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 sittingsAngéline Furet
Thank you, Chair. Sorry, I'll start again. Sorry. Thank you. I don't like it when other people speak while I'm speaking.
So thank you, Chair. 8,500,000,000 is exactly the amount that the commission is trying to get through for their ideology. With Agora EU, you're not simplifying anything. You're just dissolving the culture media budget into your propaganda budget. There is opacity here.
Laurence Muller-Bronn
It stops us from looking at what is happening. You refuse to give us detailed budget lines. You demand total flexibility. You prevent serious parliamentary oversight on how the funds are used. You know exactly what these artistic flows hide.
The idea is to be able to take money from culture to pay militant associations. In France, we're already seeing the problems coming from this system. Charles Henri Erlang has shown the problems that have shown that French taxpayers are financing an audiovisual sector that is militant and partisan. What you're proposing today with Agora EU is to Europeanize this model of ideological submission. Europeans' money ought to protect our cultural heritage and our artistic freedom, not finance Brussels' ideological war.
Johan Van Overtveldt
We demand the clear earmarking of every euro to be spent. Thank you.
Lucy Ayard for renewal, please.
Lucia Yar
Thank you, chair. And firstly, I would.
Like to thank the Rapporteur for a very good draft of the budgetary assessment. Looking forward to work more, as the program is heavily oversubscribed with this demand that is far exceeding available funding. We are agreeing and welcoming the fact that this increase has been proposed. We will also be looking for stronger synergies within other EU instruments, such as the justice program, Erasmus plus and the European Competitiveness Fund and the national level. The new national and the regional partnership plans will also be important here because, and madam has said, we need to clearly strengthen our democracies that are under pressure, not only from outside, but also as we clearly seeing also from the inside. I said it yesterday, and I will continue.
Probably, I should be writing the notes for the patriots because I, when I was coming here, I was thinking what they are going to be talking about, probably ideology and migrants. And, yes, here we go. So this is exactly the reason why we need to put money and increase the funding for programs like Agora. I didn't see the timing, but I assume I have the time.
Thank.
Lucia Yar
you. So two great. Two important points at the very end. We must ensure full respect for the rule of law and the EU values in the program. There have been cases, for example, in Erasmus Plus where actors who do not share these values seek EU funding.
This will only intensify in the future, so we need stronger safeguards to prevent misuse. And secondly, when rule of law issues in the member states affect implementation, we must protect the final beneficiaries and recipients. We need smart solutions to ensure support that will reach them. Thank you.
Ignazio Roberto Marino
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to warmly welcome the work of the rapporteur, Miss Sandra Gomez Lopez, whose draft opinion rightly recognized both the ambition and the responsibility that Agora EU entails. Agora EU is not just another program. Today, where we are witnessing democratic backsliding, attacks on media freedom, shrinking civic space, growing disinformation, persistent inequalities, this program is essential. For that reason, Greens fully shared the concern expressed in the draft opinion.
And as the rapporteur mentioned just a few minutes ago, the proposed budget is simply not enough to meet the program's objectives. We want Agora U to support culture, independent media, equality, citizenship, and fundamental rights in a meaningful way. We also shared the concerns regarding the use of financial instruments, budgetary guarantees, external assigned revenue, and overly flexible arrangements that could undermine transparency and parliament prerogatives. Our amendments, therefore, reflect those priorities and seek to correct the commission's initial proposal. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. I would now like to give the floor to the co-lead reporter, Miss Ravovic. Please.
Emma Rafowicz
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in French.
Good morning, everyone. First, I'd like to thank Cassandra Gomez Lopez for her report, and I was pleased to be able to have many exchanges with her. I know that the work done in this committee is of high quality. I'd like to say that, of course, this file is very important. It's important for us as parliamentarians, as Europeans, because through Agora, we will be able to boost the Europeans' ambitions for European cultural sovereignty.
I am very pleased to see in your budgetary assessment draft that we call for a specification of the financial architecture. This must be clear. The nomenclature must be clear. It must be linked to the budget lines, and we must be alerted to any changes in the financial architecture. The proposal, we hope to see this by 06/30/2028 with a plan of action with all the synergies implied with other programs.
These should be taken into account in the annual budgetary procedure. The dialogue will go on, and I would like to thank the Budgetary Committee for your welcome. We need the parliament to play its full role in the future of Agora. We need budgetary predictability. We need clarity for everyone, and I think that we will all be able to work on this successfully together.
Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Any other MEP wanting to take the floor on this issue? Madam Stine, please.
Stine Bosse
Thank you very much. Just a short comment. This is obviously a very important topic in the times that we're living in. And I just want to for all of us to remember, and I hope really deeply also with the patriots represented here that we share the value of freedom, democracy, rule of law, and that, of course, this is what our culture is about. And to make sure that our culture stands strong in times when we are challenged by forces outside of Europe.
And we will have to discuss, you know, what's the best kind of culture. Is it singing? Is it dancing? Is it talking? Whatever.
But this has to be funded, and it has to be funded in a prudent manner. So thank you very much to the people working on this file.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you, and apologies for mixing up your forename and family name. Ms. Filipkova for the Commission, please.
Lenka Filipkova
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning, colleagues. So thanks as well very much for the support, to the proposal as such and for the recognition of at least most of the members of the importance of the program and also the recognition that it needs sufficient resources. That's why we proposed doubling the budget of that program or the successor of the current three programs. Obviously, if we were, again, as I said before, in the world of unlimited resources, I'm sure we could spend more on these priorities.
But we believe that at least doubling was an adequate proposal for the next MFF. Maybe I will address some of the really purely budgetary issues linked to the nomenclature. So as you've seen, we have proposed nomenclature in the legislative financial statement, which is very close to where we were with the predecessor programs. And we are obviously open to discuss further whether there needs to be more detail, without hindering the implementation during the year. But I also wanted to explain that even if some parts of the program are at the level where we are allowed to do autonomous transfers, we really rarely do autonomous transfers in commitments during the year.
And if we do, then it is usually linked to implementation, because we need to program and prepare the plans. So once the budgetary authority decides at that level, we normally plan to implement it. So it is not that we will then change it. So there is the role of the budgetary authority with the detailed level in the budgetary nomenclature, which actually with the drug budget 28 will be set in the financial programming. The indicative amounts will be established for the whole period in the detail that they will be implemented.
So it will be the budgetary authority that will have a say, and then we will implement. If there are transfers, they're mostly in payments. If there are some transfers in commitments, they are usually linked to the fact that we can't implement the one strand and then we offset. We usually report quarterly on the transfers that are more important, which we will continue to do. So I think that also shows that we do simply implement as far as we can what the budget is approved by the budgetary authority.
Also on the financial instruments and guarantees and external assigned revenue, obviously, we want to also open all these tools to also Agora, where it is the best way to implement the program. But we also always do report in detail on the sources, how it is implemented with the budgetary documents. Thank you very much.
Yes.
Sandra Gómez López
I'd like to thank the shadow reporters for their work, and that we'll work together on all the amendments you will table. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. Let me reiterate that the deadline for amendments is May 21 at noon. And in conclusion of this round of presentations of the budgetary assessment for the MFF package, I recall what I said yesterday morning and I've already said on different other occasions that I will not hesitate to declare inadmissible those amendments that fall outside the budget competence and outside the framework of the budgetary assessment. And I think if we are not strict on this, then we will get nowhere or close to nowhere. Thank you for this discussion.
And let's move to the next point, which is after 21, of course, '22, establishing the temporary decarbonization fund. I give the floor to the rapporteur, Miss Nerodova. Please.
Danuše Nerudová
Thank you, chair. I am pleased to present this draft report on the temporary decarbonization fund, a proposal that I believe addresses an urgent challenge facing European heavy industry. European heavy industry today faces a genuine transition gap, rising carbon costs, at a moment when the capital intensive investment needed to decarbonize cannot yet be recovered from the market. The temporary decarbonization fund is, in principle, the right response to the gap. At the same time, we must be realistic.
The available resources will remain relatively limited compared with the scale of the challenges heavy industry is facing. Jobs are clearly at risk in our regions, and citizens and families will not have the support they need, all the more so given the commission's decision to discontinue the Just Transition Fund. From a budgetary perspective, I welcome the overall architecture of the proposal. Using part of CBEM revenues at the EU level creates a direct and coherent link between climate policy and industrial support. This is also why the treatment of any remaining revenue matters.
Resources left after the full disbursement of support and the payment of administrative costs should not simply disappear. They should remain dedicated to the decarbonization of energy-intensive industries. In this draft report, I call on the commission to closely assess the implementation of the first calls, in order to determine whether the available amounts are sufficient. If demand clearly exceeds the available budget, the commission should be ready to come forward with a proposal to extend the financial envelope so that eligible operators receive adequate and meaningful support. In short, this fund can be a useful bridge instrument.
But to fulfill that role, it must be timely, targeted, transparent, and workable for the European industry. I look forward to colleagues' reactions to a constructive exchange. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. The shadow reporters. First of all, Ms. Gomez Lopez, please.
Sandra Gómez López
We think it's an important fund. It supports European industry in the current geopolitical context, which is difficult. It offers support for investments in decarbonization, and this is good news. From a budgetary point of view, we would like to put certain questions to the Commission. It's a new fund, clearly, which is outside of the MFF ceilings as it will be financed through contributions from member states equal to 25% of the revenues from CBAM between 2026 and 2027.
So the budgetary implications, well, we have to look at what this means for the financial framework. We have to reexamine complementarity between this fund, the Modernization Fund, the Innovation Fund, and the Just Transition Fund. And we have to ensure that these amounts cover the administrative costs and the payments to the beneficiaries. So the commission's proposal includes an additional exception to Article 12, which says that funds that are not used will be returned to the member states proportionally to their contributions. And we do not think this should happen.
These funds ought to remain after total disbursement, to help and support our industries to decarbonize. So we would like the commission to present a proposal to use these revenues to support our industries. Thank you. Yes. Mister Chair, dear colleagues, the Green Deal is a danger for the European economy.
Julien Sanchez
It weakens our industry. It raises the costs of production and exposes our businesses to an international unfair competition. This proposal goes in the same direction. The fund is actually a direct consequence of the European policies. It's the EU's choices that have created this situation, and now we try to correct the effects with a new financial instrument financed to 25% with revenues from CBAM.
Johan Van Overtveldt
In other words, we're creating a problem. It's going too fast for the interpreters, Mr. Sanchez. We only have one minute, though. Well, I'll be a little flexible then, but please do slow down.
Julien Sanchez
Otherwise, we can't interpret you. I'll start again. So I don't chair, dear colleagues, the Green Deal is a direct danger to the European economy. It weakens our industries and raises production costs. It exposes our industries to unfair competition.
This proposition continues in the same logic, and we oppose it. The fund is actually a direct consequence of the union's political choices. We have created this situation. We're trying to correct the effect by this, with this new instrument financed by 25% of the CBAM revenue. In other words, we are creating a problem, then we're creating a fund to mitigate the consequences of it.
It's not coherent. This temporary mechanism for only a number of years is questionable in terms of its credibility. Three questions then for the commission. First, how does it justify the creation of a new fund while existing instruments have not been fully evaluated? Second, what concrete mechanism will prevent this from just compensating for negative effects from our climate policy?
Third, how can we ensure that this mechanism will not just add an extra layer of administrative burden for businesses already under pressure? We need to restore industrial competitiveness and put an end to this accumulation of funds. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Is present, is there any other MEP wanting to take the floor on this? If not, I go to Ms. Filip Kova to for an answer to the questions raised. Please.
Lenka Filipkova
Thank you very much, and thanks indeed for the questions and the report prepared. So I just want to again clarify that this is indeed prepared for a very specific situation that happens now for a very specific sort of transition between the phasing in of the CBAM and the decarbonization of the industry. So that's why we proposed to use part of the member states' revenue from the CBAM in the first years, not to also create problems for the part where we proposed to use the CBAM revenue as a new own resource and put it in this very specific, very temporary fund to cover this carbon leakage in the first couple of years. It is established as simple as possible so that we get the request once we have the revenue actually in 27 and 28. And we did not propose to return the revenue if unused or if there is unused revenue to continue using it, because exactly the idea is that it's also a temporary problem, which should then be addressed at the end of ETS directive revision or then addressed with other instruments that we have for decarbonization, and we plan for the next MFF.
Why new fund? Indeed, I think this is because it is a very specific situation for a very limited period of time, and there we propose to use this new revenue that we collect or that the member states collect, actually. On the administrative costs, indeed, what we are proposing is to, within these limited resources in the first two years, finance it within heading seven, where we will have to redeploy within the commission to make sure that we can do the preparatory stages. And then once the assigned revenue is actually accrued, we can finance the administrative expenditure as part of the implementation of this limited fund. Thank you.
Danuše Nerudová
Yes. Thank you, Cherry. I would like to thank the colleagues for their remarks. And as Sandria said, I believe that the remaining financial means should go to the industry, and this is exactly at the core of my proposal. And I really do think that it's normal, that it's a new instrument, and we, as a parliament, have a lot of questions about it.
Therefore, I'm looking forward to our cooperation and further discussions. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Outlined that the amendments, the deadline for amendments is May 20 at 5 PM, and the vote is planned for June 23. We go to point number 23, amending Regulation 956 as regards the extension of its scope to downstream goods and anti circumvention measures. I give the floor to the rapporteur. Again, it's your morning, Ms. Gomez Lopez.
Sandra Gómez López
Thank you. Thank.
you. This, in fact, ties in with the previous item. The commission wanted to extend the scope of CBAM to include downstream goods, to go beyond raw materials and electricity in order to get more CO2 emissions in the whole chain and to improve the mechanism. Importers have a carbon price that is similar to what our companies pay through the ETS. Now this amendment of the regulation isn't linked to MFF expenditure, but there is a direct link to our interim report, because we include this as an own resource if we manage to have the council take this on board.
Now extending the scope of CBAM is going to bring more fairness to the carbon price system. System. It's going to help us rake in more public revenue, even though we are talking about 600,000,000 to 700,000,000 euros, so not huge amounts. So even though this isn't that much, we do believe that it is the perfect example of what an own resource should be. So fresh money, additional money for the EU.
It doesn't reduce the member states' tax base. It is based on own legislation and exclusive powers of the EU. It is linked to our policy priorities. It helps us tackle carbon leakage. It boosts our business's competitiveness.
And even though it is difficult to predict the amount of the revenue because carbon prices can fluctuate, the EU budget can actually help us deal with fluctuations and risks. So I would like to support this initiative. I know that the MV rapporteur, Mr. Shahim also supports the initiative. And as far as we're concerned, we haven't tabled any amendments on the CBAM regulation, because we're focusing on the budgetary assessment as such.
But we would like to say to the European Commission that the budgets committee will be very much involved in the whole process. We want to back envy during the trial log to safeguard the parliament's position, and especially because we don't want this revenue to be earmarked for anything else. So I would like to say that we look forward to your contributions from the other MEPs. And CBAM is a work in progress like the ETS is. And I hope that we'll be able to extend the scope to other sectors, like some of the shadow repertoires have already suggested.
Thank you.
Danuše Nerudová
Thank you. Dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to sincerely thank Sandra for her constructive work on this file and for the balanced approach reflected in this assessment. EPP supports a CBEM that is effective, fair, and realistic. We must ensure that the European companies are already investing heavily in decarbonization and innovation, are not placed at a disadvantage compared to the competitors operating under lower environmental standards. At the same time, I strongly believe that the implementation of the extension of CBEM must remain manageable for businesses and financially responsible for the Union budget.
Every new obligation must bring real added value, avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, and contribute concretely to our climate and industrial objectives. Our companies, especially SMEs, need predictability, lead with certainty, and a framework that supports competitiveness rather than undermines it. This is the European way, ambitious on climate, serious on industry, and responsible with public finances. A stronger CBEM can help protect our industrial base, prevent carbon leakage, generate genuine European-owned resources, and reinforce Europe's strategic autonomy in an increasingly competitive global economy. If we want citizens and businesses to support the green transition, we must show that climate ambition and economic strength can go hand in hand.
This is exactly the balance we should achieve with this proposal. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. Monsieur Sanchez. The other shadows are not present. Any other MEP wanting to take the floor on this? Monsieur Germain, Alessi.
Jean-Marc Germain
Mister Germain, go ahead. Yes. Thank you very much, chairman. So I, in turn, would like to emphasize the importance of this amendment, this amending regulation. I know that even though we're not talking about huge amounts, it shows that the European Commission and the European institutions are constantly striving to improve the set up.
There was a huge problem. It was making it very difficult for European businesses producing downstream goods with a high aluminum and metal content, such as heat pumps. And because of the ETS scheme, these businesses were dealing with uncompetitive prices compared to Chinese manufactured products. So this amending regulation is trying to deal with that hiccup. So I think that gives us strong regulation.
Johan Van Overtveldt
And then we also have the possibility of adapting the situation on a case-by-case basis, which is very important. Mrs. Gomez Lopez.
Thank.
Sandra Gómez López
Thank you very much. I'd like to thank Miss Nerudova. What she said is fully in line with the report that we've drawn up. And, of course, we'll be working together in order to deal with all the amendments.
Johan Van Overtveldt
At 5PM, and the vote is planned for June 23. Point 24 of our agenda, the draft amending budget one, the outturn of 2025 is a surplus of €2,100,000,000. First, Ms. Filip Kova for the Commission. Go ahead.
Lenka Filipkova
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to you for giving me the chance to present the first amending budget of the year. We presented on April 10, which is within the regulatory deadline of fifteen days after the transmission of the provisional annual accounts, which we have sent to the Court of Auditors on March 31. So as Chair already mentioned, the surplus of last year that is budgeted as additional revenue this year is about €2,100,000,000, which is a bit higher than last year, was last year €1,300,000,000, and this is mainly driven on the surplus on the revenue side. And this is really EUR 2,000,000,000 of the surplus stemmed from the revenue side, and mainly from the collection of the customs duties, but also on the fines collected.
So for the customs duties, the outturn was about EUR 860,000,000 above the amount budgeted in the last amending budget of the year. As always, it remains difficult to forecast very precisely the customs duties, even if we have one or two chances during the year to update. There is always a little bit of imbalance at the end of the year, and we intend it to always be a surplus, not to risk having a deficit at the end of the year. There, the additional part of the surplus was about €840,000,000 of additional fines that were collected at the end of the year, so too late to be included in the last amending budget, which already included quite a significant amount of EUR 1,200,000,000 of fines. We have also, as you have seen in the complement in the proposal for the draft amending budget, in the explanatory memorandum, are also budgeting the negative revenues on the competition cases.
So for cases that we lost or maybe had to pay some penalty interest, the amount that we paid in 2025 was EUR 54,000,000, and you can see the detail of each of the company in the explanatory memorandum. This is significantly lower than the previous year, where we had to settle the Intel fine. On the expenditure side, the implementation was actually extremely good. The under implementation eventually was only about EUR 110,000,000, out of which EUR 55,000,000 on the voted budget appropriation for the operational expenditure managed by the commission, and about €56,000,000 of under implementation of other institutions on administrative appropriations. There was also a cancellation of about €137,000,000 of appropriations carried over, and exchange rate variations to rebalance it of about EUR 148,000,000 that have been budgeted.
So as you know, all other things being equal, this results in a decrease of member states' contributions to the 2026 budget. However, as we already indicated in the trial log, this year, we will need to increase the payments because there was a very high implementation request by member states on the cohesion programs. Therefore, we will come with an amending budget soon, but still before the summer, where we will propose increased payments for this year, which will eat up a little bit of, not all, of this saving for the member state contributions stemming from the surplus. Thank you very much.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. The floor is now for Mr. Andre Alitsky, the '26 budget rapporteur. Please.
Andrzej Halicki
Thank you very much. Many thanks to Missus Filipkova for the information. So we take note that the commission proposes to enter the '25 surplus of 2,100,000,000 as revenue in the '26 budget, thereby decreasing the total contribution of the member states proportionally. This is positive information for the member states, not exactly for us because we have a lot of ideas on how to spend the money, but this is the reflection for the future, probably. Because I would like to state once again parliament's long-standing position, regretting that the surplus of the preceding financial year has entered into the budget only to reduce the GNI-based contribution of member states.
Generally, I would like to emphasize and thank the very good level of budget implementation. I have no further questions, so thank you very much.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. We go to the shadow reporters. First of all, Mr. Niels Ujakos.
Nils Ušakovs
Thank you, Chair. We also take note of the fact that this surplus is mostly explained by a higher than expected amount of customs duties made available, which makes sense given global trade developments. And also reminding that this surplus will enter as revenue in the budget 2026. That means that it will proportionately reduce the GNI contribution. And also, reminding the same as the rapporteur mister Khaliski just did, that it's a long-standing position of the parliament, that it's regrettable that the surplus of preceding financial years is entered into the budget only to reduce member states' contributions rather than to reinforce programs to cover legal obligations, like, for instance, in EU interest rate payment.
But regardless, S and D will support this doubt. Thank you.
Stine Bosse
I really don't have any further comments. I would just refer to the robot. It's excellent work.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. Any other MEP? It's Monsieur Germain. Thank you very much.
Jean-Marc Germain
Much. I'll go through this quickly. I just wanted to say, I fully echo what the 2026 budget reporter said, and what Mr. Uzakov said on the surplus. I just wonder whether we couldn't have forecast this or predicted it given the difficulties, but maybe we can look at this €90,000,000,000 loan to Ukraine and the interest linked to it.
This is a novel element of the budget. And of course, it's, you know, not included in the budget. And what's happening with the Turnberry agreement and the delay in the vote? Because the Turnberry agreement was supposed to kick in on 01/01/2026, and it hasn't been signed yet. So I'm wondering what happened or how the negotiations concluded yesterday, but we're talking about a quarter of a year's worth of lost revenue.
Johan Van Overtveldt
I see the look of surprise on your face, madam. I'll hear from all the shadows, and then I'll give you the floor. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you. I'm speaking on behalf of Thomas Deutsch, who is the shadow rapporteur.
Julien Sanchez
Unfortunately, he can't be with us this morning. The draft amending budget number one has shown once again that the commission's budget planning isn't good, €2,100,000,000 in surplus, and more than €800,000,000 extra custom duties that weren't forecast. For Thomas Deutsch, this confirms the fact that we don't have a lot of political room for maneuver when it comes to own resources. We don't need new resources in the budget. The current system is fully capable of covering the EU expenditure.
When it comes to the fines slapped on the member states, Thomas Deutsch is highly concerned. Some member states have set up efficient border procedures to protect against migration, and the Commission and the Court of Justice are penalizing this. They are ideologically biased. A fine was imposed on Hungary for not letting migrants come into the Hungary. Before our final ruling is given, please suspend the fine of €1,000,000 imposed on Hungary because of its migration policy.
You need to support Hungary and not punish it for protecting the EU's borders.
Filipkova.
Lenka Filipkova
Thank you very much. Thanks for the support of the rapporteur and the members. Indeed, according to the current legal framework, the only way to return the surplus is to budget it as other revenue. But as I said, it will actually help Member States this year when we need to increase the payments in the budget to make sure that there are no negative impacts for the national budget. On the it is indeed very difficult sometimes to always, and in these conditions, even more difficult to forecast the customs duties.
So we obviously already counted this year whether the agreement with the USA, when it will start, and how it will impact, which is very difficult to do. So, we will see. That's why we have a process where we do a first forecast in the spring of the previous year. Then we update again now in May, and see also based on the collection in the first four months which way it develops, and then adjust the forecast. And then we normally have one more chance before the end of the year, in the last amending budget of the year in October, again, based on the collection until the summer or early September.
So it is difficult to forecast the impact of customs in the current, not only with the trade agreement with the USA, but in general, with the geopolitical context. But we are trying to do it as precisely as possible to make sure that the impact for the national contributions and then member states' planning of their national budget is aligned with what is actually needed. Thank you very much.
Andrzej Halicki
Thank you. Mister Alicci, you want to conclude?
Yes. Very briefly, because I should present the next steps. So I would like to inform you that I would like to present that draft report on the meeting in June, so the very June. Then, we can adopt in the budget meeting of June 22 the report to have voting during the plenary session in July. This is the plan of our cooperation.
Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. This allows us to move to point 25 for decision, with respect to the European Globalization Adjustment Fund. I give the floor to Mr. John Shah to present the draft.
Bogdan Rzońca
Thank you very much, chair. Very briefly, here we are talking about the mobilization of funds from the globalization fund related to Solvay company in Belgium and more than 800 employees being fired. Belgium has filed for payment in 2025. Soluvaire declared bankruptcy in December 2024. The European Commission has decided that the conditions which are necessary have been met, and it proposes to allocate over €2,000,000 to Belgium, which would account for 80% of the total cost of the program.
What seems extremely important is to match the qualifications of the employees to the market conditions and demand. So in Belgium, the situation is very difficult. And this is yet another application from Belgium. I believe this is the sixth in a row. It is very really amazing to see how the situation evolves in Belgium, how many companies are asking for European support.
And this is also a case food for thought. How is this fund going to function in the future? I believe that we should take better care of it because it seems that we are at the brink of a new crisis, and it's difficult to foresee the future. At the same time, this fund is a reactive fund, which is mainly putting protective safety net for the employees. I believe that the company has fulfilled all the requirements and that we can approve or support this application.
And we need to have a good look at what is happening in the European Union. And finally, if we look at all those companies that have been filed for the globalization fund payouts, they come from Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Netherlands, but no applications have been received from the so-called post-Soviet Europe. Is it so that the situation is so good in this part of Europe that they do not need those resources? Or maybe the countries that do file for those resources, for this funding, are just taking the easiest way out. We need to think long and hard about all that.
Johan Van Overtveldt
But in this specific case, the conditions have been met, and we do support that. Thank you.
Don't worry too much about Belgium. We haven't that many companies left. So, okay. The shadow reporters. Is there anybody from the APP?
Mr. Lalitsky, is there anybody from then we go to Mr. Germain for S and D.
Jean-Marc Germain
Thank you very much, chairman. I'm very pleased that Belgium has been able to apply once again to the fund, and is tapping into it. I'd like to congratulate the rapporteur. We have three amendments. Maybe other member states should apply.
Anyway, I'm joking. But I just wanted to say that there is a serious economic crisis stifling Belgium, and that's why they're trying to tap into these funds. The car industry has been greatly affected. So I'll be tabling an amendment in order to describe the ongoing crisis, and that this is an example of a more widespread crisis, and it is linked to Chinese overcapacity in the sector. I'd also like to talk about the importance of trade unions and social partners to help workers and employees get a new job.
And then, of course, we also have to pay attention to older workers to help them with reskilling because they face long term unemployment and more difficulties in finding a job. I will also be tabling an amendment to say that, of course, these employees have to find a job quickly, but it has to be a quality and long-term job. And I know it might seem obvious, but I will state this explicitly, and it's linked to the rules in the regulation, the relevant regulation.
Missus.
Laurence Muller-Bronn
Fuhrer, so mister Jeancha, congratulations for the sterling job that you've done. And you asked a very pertinent question. I wonder why it's more Western European countries that want to tap into the fund, and why it's not Eastern European countries. So we want to disperse €2,100,000,000 to help the 800 employees that work for Solivore, more than 800 families that are facing uncertainty because Solivore went bankrupt. Of course, we're going to support this.
Now, common sense question. What is the point of the Just Transition Fund? We're talking about €1,000,000,000 in the Green Deal. So what is the point of all these deals and schemes if our companies are closing shop one after another? I think that all of this is hiding the failure of your policies.
So I will be tabling an amendment. I want to know what the real rate of return to work is. We don't want social plaster, social band-aids. We want to make sure that there's proper upskilling and reskilling, helping people find new jobs. This is very important for our industry.
Thank you.
Lucia Yar
Hey, JR. Please. Thank you, chair. On behalf of renewals, I would like to express the support for the mobilization of the fund because, yes, it was said, 800 workers in Flanders have lost their jobs due to industrial reconstruction. Europe, therefore, must respond swiftly.
This case, however, shows us, and we've talked about it, you've talked about it, the structural issue of the volatility in global supply chain and delays in industrial transition. And it is really not an isolated case in the autumn, but particularly in the automotive sector, this is really a pattern. And on the topic of why mostly Western countries are supporting, we are back home from the Eastern European countries ringing the bells that there are these opportunities. So I think this also needs to be promoted, on the other hand, used smartly. On this case, I will also like to welcome the fact that the commission finalized the assessment almost one month after the indicative deadline, which is very important.
And because if we're about workers losing their job here, speed is not an administrative detail. It is really essential to social protection and trust in the EU instruments. So on behalf of renew, we consider this request as substantial and are ready to support it while we are still considering to table a few amendments improving the report, especially regarding the part of transparency and monitoring and clear metric results. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. Any other MEP wanting to take the floor on this? If not, I allow myself a general remark on this subject. We are devoting a lot of attention at the moment to the trade negotiations with the United States, and as we should. But while that is happening, there is a silent killer rampaging through our economy, and that's China.
And I think we should focus much more on what is happening with this, what I call, but some may differ, unfair, really unfair competition from China. And we should start thinking hard about how to deal with that. Again, the trade negotiation with the United States is very important, no doubt about it, but there's something else happening that is maybe even for the longer term more important. Miss Filipkova, you want to come in?
Lenka Filipkova
No. Just thank the rapporteur for the support and the members' support for the mobilization of the instrument, and also mention that, indeed, for the next MFF, as you know, we've proposed to incorporate the support into the initial plans where we hope that the member states should adopt the strategies to actually prevent these big and have active labor market measures and retraining, upskilling already part of the strategy to make sure that there are few of these accidents, but then that the people have access to the training and better jobs afterwards. Thank you.
Mister Just.
Bogdan Rzońca
Two sentences from me. Indeed, you are all right. All of you who are indicating those sectors that are having an especially difficult situation, motor car industry. And as we looked at the Austrian application, well, it is I would like to encourage you to read actually the motivation prepared and presented by companies. The Austrian company said, we are moving our activity to India because the energy supply is lower.
And we do have problems with China. We have recently adopted, I think, a good resolution that I presented in the parliament, which started in the petty committee, and we spoke about the Chinese threat. Very many people are pointing their attention towards the fact that Chinese companies are buying out local companies and then conducting unfair competition, competing on unfair terms, using these companies. This has already been highlighted in the petty committee, because we're dealing with the same issues. Companies that suffer from unfair competition from Chinese businesses are also addressing their petitions to us.
So we need to combine all this information, streamline it. And I'm worried about Belgium because our chair comes from Belgium.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Appreciate people who are worried about my country. So, thank you for that. But maybe we should try it in another way. Anyway, let me conclude by pointing out that the deadline for amendment is May 18. It is relatively close by, five p.
M. And they are to be tabled in English only. The vote will take place at the meeting on June 3. Thank you. The point 26 of our agenda, the ongoing inter-institutional negotiations, we will postpone it since Mr.
Sousa Silva is not here to present his report. And since the matter is not of the utmost urgency, we will deal with it in our coming meeting, which means then that this ends our session of the morning session of the Budget Committee. Unfortunately, for my Belgian visiting group, we were a little bit too quick.
We were a bit too quick, but we'll keep going. But I'll be with you after the meeting.
And see you next meeting in March of this year, of course. Thank you. Enjoy your day.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.