Committee on Regional Development 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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
REGI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsElena Nevado del Campo
Y esa posición consensuada creo que en este momento es más que importante en el Fondo Social Europeo porque ha sufrido modificaciones bastante serias y no nos podemos permitir dar una señal de división entre los principales grupos que alcanzaríamos una mayoría muy reforzada de cara a la Comisión. Y por eso para que nos podamos unir en los aspectos esenciales y para que podamos construir una postura sólida, yo espero que sigamos trabajando porque la actual propuesta, sin ánimo de molestar, no se adecúa a la posición que tiene consensuada nuestro grupo, el EPP, y yo espero de la ponente que sigamos hablando y dialogando como hemos hecho. REGI yo creo que en este momento necesita mucha cohesión y mucha unión de cara también a la Comisión.
Vamos a seguir abiertos a esa discusión pormenorizada con nuestros compañeros también de otros grupos, pero sobre todo consideramos que el mejor enfoque será el que retire los elementos ideológicos, que se fundamente en los elementos que nos unen y que los diputados de esta comisión tenemos bastante claros. Y por eso esperamos seguir trabajando para llegar a esa propuesta tan necesaria de la Comisión de Regi y que desde luego el Partido Popular, el Grupo Popular, pues pueda verse reflejado aquí y podamos avalar ampliamente este informe. Muchas gracias, presidente, gracias a la mesa.
Klara Dostalova
Thank you, Ms. Klára Dostálová from Patriots.
Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues, the European Social Fund must remain in the next program period as well a strong instrument for supporting employment, skills and social cohesion. However, our amendments respond to concerns that the current proposal centralize decision-making too much and does not sufficiently reflect the differing needs of Member States and regions. I support keeping the ESF as a part of the national and regional partnership plans because linking social, regional and investment policies can deliver greater efficiency and better coordinating of European funding. At the same time, however, we stress that the implementation of the fund must fully respect the principle of subsidiarity and must not lead to the harmonization of national social, family, education and labor systems. That is why our amendment strengthen wording that clearly confirms the competencies of Member States and regions and rejects one-size-fits-all models directed from Brussels.
The ESF should support Member States, not replace their competencies. At the same times, we underline that Europe is currently facing very concrete social and economic challenges. Energy pricing, housing cost and the overall cost of living are rising. Some regions are bearing the heavy consequences of decarbonization, industrial transformation and the outflow of young people. We therefore propose that the ESF provide stronger support to regions affected by industrial transformation, the energy crisis or demographic decline.
Our amendments also place emphasis on quality jobs, reskilling, practical education and support for region facing brain drain and labor shortages. We want European funding to help people adapt to technological and economic changes without creating unnecessary administrative burns. Thank you.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Mr. Kieran Mullough from Renew.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur for the work that's been done on this file. And indeed I would like to thank colleagues for their amendments on this crucial file, many of which I can agree with. Colleagues, it is important that the European Social Fund delivers for regions that have been left behind. In my experience, this epitomizes just transition regions. In many cases, JTF regions have carried the cost of progress in the EU, communities built on peat and coal industries have seen their jobs disappear and young people leave with them, I feel we owe them a just transition.
In this context, I and many other colleagues have prioritized retraining, apprenticeships, and reskilling pathways for those who have lost their jobs, support indeed for older workers, and indeed for their families, the workers of the future who traditionally would have been employed in these areas and should be supported by just transition. Crucially, I've made proposals, Chairman, to ring-fence a specific ESF allocation for just transition measures and to make use of state-owned lands and special economic zones where possible to attract sustainable employment into these regions. There has to be a follow-up for the workers, Chair. There has to be a follow-up. I remember the days when these power stations closed in my country and representatives of the government parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, marched through the town, met the workers and promised, promised everything, and nothing happened.
And that's why I've tabled several amendments to seek to embed the priorities of the just transition throughout the ESF.
No workers, no jobs were provided to the scale that was necessary. Colleagues, for this REGI opinion, our responsibility is clear: bring the voice of the regions to the ESF. If we're serious about regional cohesion, we must address rural depopulation. We must defend people's right to stay in small towns and villages and in the communities where they live. That means we need targeted investment.
We need not just in jobs, but in housing, education, and healthcare, and the real involvement of local authorities as our partners in delivery. Social inclusion must also be strengthened. My amendments put a strong focus on the access of people with disability to the labor market and on delivery of services that are adapted to their needs. They prioritize the use of ESF resources to address the housing crisis because, as a starting point, people must be able to afford to live in their communities. Finally, I believe the quality of life matters.
By allowing the ESF to support traditional culture and sports, such as the Gaelic Athletic Association in Ireland, we can promote community-led engagement to address depopulation and provide a better and more vibrant future for our regions. I welcome representatives of the GAA back to this Parliament building today where they want to ensure they can be included in a plan going forward. We need a plan going forward. Colleagues, this is what a people-centered ESF looks like: one that stands with workers, supports communities, empowers local authorities, and delivers a transition that is fair and balanced because if the transition is not just, it will not succeed. Thank you, Chair.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you. We continue with Ms. Cristina Guarda from Greens.
Thank you very much, Chair, and we'll continue in Italy. Anzitutto vorrei ringraziare la collega Nora Mebarek per il lavoro di mediazione svolto, davvero prezioso. E ringrazio tutti voi dei contributi. Accolgo davvero con favore gli emendamenti di compromesso raggiunti. Rafforzano il ruolo del Fondo sociale europeo Plus nel rispondere alle sfide sociali che l'Unione si trova ad affrontare.
E apprezzo e apprezziamo in particolare il riconoscimento del ruolo dell'ESF Plus nella promozione della parità di genere, della parità salariale. Non possiamo costruire un'Europa davvero giusta finché le donne continueranno a essere penalizzate nel mercato del lavoro, nei percorsi di carriera, nelle retribuzioni. E quindi investire nell'uguaglianza significa ovviamente investire nel futuro dell'Europa. Allo stesso tempo però è fondamentale che il fondo continui a sostenere le pari opportunità e l'inclusione dei gruppi marginalizzati. Sono troppe le persone che continuano ad affrontare di fronte a sé ostacoli nell'accesso all'occupazione, alla formazione e ai servizi essenziali e l'ESF Plus deve rimanere strumento capace di contrastare ogni forma di esclusione e discriminazione.
In tutto questo non c'è nulla che diventa ideologico, ma c'è la difesa di un fondo sostanziale che deve avere una sua dignità. Vorrei inoltre vedere riflessa però anche con forza maggiore l'importanza di garantire lavoro e nel lavoro condizioni eque e dignitose, contrastando quindi tutti quei fenomeni delle competenze di sfruttamento delle competenze che poi portano e alimentano la fuga di talenti dalle regioni meno sviluppate.
Si tratta di una sfida che interessa molte aree dell'Unione Europea. Sono territori che investono nella formazione dei propri giovani, ma che troppo spesso vedono poi partire le loro competenze migliori per mancanza di opportunità adeguate. Quindi, rafforzare la coesione significa anche creare le condizioni affinché le persone possano scegliere dove e come costruire il proprio futuro nel territorio in cui vivono. Vi auguro davvero buon lavoro, ringrazio davvero del lavoro fatto fino ad ora in questo momento. Sono certa che anche questo ultimo aspetto potrà essere oggetto di una discussione proficua capace di darci un output positivo.
Grazie.
Kathleen Funchion
Thank you, Chair, and firstly, like others, I want to thank our rapporteur, MEP Mubarak, for a very good initial draft and a promising set of draft compromises as well. I'm really glad to see this committee working towards supporting the ESF as its own fund. I'm working on this on a number of other committees and was at one time the rapporteur on the REGI's original opinion for the own-initiative report setting out our position. So I'm really happy to see the draft report and indeed draft compromises are very much in line with my own views and priorities and look forward to seeing proposals for the compromises too on recitals as they are also very important. Again, I've said this on a number of occasions now in here, but I do want to point out the mess that the Commission has handed over to Parliament in this legislation and in the whole NRPP debacle.
We shouldn't have to be lawyers to draft amendments to something as basic as the ESF+ and the Commission has effectively just dropped a mess and walked away. So thankfully we have an excellent rapporteur who has been tasked with the job of tidying up their mess and has done a very good job. I also want to welcome specific elements, pledge my support for maintaining them. The Child Guarantee must be central to the ESF's work. Children's rights are only protected when the funding is there to do so and I think that's a really important point that we have to match issues around children's rights with the funding because it's, you know, there's a lot of talk when it comes to what we should be doing in the children's rights sphere, but it's really important that the funding is there to back up what we want to achieve.
So I'm glad it's included and I'm glad that there is an actual figure, a concrete figure beside it and it's not just aspirational. The focus on the most disadvantaged groups must remain key also to the ESF. This is a social fund, not a regional or sectoral fund and I'm glad that it is enshrined here and indeed does cover the Child Guarantee's role in tackling childhood poverty. There's strong wording on disability again, which is welcome, but I believe in the NRPP file we must go further on this. I welcome too the recognition of gender as an issue in poverty and therefore that it should be an issue in the ESF+.
There are some just a few areas where I think my own amendments or parts of them that haven't been included could maybe improve the text. For example, the ESF should be eligible to provide tailored housing measures for areas where regional, minority and lesser-used languages are spoken, developed in cooperation, in full cooperation with local communities, or potentially being able to step in to provide surge funding in some disadvantaged or in particular rural areas with pressures on services, for example, potentially aid in the housing crisis, training included through apprenticeship schemes and in skills essential to house building. They are small issues that I think could improve and look forward to those discussions, but overall I do commend our rapporteur for the work on this excellent draft. Thank you, Chair.
André Rougé
Thank you. S&D, we start with Mr. André Rougé.
Merci, Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. Merci, Madame le rapporteur, et merci à tous les collègues rapporteurs fictifs pour le travail effectué.
Néanmoins, le FSE pour la période 2028-2034 ne doit pas être hors-sol. S'il est le pilier de l'Europe sociale, il doit d'abord répondre aux réalités vécues par nos compatriotes, nos concitoyens, en particulier dans les régions ultrapériphériques. La Commission européenne souhaite orienter ce nouveau FSE vers les compétences d'avenir : intelligence artificielle, industrie verte ou celle de la défense. C'est une vision pour l'Europe continentale. Soyons lucides.
Dans nos RUP, où le chômage des jeunes atteint parfois le double, voire le triple de la moyenne européenne, les urgences sont malheureusement tout autres. Nos priorités sociales s'appellent lutte contre l'illettrisme, insertion des chômeurs de longue durée, accès aux compétences numériques de base et désenclavement par la formation. Vouloir calquer les priorités du FSE des RUP sur les grands défis industriels de Bruxelles, c'est passer totalement à côté des fractures sociales de ces territoires. C'est là tout l'enjeu de l'intégration du FSE dans les futurs plans de partenariat nationaux et régionaux voulus par la Commission européenne. La simplification administrative voulue par Bruxelles en matière sociale ne doit pas se faire au détriment des réalités territoriales.
Qui mieux que les missions locales, les universités ultramarines, les petites et moyennes entreprises et les associations de terrain à Pointe-à-Pitre, Mamoudzou, Fort-de-France, Cayenne ou Saint-Denis savent quel projet de formation créera réellement un emploi durable sur place ? Personne. Alors, chers collègues rapporteurs, ne laissons pas des critères d'évaluation macroéconomiques aggraver les fractures sociales dans les territoires les plus vulnérables de notre Union. Pour la période 28-34, nous devons exiger a minima que le volet social du cadre financier garantisse des enveloppes fléchées et adaptées aux réalités de nos régions ultrapériphériques. Merci à tous de votre écoute.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Now I give the floor to the representative of the Commission, Ms. Passerman.
Ruth Paserman
Yes, thank you, chair. Thank you, honorable members, for these interventions. I just want to clarify a couple of points. I agree completely with you of the importance of supporting the regions which are in transition or the regions which see a kind of a depopulation. And this, that this requires economic activities in these regions, but also support to people and families and workers in these regions to adapt.
And that is why it is important that the let's say the current ERDF, Regional Development Fund, and the current Social Fund work together, which they do already work together to create supply and demand of labor. And in our view, the architecture that we have proposed with the NRPP, which puts together the working of the different funds, would go even further into this working together of the supply and demand of labor and economic activity.
Now, just to be clear, we do propose an architecture that puts all the funds together, but we also and we propose a national coordinator, but we also propose absolutely not a one-size-fits-all. The coordination and the implementation the programming and implementation will be done au cas par cas in the in negotiation with the Member States and with the regions, with the local authorities to identify what is the needs in each region. And therefore it will not be necessary that is also why we are not very we have not proposed earmarking for any specific group, for example children or for example older people or for example long-term unemployed, exactly because we think that it should be tailored to the needs of the territory. I think this is actually what I wanted to say. I think I don't know I think I've answered to most of the comments.
That is why we have this flexibility in that and certainly we want to we think it is important to continue to invest not only in employment but also in training, upskilling. We have a demographic crisis which also means that we will have to make sure that people stay in their work for longer and are able to to adapt to the changing situation in work. But this of course is in some regions it may be that the major problem is indeed youth unemployment and then we will invest there. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Before the conclude this item, I would like to give the floor once again to the rapporteur Ms. Nora Mebarek to sum up the discussion.
Nora Mebarek
Merci monsieur le président, très rapidement puisque je vois que notamment les shadows et la shadow du PPE n'a pas pu rester, mais je vais lui répondre assez directement comme j'en ai l'habitude. Je ne sais pas où est l'idéologie dans un rapport de compromis quand dans cette commission on doit émettre un avis avec la lorgnette de la régie, de la cohésion. La cohésion, c'est d'abord et avant tout le porte-voix des régions. Dans toutes les interventions que j'ai entendues, que j'entends depuis le début de cette mandature, c'est qu'on se targue dans cette commission de porter la voix des régions parce qu'on sait que les autorités régionales sont celles qui sont le plus proche de nos populations, qu'elles soient en matière d'investissement, qu'elles soient en matière de lutte contre le chômage ou de planification écologique ou d'égalité des genres. On en veut pour preuve qu'on part du principe que les régions ont un diagnostic tel que ça nous permet de réintroduire, et c'est pour répondre aux patriotes, la question des RUP qui évidemment dans cette commission reste une de nos préoccupations premières et c'est la raison pour laquelle on a introduit dans ce compromis l'allocation spécifique de taux de concentration thématique le plus important sur les emplois des jeunes dans ce compromis.
Et je ne vois pas où est l'idéologie que de dire que le FSE doit rester un fonds autonome. Le CFP le dit, le rapport intermédiaire du CFP le dit, le rapport emploi géré par un PPE et une socialiste et démocrate le dit et nous, la commission qui est censée porter la voix des régions, on dirait non merci à côté et les États membres feront ce qu'ils veulent avec un FSE non autonome. J'avoue que si c'est ça être idéologue, je l'assume largement. J'aurai toujours à cœur de préserver les autorités régionales et leur investissement aux côtés de la politique européenne et notamment sur un fonds autonome d'autonomie sur le FSE qui est prévu dans les traités. Donc ne soyons pas plus comment dire ne nous frappons pas plus que ça et non, je ne faciliterai pas la vie de la Commission qui souhaiterait avoir un fonds unique parce que je pense que le FSE doit et doit rester un fonds autonome au plus proche des territoires.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. I want to remind you that the REGI opinion will be adopted in our meeting on 15th July. Thank you so much, we're going to the last point on our REGI meeting with a presentation from the European Court of Auditors on the financial corrections in cohesion policy. We have now the pleasure of welcoming Ms. Annemie Turtelboom, who just a few months ago presented us a very interesting review on smart specialization strategies. Today she will once again share her insights with us together with the findings of the special report on financial corrections in cohesion policy.
Ms. Turtelboom, you have the floor.
Annemie TURTELBOOM
Okay, good afternoon, and first of all, thank you for the invite to be here. It's always a pleasure to present our reports to the European Parliament and mainly to the REGI committee. So as the president, the chair has said, we will present the report on financial corrections in cohesion policy. I will see how I can... voilà, okay. So to begin with some background, cohesion policy is implemented under shared management, which means that Member States and the European Commission are together responsible for protecting the EU budget.
The Member States are required to ensure that the expenditure they claim is free from material error. The Commission must take action to recover the EU funds from Member States that have been unduly paid if the Member States do not correct it themselves. In our annual reports, we consistently find the error rate to be above the 2% materiality threshold in the area of cohesion policy. Now, we did this audit to discover whether the approach to financial corrections in cohesion policy is well-designed and whether the Commission has been making effective use of them to protect the EU's financial interests. Here on this slide, you can see that there are different categories of financial correction with different outcomes and impact on funding related to the 2014-2020 period.
When the Member States' program authorities detect irregularities, they apply financial corrections by deducting the irregular expenditure from the payments claims on account or accounts they submit to the Commission. They can replace it with other expenditure they consider legal and regular within the same operational program. This maintains the program's overall EU funding level. As provided for in the CPR, when the Commission detects irregular expenditure declared for EU financing or a serious deficiency in the management and control system, it informs the Member State of its provisional conclusions and in the event of an agreement, the Member State makes the financial correction. By doing so, it excludes the expenditure concerned and is allowed to reuse the fund for regular expenditure.
In the event of disagreement between the Commission and a Member State, the Commission is required to adopt a financial correction decision. In such a case, the Member State is not allowed to replace the irregular expenditure and the EU funding it receives is definitely reduced. We refer to them as net... Slow down, slow down. Oh, slow down, sorry.
I will, I will speak a bit slower for the translators. Okay. In... we refer to them as net financial corrections. Where the Commission or the ECA detects irregularities demonstrating a serious deficiency in the effective functioning of the management and control systems operated by a Member State and which had not been identified, reported or corrected by the Member State prior to the date of detection, the Commission is required to make a financial correction whether or not the Member State agrees. The direct reduction in the EU funds available to a Member State for the operational programme concerned is intended to deterrent to stress the importance of compliance with EU rules.
The reduction cannot be avoided by Member State's agreement, therefore we refer to it in this report as mandatory net financial corrections. It is mandatory in the sense that the Commission must make a financial correction regardless of any Member State agreement. Now, our audit questions, here you can see we broke them down into individual audit questions. We split the question into three parts: on the framework, on the actual application of financial corrections and on the reporting and implementation. Our audit approach was to take a look and to conduct the audit focusing on the overview of the legislation, the samples of the audits and the reporting on the implementation.
Now, let me come now to the main part of the presentation or hopefully the most interesting and important part is on the key findings. The first key finding is that the complex legal framework makes it challenging for the Commission to apply financial corrections. We aim to verify whether the legislation sets out clear objectives for financial corrections and whether the procedure is straightforward. We found that the purpose of financial corrections goes beyond ensuring the legality and regularity of expenditure. They fulfil multiple additional objectives, including ensuring that Member States manage the EU funding soundly.
Second in this key first key finding is that the financial correction procedure is not time-bound. So we found that the legislation does not specify how soon the Commission must launch the financial correction procedure after it becomes aware of irregularities and or serious deficiencies. In addition, there is no legal deadline for completing the entire procedure. Although some individual steps are time-bound, others are not and potentially extending the procedure without any time limit. Third point is that the procedure for the Commission's mandatory net financial corrections is complex and subject to limitations.
For example, mandatory net corrections can only be applied when there are irregularities demonstrating a serious deficiency in the effective functioning of the management and control system.
Irregularities can only result from an act or omission of an economic operator. So this means that program authorities in this role are not economic operators and therefore, according to EU law, cannot commit irregularities. As a result, failures by program authorities cannot on their own lead to a mandatory net financial correction by the Commission. And last point of our first key finding is that the legal framework for 2021-2027 has not significantly improved. It should have built upon the previous period and addressed its weaknesses.
For example, there are still no defined deadlines for the several steps required for the Commission to apply the financial corrections. The second key finding is that the Commission does not apply the financial corrections consistently. They have no legal obligation to apply financial corrections where necessary. We examined how it made corrections in response to our audits and its own audits. And here's one of our findings: there were weaknesses in the Commission's applications and assessment of financial corrections.
I can give you an example: the quantification of financial corrections should be based on the individual cases of identified irregularities. Where precise quantification is not possible, a flat-rate correction can be applied. We highlighted an example of incorrect awards in a case in Slovakia. Initially, they were found on two contracts and the Commission proposed a 25% financial correction, which was in line with the guidance. However, during the subsequent financial corrections procedure, 46 more contracts were found to be potentially affected by the same irregularity.
The Commission agreed to apply a flat-rate correction of 10% to all the contracts, including the initial two audited contracts. Since the Commission identified the irregularity in these two particular contracts, the amount of irregular expenditure could be quantified and the two audited contracts should have remained subject to an individual financial correction of 25%. The third key finding is that the Commission reporting on the implementation of financial corrections is not sufficiently reliable. We examined the existing Commission monitoring and reporting system and reviewed the reliability of the underlying data. Here's another of our findings: the estimated future corrections do not reflect the Commission's capacity to identify and correct errors in cohesion spending.
The Commission makes an estimate of future corrections. This provides an estimate for the risk at closure, the amount of risk that will remain in the accounts once the Commission has applied the necessary financial corrections to bring the total error rates down to 2% for all the programs. Now, in its 2024 annual activity report, both DG REGIO and DG EMPL estimated that future corrections for the 2014-2020 program would reduce the estimated risk at closure to the necessary 2%. However, the estimate is not just based on irregularities detected from the Commission's audits, but also flat rates and top-ups applied to non-audited programs.
As no actual financial corrections will be applied for such top-ups, if no future audit work is carried out on these programs, the estimated future corrections are likely to be higher than the ones actually realized. The DGs do not did not compare the initially estimated future corrections with the actual corrections in the actual annual activity reports. We compared the financial corrections that were actually made with the future financial corrections estimated by the Commission for the operational programs with reported total residual error rate above 2%. You see the example for DG Regio on the slide. We found that overall the actual financial corrections at the time of issuing the 2024 annual activity reports, while exchanges between the Commission and the Member States are ongoing and future audit work is being carried out, the table indicates that the financial corrections that were made by the time of the 2014 20 of the 2024 annual activities reports were issued were still well below well below the initially estimated corrections.
And this leads us to four recommendations. First, apply the financial corrections as provided for in the legal framework. The Commission should base the financial corrections on individually verified irregularities and only when it is not possible to propose a systemic flat-rate correction, ensure that the flat-rate reductions do not prevent expenditure declared in the future to be subject to regular verifications and audits. Second recommendation is ensure the timely implementation of the financial corrections. The Commission should set and apply reasonable deadlines for all steps in the financial corrections procedure and ensure that the final audit reports can more readily be used to apply financial corrections, minimizing as far as possible the need to perform additional audit work, thus leading to shorter follow-up and fewer exchanges with the Member States.
Also, launch the financial correction procedure in every case a Member State disagreement with a financial correction proposed by the Commission and sufficiently justify and document the changes to proposed amount of financial corrections and avoid modifications without new evidence. Now, the third recommendation is to ensure consistency when assessing management and control systems and evaluating serious deficiencies. So the Commission should ensure the consistency in the assessment of the key requirements and when evaluating serious deficiencies, including by improving the clarity of the relative guidance and necessary as necessary. And the last recommendation is improve the transparency and accuracy of the reporting of financial corrections in the annual activity reports and in the AMPR. So the Commission should strengthen its reporting by providing data on the total amount of corrections and ensuring that the data is published is it publishes including on the origin of the corrections is accurate, estimate the future corrections based on the Commission's capacity to identify and correct the errors, and improving transparency by providing a comparison between the initially estimated future corrections and the corrections that were actually made and disclosing the effect on the risk at closure.
Thank you very much for your attention and I'm looking forward to your questions.
Ciaran Mullooly
Who wants to take the floor? Mr. Kieran Mullaney.
Chair, just just one question really. I'm listening carefully to the report. I'm very grateful for the evidence that's been presented to us this afternoon. But one issue just just strikes me in relation to this as a new member of Parliament. I note the fact that we, you know, we have evidence today that where corrective action was proposed in some cases, the corrective action intended was not taken.
An example was given of an error of relating to 20% of funding for instance and then in the corrective action just 10% of funding was actually recommended as the solution to the situation. I just want to ask the simple question, presumably there are implications for the budget of in relation to this issue. If allocations are made within the MFF, within a budget for a department here or elsewhere, and errors are detected at audit level, the recommended changes are not carried out as you just pointed out, not to the level appropriate, are there knock-on implications for the budget? In my member state for instance at the moment there is a controversy with regard to the spending of the Department of Education in Ireland at the moment. There is an overspend in the department.
And obviously the focus is on the minister and the management of the department asking the questions why has there been an overspend. But the direct knock-on effect of that is that the Irish government is pursuing budget changes in a range of other departments to make up for the deficit so to speak. In other words, they are following, they are pursuing other departments in government which seems to me to be quite unfair in many respects of the situation. So I ask the same question in regard to your findings and to the overall effect on the Commission where how we are, is there a knock-on effect of these errors and especially in cases where the as you said yourself the recommended corrections did not actually take place to the level that you had suggested or recommended. Thank you.
Sabrina Repp
Ms. Sabrina Repp.
Vielen Dank. Ich kann bei meinem Kollegen eigentlich nur nahtlos anschließen. Erstmal vielen Dank für Ihre Darstellung. Ich frage mich in der Tat auch, ich warte noch kurz. Okay.
Ich frage mich in der Tat auch, ich meine Sie haben ja ganz konkret gefordert, dass eben der Rechtsrahmen umgesetzt wird. Und für mich ist nach wie vor die Frage, wenn Korrekturen angestrebt werden, warum die Kommission nicht in der Lage ist diese entsprechend auch umzusetzen. Es sind jetzt Handlungsempfehlungen von Ihrer Seite und ich frage mich, wir haben ja in mehreren Themenbereichen immer wieder die Herausforderung zwischen Empfehlungen die Sie tätigen, die ich sehr nachvollziehbar und richtig finde, aber es einfach eine große Lücke diesbezüglich gibt, was die Kommission tatsächlich umsetzt und welche Korrekturen sie vornimmt. Also warum wird es am Ende nicht adressiert, das würde mich einmal interessieren. Was braucht es in der Kommission, damit das sich auch verändert, gerade auch im Hinblick auf den nächsten mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen.
Denn wir reden total viel über mehr Effizienzen, über besseren Mittelabfluss, über besseren Mitteleinsatz. Und das muss am Ende sich durch alle Ebenen durchziehen und da dürfen wir nicht die Kommission auch außen vor lassen. Und dann die letzte Frage die sich anschließt auch, jetzt haben Sie sehr viele Empfehlungen auch im Bezug auf die Kommission gegeben, aber so nachvollziehbar Sie das auch gestaltet haben wäre meine Frage jetzt noch, was brauchen Sie auch von Seiten des Europäischen Parlamentes, um vielleicht auch den Druck auf die Kommission zu erhöhen entsprechend Korrekturen auch vorzunehmen und zwar so, dass sie nicht nur Lippenbekenntnisse sind sondern tatsächlich umgesetzt werden.
Nora Mebarek
Monsieur le Président. Pardon. Je vais dans le prolongement de mes collègues, je voudrais savoir si vous avez une estimation du manquement des corrections en termes budgétaires. Combien ça représente financièrement ce manque de réactivité ou en tout cas ce manque de finalement de cadre juridique et législatif que vous nous indiquez ou de manquement, de manque d'efficacité par la Commission pour pouvoir faire ces corrections ? Est-ce que vous avez un montant, enfin une idée d'un montant, notamment sur les programmations précédentes ?
Et ma deuxième question, c'est pas une question, c'est un avis. Vous nous indiquez qu'il y a des sujets, enfin des soucis d'efficacité sur pour la Commission, à la fois par difficulté de textes juridiques et législatifs, mais aussi parce que la DG REGIO des fois n'est pas réactive. J'ai envie de dire que ça ne va pas s'améliorer si on suit les actualités et pour lequel le Président Benifei nous a fait signer un courrier, si la DG REGIO est en plus éclatée dans toute autre service de la Commission. Donc qui, si la DG REGIO disparaît, aura la légitimité de pouvoir suivre et faire un suivi et un contrôle budgétaire et donc une réclamation de de de contrôle auprès des opérateurs et des États membres ?
Agnieszka Kozłowska
Ms Agnieszka Krokylowska.
Yes, yes, thank you very much. I think that the micro was switched off, so that is why I didn't hear. Thank you very much. May I start with some general comments? May I?
Or just to reply to the questions? May I start with some general comments I just wanted to from our side? Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much also for the invitation and also for the presentation of the report. At the beginning I was obliged to apologize on behalf of Franck Sébert, our director, because he is with the annual meeting with the meeting with audit authorities.
So that is why he was not able to participate in this meeting. I will not repeat the information already we provided in our reply, but I just wanted to say few words about the current state of play, the new developments from the publication of the report and also the state of play of the implementation of recommendation, because this improvements of the system is also very important for us. When we speak about the corrective capacity, it's very important to see it in the a little bit broader perspective and take into account all its elements. First of all, under shared management, important corrective mechanism is in first instance at Member States level to prevent, detect and correct irregularities or to withdraw already declared expenditures. It's in our opinion the most important mechanism, kind of the self-corrective ability of the management and control system.
The second element, the second instance is when the Commission steps in and requests or carries out additional financial corrections. And here we have two types of the corrections. First type when Member States can still reuse the corrected amounts for other eligible projects to fulfill the program objectives, and the other type which are the net financial corrections.
Net financial corrections are therefore not the only type of financial correction, and all financial corrections that I mentioned are effective tool to protect the EU budget. In this context, I would like to highlight, it was, it will be a reply of the one of the questions about the total amount of financial corrections in the total what we are talking about, especially concerning the previous programming period 14-20. So we, we, we see in this context the significant overall corrective capacity of Member States. For the period 14-20, up to April 2026, Member States' program authorities reported a total of 22.9 billion euro of expenditures withdrawn already from annual accounts. Just to compare it with the previous programming periods, it was 6.4 billion in 2007-13 programming period and 8 billion in 2000-2006.
And for the period 2021-27, Member States reported already withdrawal of 1 billion euro from the annual accounts. This considerable corrective capacity of Member States translates the preventive effect of the legal provision on possible net financial corrections. It is an important incentive for Member States to detect, report, and correct serious irregularities in first instance, so they are able to reuse the amounts for other eligible projects to fulfill the program objectives. In addition to this corrective capacity at the level of Member States, European Commission imposed almost 1.6 billion euro of financial corrections for 2014-20 programming period as a follow-up of its own audits, European Court of Auditors' audits, and also OLAF investigations. It shows us the very strong preventive effect and increasing the protection of EU budget.
On the top of this, maybe I will not mention because it was already said about the net financial correction adopted already in September 2024, but it was also mentioned in the European Court of Auditors' report. The aim is exclusively to protect the EU budget by excluding any irregular amounts or expenditure declared to the European Union. The Commission considers that despite some differences with European Court of Auditors' assessment of some cases in its sample, the report provided a useful basis to reflect on ways to further improved, improve the implementation of the updated provisions on financial corrections procedures for 21-27. In this, here I would like to mention that the Commission has accepted all four recommendations and issues in the report. The last one was partially, partially accepted, one of the sub-recommendation was not accepted due to the limitations set by the legal framework for the MS Member States' reporting.
Since the publication of the special report in November 2025, the Commission has already started to implement the recommendation of European Court of Auditors, and majority of them are already implemented. So, I don't know if I will maybe not, there is very limited time, so maybe I will not go through the details, but recommendation first is already implemented.
We adjusted our approach for future flat-rate corrections due to the systemic irregularities, applying financial corrections on the individual identified irregularities in its, in the sample and the decided flat-rate corrections for the rest of the not audited potentially affected population. We also requested program authorities to continue their regular verification and audit work on the operation affected already by flat-rate correction just to be sure that other irregularities not covered by the flat-rate correction are not here. Okay. So recommendation number two also implemented. Recommendation number three is, is currently being implemented.
We are preparing the paper. Recommendation four partially, that was a partially accepted, is partially implemented, partially under the implementation. Thank you very much.
Annemie TURTELBOOM
Yes, thank you very much and thank you for your questions and thank you to the Commission to implement most of our recommendations. It's always, makes our reports very useful. On the first question, you refer for example to the example in the box one in Slovakia where there was a proposed 25% financial correction and then for the rest there was also flat-rate of 10%. So it's, it's, we criticize that that actually if they figure out later on. Now if you then refer to the member state and your member state where the, of course if there is at a certain moment a correction, if the member states does the financial correction themselves, they can reuse the money.
But if it's a financial correction that is done by the European Commission because the member states themselves did not react, then they cannot reuse it. And then of course if the program needs to go ahead, then it's up to the member states to see how they deal with it, whether they cut the budget or whether they try to divert money from other posts. But that is up to the member state, that is not in our recommendations or not in our mandate, but that is then of course a result of, of the fact that the correction is done by the, but the system is of course made in a way to motivate the member states also to do the financial corrections themselves because then they can reuse the money. On your question, when you refer what can the European Parliament do, well pressure is always good, I would say. But secondly, a clearer legislation because we clearly said in our report that actually the legislation from 2021 onwards, they didn't learn the lessons from the 2014-2020 period.
And if we are now, as you rightly point out, in front of a next MFF, it would be good to see because we are, we worked in our audit on the Commission, on the CPR regulation, so which means we just don't invent anything, we just read the regulation and we see how it's implemented. And of course for a next MFF, if we were continue or if the Commission continues with the national plans, of course then the legislation, how it is implemented and the dynamic at the member states and relying on the member states' control systems becomes even more important if the legislation stands as it is or as the proposal of the Commission is now. So I would say there is a big role for the next MFF for the European Parliament.
And when you were asking what should be happen at the level of the Commission, I hope, I think that the representative of the Commission already answered to that question because that is more for them. On your question about the amount, there I would like to refer to in our report to the paragraph 67 and 68 where actually there are indeed amounts that are represented. We have there, for example, in the table one, but we also clearly state in paragraph 68 that actually for the 2014-2020 program period, the program authorities in the member states were only required to provide the total amount of the financial corrections resulting from audit authorities' audits of operations. There were no further requirements for member states to provide details about the origin of the corrections, such as corrections following from managing authorities' verifications, Commission's checks, ECA audits or OLAF investigations. So DG REGIO and DG EMPL, they complete this information by using data manually registered in their own IT tool and several underlying spreadsheets on their own follow-up of the checks, ECA audits and OLAF investigation.
So what I want to say, there are indeed data and you can read them in the report, but there is not a clear breakdown to see where it is coming from. And we highlight also in our report that it would be good to have more detailed information about these data and more detailed breakdowns on it. And your second was more a remark and less a question, so that I listened very carefully to your remark.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Turtelboom, for the presentation or for the valuable insights. I would also like to thank all of you for your participation, as well as the interpreters for facilitating our debates today. Our meeting is finished here. I wish you all a good afternoon. Thank you so much.
Speaker 21
Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you to the REGI Committee meeting. I would like to welcome the members, the staff, the interpreters, and all those who are following us online. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed and that the use of the electronic voting card is not required for this meeting. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
The draft agenda was circulated to all members. Are there any objections or any requests for changes to the agenda? I see no objections, so the agenda is adopted. The second item on the agenda is the Chair's announcements. I would like to inform you that the interpretation is available in the following languages: German, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Croatian.
I would also like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed and that the recording will be available on the committee's website. The third item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the meetings of the 23rd and 24th of January 2024. The minutes were circulated to all members. Are there any objections or any requests for changes to the minutes? I see no objections, so the minutes are approved.
The fourth item on the agenda is the exchange of views with the European Commission on the implementation of the cohesion policy 2021-2027.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.