is room for improvement. We think simplification is a good thing, especially if it's focused on the users so that you can actually get access to the funds without it being too bureaucratic or cumbersome.
But it has to be followed by true traceability and true responsibility for the funds. That's our leading principle. And as previously mentioned, we are still at the point where the lessons from the mistakes with the RF have to be learned and implemented, and that will be a major task for us in this exercise. We also strongly support stronger writings on rule of law. And we think that it's a real weakness if we are too dependent on the national audit authorities.
I mean, we have clearly a couple of examples at the moment. Slovakia being a problem child, being mentioned earlier in this debate, but we can also look at the present debate in Greece on the misuse of agriculture funds, where actually the government is picking a fight with the EU. And it's hard to believe it will not have an impact on the national auditing system as well. There has to be sharp tools for Olaf and Epi Epo to intervene to protect the financial interests of the union. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, mister. Speaking on behalf of Mr. Hommeier. We have, by that, closed the round of shadows. Is there any other member who would like to comment on this?
If that's not the case, then we can conclude this. I don't know, Eero, if you would like to make some concluding remarks.
Eero Heinäluoma
Yes. Many thanks for your constructive comments. And it seems that we are more or less living on the same planet after hearing your comments. There are several things which we have to concentrate on during our works. And one of these things really important is the role of national competent authorities and the practices of national authorities when they have a bigger role here, to make sure that the money is well spent.
So then my second comment is that it's good to hear that we all can agree that we are working according to the remit of the committee, which means that we are concentrating on the control sides of the procedures. Then I suppose there is really room for looking at the details how to make sure that we have a well functioning and stronger control system. And obviously, we have to look once more at the conditionalities, which has been mentioned in several contributions. And then the question of double funding will be a really interesting one. That must be one of the things where we must be absolutely sure that there is no possibility for double funding.
So just to remind you that until Thursday, May 7, you have the possibility to make your amendments, and then we will start our work and look forward to constructive cooperation between the.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you, mister Rappoteux. Exactly. That's what you had to remind our colleagues that the next steps in the process are the deadline for tabling amendments on May 7, 02:00, and meetings are then planned to take place in the weeks '23 and '24, and there should be then the voting committee in June. Thank you very much. Like that, we can move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the union civil protection mechanism and union support for health emergency preparedness and response and repeating decision 13 out of 2013.
The rapporteur responsible in SANT is Lere Panjin. Our opinion is done by mister. And, like this, I would like to give the floor to our rapporteur. Over to you.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you so much, chair. And as the chair mentioned, this is about the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and Union support for health emergency preparedness and response. All in all, I would say that it's a very important and positive piece of political initiative coming. But our task, of course, is to make sure that money is spent in the right way and that we avoid any misuse of funds. And before going into the actual content, I would like to thank the Secretariat for the very professional help with this draft.
And I would also like to extend a special thanks to the Court of Auditors who came up with a very timely report just before we started this work. And they actually point, I would say, at some major weaknesses in this proposal from a budget control perspective. And I see my task here as the following, to try to cover the weaknesses that ECA has shown in this proposal, and to come up with the practical solutions for them, as well as to safeguard that the parliament has the right and the influence to exercise budgetary scrutiny over this piece of legislation. For me, it's been important not to go into the political content of the proposal itself, but to focus solely on the budget control perspective. Even though it can be tempting to sometimes go over to other committees' mandate, we have avoided doing so, I would say.
And I would also like to point to the fact that almost every amendment is an answer to a question posed by the court of auditors. So have we been really trying to listen to their very valuable report and come up with the legislative proposals for that. That's why we focus on the areas where we have been putting our focus. So you will, of course, recognize the topics. And I would say that the proposals are well in line with others' decisions taken by the majority of this committee.
We focus on the financing not linked to costs, and simplified cost options. I would say this is a major problem in this proposal, and that has to be corrected. We have addressed the risk of double funding and overcompensation, something that's not properly addressed in the suggestion. We have also gone into definitions and measurable objectives and indicators, with, of course, a major thing to have in legislation like this. And it's somewhat vague sometimes in the proposal.
We have also pointed to the need to have a full audit, visibility, and traceability when we use these funds in cooperation with third countries. So, all in all, we also put a lot of emphasis on transparency and, of course, budget protection. This is where the amendments are focused. And then on top of that, we also added some points where we give the right to the parliament and the possibility for the parliament to exercise our budgetary scrutiny. So this is the content of the report, and I'm very happy to hear the views from the other groups, and look forward to cooperation.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you. Thank you very much, Jonas Sjosted, for this presentation and for your work on this report. I would like to give the floor now to the coordinator of the EPP Group, Mr. Stokovsky.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you, Chairman. I would like to thank also the reporter for the opinion, mister, for his work and contribution to this file. How, however, from the perspective of the Cont, I would like to underline that the same of the proposed elements do not fully align with what we consider to be the appropriate scope for the opinion. For the EPP group, ensuring stronger protection of the union budget is essential. At the same time, and in line with the usual practice, we believe that this should be firmly fixed in the existing horizontal framework, in particular, the financial regulation as well as the existing audit and control architecture. Introducing sector-specific references to other horizontal instruments, risk politicizing what is for us an operational piece of emerging legislation.
In this regard, we should maintain a clear focus on the objective of the regulation, avoiding elements that go beyond its purpose and could create overlaps or legal uncertainty. Furthermore, the reporter's proposal includes the introduction of new definitions. In our views, it's not necessary to reopen the discussion in the context of an opinion as the financial regulation already provides a clear and well established framework. Where clarification may be use it should be strictly limited, the concept directly linked to the control of the EU funds such as the notion of the final reps recipients. Similarly, we do not consider it appropriate for this opinion to further develop a condition for the use of instruments which are already regulated under a horizontal framework. In conclusion, our approach is clear.
We support the necessary flexibility to respond effectively to crises, but always with full guarantees of the transparency, trialability and sound financial management without duplication and deviation from existing financial framework. Thank you very much.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you so much for your contribution, Thomas. And if you wonder why I'm sitting here, the Chairman had some other obligations for 15 minutes. And as the oldest serving member in the committee, it's my honor and duty to share this committee for 15 minutes. So thank you for the applause and the celebrations. And with that, I would like to give the floor to, on behalf of the S and D group, Mr.
Lupo, please.
Giuseppe Lupo
Thank you, Chair, ladies and gentlemen. I'm taking the floor today on behalf of mister Monard, the our shadow who unfortunately can't be present. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for his constructive work on this, and for coming up with a very solid foundation to start our discussions. From the point of view of the S and D group, we wholeheartedly support the reinforcement of the European Union civil protection mechanism. And in doing so, we're strengthening the European Union's possibility to react to emergency situations.
At the same time, we want to have a more rapid approach. We don't want to see a lack of control in terms of democracy and transparency or a lack of protection of financial interests. And with this in view, our amendments are aimed at strengthening responsibility, strengthening the verification of details, and strengthening the mechanism as a whole. In specific terms, we want to have stronger action taken against double financing and overcompensation. We want to have strengthened audit rights and investigation rights for the Commission, the European Court of Auditors, ECA, OLAF, and where applicable EPO, including in third countries.
So we need to make sure there's transparency and accountability there as well. Moreover, from the point of view of the S and D group, it is important that the mechanism reflects our broader values as well. We're gonna be putting forward amendments on inclusiveness, on equal opportunities, and geographic fairness on vulnerable groups as well. We need to see a strengthening of measures against disinformation, especially when we're talking about emergencies. The shadow rapporteur is looking forward to cooperation and constructive collaboration with the rapporteur and other shadows.
We want to make sure this mechanism will be effective when there is a crisis, but also be useful to citizens and not waste money. Thank you.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you so much for that, Mr. Lupo. And the third on the list is the patriots. The Thomas Deutsch is the shadow. I don't see anyone from the group present here at the moment. So then we pass on the floor to the ECR group and mister Ericsson.
Dick, in order to
Dick Erixon
You have the floor, Dick. Thank you. Well, it's really nice to have a Swedish chair in the committee. Well, and thanks very much for your work as rapporteur on this. It is very important that we do have controls and checks on the 10,700,000,000 in this mechanism.
It's actually worse than you seem to hint by way of introduction, because there seems to be a refusal to qualify an impact assessment, where, as the court of auditors has said, there are a lot of chains missing in this link. So we need to have criticism leveled by the European Parliament, sort things out. Maybe just pick up one example of indicators. The proposal requires output and result indicators. That's all well and good, but it's insufficient.
What should these indicators be measuring? I think we need to have greater clarity. We have to talk about the effect of this. It's not just how many meetings you have or what sort of training courses are attended. It's what has actually changed with these measures that is being paid for.
We also need to measure value for money. What are the outcomes that we're getting from the input? Could these results not be achieved using fewer resources? It's an effect that anybody who has economic responsibility should be looking at. So I think there are some things here that need to be worked on.
We need to have an obligation to make sure that taxpayers are getting genuine results from this mechanism by having useful and meaningful indicators. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Dick Erickson from the ECR Group.
Jonas Sjöstedt
ECR Group, it's the turn of the Renew Group to have the floor. Any speaker from the Renew Group? I don't think so. Then I would like to pass the floor to Mr. Foin from the Greens, please.
Daniel Freund
Thanks, Chair and Rapporteur. What accumulation of power has occurred here under the Green leadership? No. On behalf of our shadow, we're still in the process of looking at the amendments. Thank you for the proposal, and we'll get back once we have agreed on what exactly we want to amend.
Thank you.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you for that contribution. And that concludes the list of speakers. And then I give the floor to myself, being the rapporteur for the draft opinion. I think all in all, we have the same aim and the same goal. And definitely, there is also room for improvement and, of course, of amending this proposal.
I look forward to seeing the concrete proposal for amendments, and we have a date, which is May 7, where the amendment should be tabled. And then, of course, we will have the discussion of the shadows, making sure that we take as much as we can on board. And I can see that we're gonna have a fruitful cooperation. And then we will have the vote in the committee on June 2. And that, of course, has to do with the timetable of the overall report, that we have to have a decision by then to have an impact on what the main rapporteur actually is going to propose.
So with that, I would like to conclude this debate on this matter. And next item of the agenda is the establish, is the item seven, establishing the Agora EU program for the period 2021 to 2034 and repealing regulations accordingly. Consideration of the draft opinion. And in this case, the deadline for tabling amendments is May 8 at noon. Responsible administrator, we have one, and then we have a responsible rapporteur.
And then, let's see.
Yeah. Wait a second.
Here. Sorry.
No. No problem.
Jonas Sjöstedt
So we start here.
Yeah. Let's see. So we have a representative from the commission, Mr. Diego Agundes, and also Colin Burn, who is here. And I would like to start by giving the floor to you, and we can kick off the debate. He's not here.
Okay.
Leave this paper to the chair.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Okay. We will kick off the debate. It's supposed to be Mr. Molnar, but he cannot be here. So I will read his statement. Dear colleagues, sorry for the confusion.
This is going a bit quicker than I thought, and my apologies. Dear colleagues, I will speak on behalf of the rapporteur, Mr. Molnar, who sends his sincere apologies for not being able to join us today. The Agora EU program is of strategic importance for the future of our Union. At a time when democracy, media freedom, cultural diversity, and fundamental rights are increasingly under pressure, this program has the potential to strengthen democratic resilience, support independent media and civil society, and promote Europe's cultural and democratic values across the union.
Our objective was clear in this opinion: to strengthen accountability, transparency, and the protection of the union's financial interests, while fully supporting the program's democratic and cultural ambitions. As S and D, we introduced stronger safeguards on financial management, auditability, and anti-fraud protections, especially regarding simplified forms of funding and financing not linked to the costs. Simplification must never come at the expense of transparency, equal treatment, or proper control of EU funds. We also strengthened provisions on preventing double funding, improving traceability through unique identifiers, and reinforcing reporting obligations toward parliament and council. In addition, we insisted on full access rights for Olaf, the EPO and the European Court of Auditors, including in cases involving indirect management and third countries.
Finally, from our perspective, participation of third countries must remain conditional on respect for democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights, together with robust safeguards for the protection of the union budget. As you can see, the draft opinion focuses strictly on the Kant remit, and the rapporteur therefore encourages colleagues to table only targeted amendments falling within the committee's area of competence, so that Kant can make a strong and meaningful contribution to the work of the lead committee. Rapporteur would like to ensure that Agora EU is not only ambitious, but also fully transparent, accountable, and resilient against misuse of Union funds. That's so far. That's the message from the rapporteur, Mr. Monard.
I would like to give the floor to the shadow rapporteurs. Each political group has two minutes, starting with the EPP. Mister Chadovsky, please, the floor is yours. Oh, I'm so sorry. It's Palamkola.
Please.
No worries. Thank you very much.
I can't.
Hear all the speeches.
Kinga Kollár
Thank you very much. I will speak in Hungarian.
As the operator of the EPP, I'd like to welcome the Agora EU program. And I think it's very positive that the initiative safeguards and continues the results of earlier programs. The CERV and Creative Europe programs were very valuable in civil participation and in supporting the cultural and creative sectors. On the other hand, it is necessary to have tangible results to present. The available budgetary framework, which is increased, is sufficient to broaden the program and render it more efficient in delivering targets.
I'd like to also emphasize that the increased funds also mean increased responsibilities. The management has to be regular, transparent, but first of all, efficient. For instance, films and programs should be supported that can be accessed by a high number of viewers and people, or the highest number of people should be involved in democratic processes through NGOs. I also agree with the direction of the amendment supported by the report. So a strict and consequent auditing of the funds should be taken care of by the regulation.
So control reports should also be strengthened. And I believe that transparency is not only a matter of finances, but is the basis for public confidence. We shall have amendments, especially in terms of the forms of EU funding. Because if we switch over to a result-based accountancy, we should examine the targets and the deliveries and to what extent costs are covering the objectives. I also would have amendments on the controls, which I intend to support, independence.
Overall, the program should not only be well financed, but well controlled, audited, and be able to present tangible results. I trust that in the finalization of this report, we shall have an agreement.
Thank you.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Kaseneb, thank you so much. So who is speaking?
now? No.
Yeah. As we have no one present from the Patriots, I'd like to give the floor to the ECR group. You
Dick Erixon
Have the floor, thank you very much. This proposal for Agora EU has a lot of pretty words, but it's quite weak when it comes to budgetary discipline. As mentioned, made of values, democracy, resilience, civil society, this sort of thing. These are important objectives, but words cannot replace measurable results. From the perspective of the committee, the issue is how do we check how these monies are being used?
If a project claims to strengthen democracy, counter disinformation, what exactly is to be checked? The results on paper are quite easy to produce: conferences, platforms, campaigns, reports. The genuine effect is much more difficult to prove. This is especially sensitive when monies are going to civil society. The budget should not be financing political activism or ideological campaigns, nor should the combating of disinformation work to counter information campaigns.
If this program is to be credible, we need to have proper indicators, public information on all recipients, and a genuine appraisal. Otherwise, we're not financing results. We're financing intentions, and the taxpayers deserve better. Thank you. Thank you, Dick Erickson, for that.
Jonas Sjöstedt
The other shadow rapporteurs are being here. I therefore conclude the debate on this matter. And I would like to take a short break until 11:15, when we start with the next point, so the speakers will have time to get here to start the debate. And with that, we start again at 11:15. Let's see.
Yes. We have a change of timeline for this file. The adoption in the committee has been anticipated to June 2 instead of June 24 as initially planned. Hence, the deadline for submitting amendments is Friday, May 8, at noon, please. Thank you.
We take a break until 11:15. See you then.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Dear ladies and gentlemen, do you know? My second name is one-minute speech. Now I will be chair of the budgetary control committee. We have it item number eight, established a single market and customs program for the period 2028, 2034, and repealing regulation EU 2021, April, 44 EU and others, 2021, 06/1990. 2021, 07/1985.
2000, '21, thank you, 08/19/47. And 2021, 1077. The responsible reporter is Adnan Debrani from S and D from Imco, and reporter for opinion is our friend, Mr. Dick Erickson from ECR. Also, Dick, the floor is yours.
Dick Erixon
Thank you very much for the kind introduction. Yes. First, let me thank the Secretariat for the cooperation. I also want to thank the European Court of Auditors for their opinion on this program. Many of our amendments will build on their findings.
The commission says this program is a simplification because it merged five programs into one. If we abolish all our laws and create one single law, we obviously reduce the number. But I doubt the result is clearer for citizens or for businesses. Fewer programs does not mean better programs. The real question is simple.
Will every euro deliver more value than today? That is what my amendments try to answer. My main priorities are as follows. First, the protection of the union's financial interests. Most of my amendments end up here.
The program must strengthen the union's anti-fraud architecture. That means proper cooperation between Olaf, the Court of Auditors, and EPO. It means interoperable systems and structures in information exchange. It means training for customs, tax, and law enforcement officials, so that a member state can support EPO investigations. Second, the customs gap.
We measure the VAT gap every year. The customs gap stays in the dark, even though it concerns the union's own resources. We propose a custom gap indicator at union level comparable to the VAT gap. Third, value for money. The court of auditors warns that the union borrowing may exceed €900,000,000,000 by 2027.
We cannot found actions without measurable results. Our amendments require clear value for money, result-based indicators with baselines and targets, and proper performance dashboards. Fourth, simplified costs, opinions, options, and financing not linked to costs. We are not fully happy with the broad discretion given to the commission. We shall turn to May.
The point is simple. The kind of financing should not be the default. It should be the exception, and every exception must be justified. Each use must come with clear methodology, clear milestones, and clear consequences when milestones are not met. It is very important to maintain cost efficiency.
Fifth, annual reporting to the parliament and to the council. We propose a new title. The commission shall report each year on financial implementation, on derogations, on fraud cases and recoveries, on digital systems, and on the custom collection share. This is how performance budgeting becomes real. And last but not least, an intermediate evaluation by 2031 so we can adjust priorities and resources on the basis of evidence.
On a procedural point, before I close, we try to keep our amendments strictly within the scope of the budget control committee. I kindly ask colleagues to do the same. Our opinions will be taken more seriously by the lead committee if we respect our mandate. I'm looking forward to your input. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Ericsson, for your presentation on this report on the single market program. Next speaker is the coordinator of the EPP, Tomastikowski.
Tomáš Zdechovský
Thank you, Chairman. Welcome back. We are very happy that you are here because before, the chairman was horrible. So this is why we need to switch, and we need you here. Also, dear colleagues, Dick, thank you very much for the draft proposal of the report.
Today, we are discussing 6,000,000,000 program. But, do you know how much we are losing every year due to VAT and custom fraud? According to the EPO report, around 45,000,000,000 euros. This is a massive leak in the EU budget. Also, it's really very big.
My first priority in this anti-fraud must be at the core of the proposal. We are merging multiple programs into one, but flexibility must not come at the cost of control. We need full, trust, traceability of the funds, clear budget lines, and real parliamentary oversight. It's needed because if we cannot track the money, we cannot protect it. Second, digitalization must finally work.
This is much more for the commission. We talk a lot about digital tools, but, let's be honest. Today's systems are still fragmented, and there is why member states need to fully implement custom single windows as we need one system, one data environment, and interoperable data. We need real-time data sharing between the customs, tax authorities, and informants bodies. This is for us the most important issue.
And thirdly, member states must step up not only in negotiations. We need stronger commitment from member states, not just when negotiating the program, but implementing process execution, enforcement, and control. Last but not least, simplification cannot weaken the control mechanism. Yes. We need less bureaucracy.
This is the truth. But we cannot accept weaker reporting, weaker controls, or objectives. We will insist on measurable result, clear accountability, and real auditability. Also, thank you very much for your attention.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mister Stichofsky. And now the floor is to my colleague, Jose Sepeda. Thank.
José Cepeda
You, chair. I'll be speaking Spanish. I'd like to mention a few ideas. First, I'd like to thank the reporter from Inco, Adam Debrani, for his work, and the reporter for our opinion in the Cont Committee, our colleague, mister Dick Erickson. In my view, we have a clear program to strengthen the functioning of the single market and the customs union.
And we're in an increasingly complex context with the digitalization of the economy, new forms of trade. And so there are more risks as well. I mean, there are systems that are more sophisticated. So implementation and functioning, and correct functioning means that we have to protect the budget with transparency, accountability, traceability, that's extremely important, and, of course. In the Cont Committee, our opinion should reflect these priorities, the protection of the union's financial interests.
This has to be at the center of the program. Mister Ericsson has said something that I concur with. We have many debates in the committee, and often, suddenly, we have lots of ideas coming up, lots of analysis of the budget execution. And I think that we have to really focus on our competencies in this committee. Mister Erickson has said this, and I agree completely.
Others, we could have amendments or lots of different themes that don't really have anything to do with the competences of this committee. So, yes, our work should add real value to the legislative process, so we have to stick really to our competences. The commission's proposal calls for a simplification and increased flexibility, merging the existing programmes. But simplification mustn't be confused with less control. Implementation requires a new control framework that is solid and well-defined.
And so I would like, above all, to highlight four elements that I think are extremely important. First, it is important to ensure that flexibility goes hand in hand with more robust controls, both ex ante and ex post. Second, we want to drive digitalization, but as a real tool that serves to strengthen budget protection and to combat fraud and the exchange of information between the different agencies and bodies, particularly the control authorities. Third, ensure complete transparency of union funds. As I said before, this is to ensure better traceability to the final recipient with a clear identification of who this beneficiary is and their rights clear.
We also have to strengthen the anti-fraud architecture. We need to maintain all the elements of the anti-fraud architecture of the union. We have to improve coordination between OLAF and IIPO and the national authorities to ensure that there is access to this information for the control authorities. Our aim isn't to add complexity or administrative burden. We want to ensure that we avoid double funding and strengthen the trust of our citizens by showing that we have parliamentary scrutiny and showing that we are carrying out our role properly.
So simplification, yes, but not at the cost of scrutiny and control. We need full oversight. My group, the S and D, we would like to work constructively to strengthen all these elements in the negotiations, and contribute to having a program that combines efficiency with budgetary integrity. Thank you. Thank you, dear colleague.
Andreas Schwab
Of you as a shadow for the S and D group. For PFE, there could be Julian Sanchez, but he isn't there. For renew, it could be Olivier Chastel, but he is not there. There is no other member apart from me, and I don't want to comment on it. So, I thank you for your contribution.
Are there any questions from you to the commission now, in that context? It doesn't seem to be the case. So thank you very much, Mr. Ericsson. Would you like to make some concluding remarks? No.
I think you were very clear already in your intervention. So let me remind you, colleagues, that the deadline for taping amendments is Thursday, May 7, weekend next. This week on Thursday at 02:00, and we want to vote this report on June 2. That, colleagues, concludes our sessions of this morning. There is no other business, if I understand it rightly.
The next meeting is on June 2, and we at 12:00. So in a few minutes, in a camera meeting with coordinators to discuss confidential issues. Thank you very much for your attendance, and have a nice day.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.