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 sittingsOlivier Chastel
Plus concrètement, on parle d'un entrepôt d'un peu plus de 10 000 mètres carrés pour un budget annuel d'un peu plus d'un million d'euros, soit sur 18 ans un peu plus de 20 millions d'euros. Les travaux nécessaires seront gérés par le propriétaire lui-même. Au vu de la nécessité d'avoir des superficies supplémentaires dans le cadre des travaux liés au Spaak, je pense que nous pouvons marquer notre accord sur cette demande.
Merci. Any of the shadow rapporteurs wanting to take the floor? Madame Furre.
Angéline Furet
Merci, Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. On nous demande aujourd'hui de valider la location d'un entrepôt géant de plus de 10 000 mètres carrés à Machelen, c'est-à-dire à 10 km, comme vous le disiez, Monsieur Chastel, du Parlement européen. Ce dossier est un désastre à trois niveaux. Financièrement d'abord, avec les frais annexes, la facture dépassera les 20 millions d'euros sur 18 ans. C'est une insulte pour nos concitoyens.
Logistiquement ensuite, le prétexte est lunaire. L'administration accumule tant de matériel qu'elle manque d'espace et surtout, il faut vider le bâtiment Spaak en vue de sa rénovation qui, je vous le rappelle, coûte déjà un demi-milliard d'euros au bas mot. Politiquement enfin, le montage est bancal. Si la Commission, censée louer un cinquième de l'espace, se retire avant terme, ce sont nos contribuables qui épongeront la différence. Nous refusons d'être les banquiers de votre désorganisation.
Cet entrepôt doit remplacer nos structures ruineuses comme au Luxembourg et non s'y additionner. L'argent de l'Union, c'est l'argent de nos contribuables. Je vous remercie.
Merci. Nils Ušakovs, please.
Oh, thank you, Chair. If I may, one question about the warehouse, because as far as we understand from the request, the property is planned to be used as a storage, that is warehouse area. So why there is a need for another roughly 700 square meters for office purposes with another 15 workstations? So if you could probably provide additional information. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Any other shadow rapporteur or MEP wanting to take the floor? If not, we I go to Ms. Grzybowska for reply to what has been said. Please.
Anna Grzybowska
Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Regarding the additional office workstations, there's going to be two colleagues working permanently in the warehouse, but there is going to be some movement. The the warehouse is 10 kilometers from Brussels, so whenever you have needs for inventory management activities, for relocation activities, there's going to be staff coming in and out, and this is why those additional workstations are going to be put in, but not all of them are going to be used permanently. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. Monsieur Chastel, vous voulez conclure? Non, oh bien. Also with respect to building policy, we have received multiple early warnings from the Commission, and we will process them in two distinct batches. The first batch relates to three early warnings from the Commission for taking in usufruct three buildings in Brussels.
I give the floor first to Ms. Sara Leckonen, Head of Department Management of Real Estate, for a presentation of the files.
Sara Leckonen
Dear Chair, honorable members, the Commission wishes indeed to submit three files for the pre-information of the budgetary authority today. The first concerns the contracting under usufruct of a building provisionally entitled B2/2026. It has a gross floor area of 10,000 square meters. It's situated within the European Quarter here in Brussels. It is to be commissioned and moved into during the first quarter of 2028.
The full building file will include the draft usufruct contract agreement, and we will present it for prior approval of the budgetary authority during the first half of 2027. That is our plan. Then our second file concerns the contracting under usufruct again of a building provisionally entitled B3/2026. This building has a gross floor area of 20,000 square meters. It is situated within the European Quarter here in Brussels.
It is to be commissioned and moved into during the third quarter of 2030. The full building file will include the draft usufruct contract agreement, and we plan to send it for prior approval of the budgetary authority during the first half of 2027, just as the previous one. And then finally, the third file today concerns the contracting under usufruct of a building provisionally entitled B4/2026 with a gross floor area of 12,500 square meters. This building is situated also within the European Quarter here in Brussels. It is to be commissioned and moved into during the fourth quarter of 2027.
The full building file will include the draft usufruct contract agreement, and we plan to present it for prior approval towards the first half of 2027.
Thank you for your attention.
Merci Monsieur le Président. Je veux évidemment remercier l'OIB à la fois pour sa présentation mais aussi pour les réponses que nous avons reçues aux questions posées la semaine dernière concernant ces trois early warnings. À ce stade moi j'ai pas de questions supplémentaires et je propose qu'on en reparle évidemment quand on aura des éléments plus concrets sur ce dossier.
Thank you. Any of the shadow rapporteurs wanting to take the floor? No. Then we can pass on to the second batch where we have first an update on the progress of an ongoing building project facing delays and two related early warnings for buildings also in Luxembourg. I give the floor to Guy Droüard, Head of Service Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg, please.
Guy Droüard
Bonjour, merci Monsieur le Président. Donc l'objectif de cette présentation est de vous donner un état des lieux de la situation du Jean Monnet 2, donc le projet de construction de l'immeuble qui va permettre de regrouper l'essentiel des services de la Commission à Luxembourg. Donc suite en fait à un certain nombre de problèmes d'organisation de la part de l'architecte et de son équipe de gestion de projet, le projet, on nous a annoncé un retard de deux ans qui nous amènerait à une livraison de l'immeuble à mai 2028 avec trois mois de possibilité d'aléas. Donc c'est évidemment un souci. Nous sommes en contact permanent avec les équipes, avec les autorités luxembourgeoises et l'administration qui font la, qui sont maîtres d'ouvrage.
Évidemment nous mettons avec les autorités luxembourgeoises un certain nombre de pressions pour permettre, enfin pour faire avancer le projet et aboutir dans ce délai. Néanmoins cela a des conséquences sur l'occupation de nos immeubles et nous oblige à devoir demander la prolongation des loyers de deux immeubles importants sur la place de Luxembourg, ce qui m'amène aux deux autres dossiers. Donc la prolongation du bâtiment dit BECH, donc pour une durée de 24 mois, donc ce qui nous amènerait donc jusque fin 2029, ce qui permettrait de couvrir d'autres retards s'il devait y en avoir, mais nous pouvons évidemment partir plus tôt avec une résiliation anticipée. L'autre immeuble concerné, c'est le deuxième dossier, c'est l'immeuble Helios, donc ex-Drosbach DRB, et donc pour lequel nous demandons une prolongation de trois ans maximum avec des possibilités de sortie anticipée évidemment qui nous permettent de couvrir de 2027, du 1er mai 2027 au 30 avril 2030 maximum évidemment avec des possibilités de sortie anticipée une fois que nous aurons d'une part eu la livraison de l'immeuble Jean Monnet 2 et d'autre part avons exécuté le déménagement. Je vous remercie.
Olivier Chastel
Oui, alors je veux d'abord remercier Monsieur Droüard pour sa présentation, la note, les réponses aux questions écrites posées aussi la semaine dernière. Et je voudrais en premier lieu remercier l'OIL pour la franchise de sa note expliquant les différents problèmes ayant notamment induit de nombreux retards et un budget plus important même s'il reste encore à ce stade dans les limites approuvées par l'autorité budgétaire. Le chantier du bâtiment Monnet à Luxembourg a évidemment été marqué par, on vient de l'entendre et on l'a lu dans les notes techniques, des insuffisances techniques, des retards considérables, des problèmes de gestion et de coordination qui semblent être imputés au bureau d'architecte. Il n'en reste pas moins que nous devons avancer sur ce dossier, finir, le finir au plus vite et au mieux. Alors j'ai quand même quelques questions complémentaires.
Qu'est-ce que concrètement l'OIL peut mettre en œuvre pour finaliser ce chantier vu les insuffisances du bureau d'architecte, comment en assurer un suivi?
Et la deuxième question, c'est la question des pénalités. Est-ce qu'on peut m'expliquer comment peuvent être réclamées ces pénalités, comment elles peuvent être mises en place et a-t-on une idée de l'ordre de grandeur d'un point de vue financier de ces pénalités ? Enfin, concernant les deux early warnings pour la prolongation du bail des bâtiments Helios et Bèche, qui sont directement liés évidemment au retard du bâtiment Jean Monnet 2, j'ai à ce stade plus de questions complémentaires et je propose évidemment qu'on en reparle dès que nous avons les éléments techniques financiers plus concrets à notre disposition. Merci.
Merci. Any of the shadows wanting to take the floor? No, then we go back to Monsieur Drowart for answers to the questions just raised by Monsieur Chastel. Please.
Guy Droüard
Voilà, Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie, Monsieur le Rapporteur, je vous remercie. Donc voilà, donc en ce qui concerne la mise en œuvre, en fait il faut savoir que dans la construction juridique de l'ensemble, la la maîtrise d'ouvrage est de l'est au niveau de l'administration des bâtiments publics luxembourgeoise, donc l'État luxembourgeois. Donc nous sommes en réalité le client final, donc l'Union européenne et ici l'OIL est le client final pour ce pour ce dossier. Évidemment, pour ne pas dégager de responsabilité ou que les gens ne se sentent enfin continuent à se sentir concernés, nous sommes en étroite collaboration avec les autorités luxembourgeoises et l'administration des bâtiments publics pour le suivi du dossier. L'OIL guide les autorités luxembourgeoises lorsqu'il y a un certain nombre de choix à faire de façon à ce que nos intérêts soient préservés.
Donc ça c'est en ce qui concerne le on va dire le suivi du projet. Évidemment, nous avons également à l'œil les pénalités ou les actions qui pourraient être entreprises. Et donc dans les questions qui avaient été posées et qui ont été répondues, donc les pénalités de l'architecte limitées à 20 % de ses honoraires. Néanmoins, il y a également la possibilité de faire valoir les droits en termes d'indemnité et de responsabilité civile puisque en fait nous nous subissons un dommage. À ce stade-ci, il est à notre avis prématuré de faire appel à ces mécanismes qui sont contradictoires, qui sont incompatibles, on ne peut pas avoir l'un et l'autre.
Et nous devrons voir avec les autorités luxembourgeoises comment faire au mieux appliquer et respecter nos droits. C'est l'essentiel. Évidemment, le montant de 6 000 euros plafonné à 20 % des honoraires de l'architecte peut être un montant qui ne reflète pas tout à fait le dommage que nous avons ou que nous risquons de subir et en tout cas tout le problème du délai, le fait que on a une incertitude au niveau de nos collègues qui doivent être déplacés et on ne peut pas démarrer les plans de déménagement. Donc tout ça en fait complique la vie à Luxembourg d'autant plus que les parlementaires pardon excusez-moi les propriétaires, les propriétaires sont extrêmement violents avec nous puisqu'en fait ils utilisent ils considèrent les bâtiments comme des assets financiers et donc exercent une pression importante pour libérer les biens et en réalité pouvoir les relouer. Donc nous ne sommes malheureusement pas en position de négociation très forte et les extensions que nous demandons dans la suite du dossier sont évidemment négociées de façon à ce qu'on ait les plus grandes possibilités.
Donc à ce stade-ci et pour ces raisons, il est possible éventuellement de faire appel à disons des dommages, mais on devra faire ça sous la façon la plus appropriée de façon à ne pas ralentir le dossier. Merci.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Okay, this closes up the discussion on building policy and we are now going to voting time. We have the quorum. Let me first check the machinery and well, let me be a little bit chauvinistic and ask you to vote on the question whether Belgium will win the World Cup football. The vote is open. Apparently we're not gonna win, which I think is a is a reasonable estimate or forecast.
Okay, the first point number seven, financial activities of the European Investment Bank. We first compromise A. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise B. Who's in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise C. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise D. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise E. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise F. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. And then the roll call vote, sorry, compromise G. Compromise G. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. On the final vote, draft text as amendment, roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted, 22 in favor, 5 against, no abstentions.
Point number eight, laying down the measures necessary for the implementation of protocol number 37 on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC treaty and on the research fund for coal and steel annexed to the treaty on the European Union and to the treaty for the functioning of the European Union. It's one roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed and it is adopted, 26 in favor, 2 abstentions. Then we have point number nine, the mobilization of the European Globalization Adjustment Fund for displaced workers following an application from Belgium. We vote on amendment 5.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Amendment 6.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 7.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 8.
Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? We have to check this. The vote is open.
Vote is closed. It is rejected, 11 in favor, 12 against, 5 abstentions. Amendment 9. Who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Amendment 10. Who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Amendment 11, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Amendment 12, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Amendment 13, who's in favor? Against? Abstentions? Let's check this.
The vote is open. Vote is closed. It is rejected, 13 in favor, 15 against. Amendment 14, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 15, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. Amendment 16, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.
Amendment 19, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Amendment 17, who's in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 18, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Amendment 20, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. 21, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected.
22, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. No, adopted, sorry, sorry, adopted.
22 is adopted. 23, who's in favor?
Johan Van Overtveldt
Oh, 23, 23 falls. 24, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
25, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 26, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. 27, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 1, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Amendment 2, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? We should check this.
The vote is open. Closed. Rejected, in favor 11, against 13, three abstentions. Amendment 3, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Amendment 4, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. And then the final vote on the draft text as amended, roll call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. It is adopted, 25 in favor, one against, two abstentions. Then we go to point number 10, establishing the instrument for nuclear safety cooperation and decommissioning for the period 28-34 and repealing Regulation 21/10 and 21/948.
We vote on compromise 2, in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise 1, in favor?
Against? Abstention? Adopted. And then we have the roll call vote for the draft text as amended, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
It is adopted, 22 in favor, six abstentions. Point 11, the nuclear decommissioning assistance program of the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania for the period 28-34 and repealing Regulation 21/101. Compromise 2, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise 1, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
We vote now on the draft text as amended, roll-call vote, the vote is open. Vote is closed. Adopted, 23 in favor, 1 against, 4 abstentions. Point number 12, the amending decision on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Union, including relations between the European Union on the one hand and Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other hand. We vote on compromise 5, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise 1, sorry, compromise 1, who's in favor? Who's against?
Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise 2, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Adopted. Compromise 3, sorry, we first have to vote on amendment 11. Who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains?
Rejected. Compromise 3, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted.
Compromise 4, who's in favor? Who's against? Who abstains? Adopted. We have then amendment 25, who's in favor?
Who's against? Who abstains? Rejected. We vote on the draft text as amended by roll-call vote, the vote is open. Vote is closed.
Adopted, 26 in favor, 1 against, 1 abstention. Then we vote point 13, DEC 7/2021, roll-call vote, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted, 25 in favor, 1 against, 2 abstentions. Point 14 on the budget other sections, the European Economic and Social Committee, roll-call vote, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted, 22 in favor, 1 against, 6 abstentions. Then on the building policy point number 15, the external warehouse Mechelen, the vote is open, roll-call vote. The vote is closed. Adopted, 22 in favor, 7 against, no abstentions.
And this is the end of our voting session. Thank you.
Colleagues, can we resume our meeting? We go to point 16 of our agenda of today, which is on establishing the conditions for the implementation of the Union support to the common fisheries policy, to the European Ocean Pact and of the Union's maritime and aquaculture policy as part of the national and regional partnership fund set out in regulation for the period 28 to 35. I give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr. Radza, please.
Radza
Thank you, I'll speak in Italian. Grazie colleghi, la mia introduzione sarà assolutamente breve, perché nella nostra relazione intermedia approvata dal Parlamento sul quadro finanziario pluriennale abbiamo individuato una forte formulazione a difesa della politica comune sulla pesca e alla necessità del suo adeguato finanziamento. Pertanto il progetto di valutazione di bilancio che è oggi presentato cerca di riflettere anzitutto il sostegno a favore di un bilancio solido per le nostre industrie e comunità della pesca. Tuttavia, il progetto di valutazione di bilancio riguarda principalmente le implicazioni di bilancio della proposta della Commissione relativa al regolamento settoriale sulla politica comune della pesca. Siamo tutti consapevoli che, secondo l'approccio legislativo della Commissione, tutte le disposizioni finanziarie e di bilancio pertinenti relative alla politica della pesca sono incluse nel regolamento sul fondo nazionale NRPP.
Di conseguenza, il regolamento contenente le disposizioni settoriali dice molto poco sull'ammontare dei finanziamenti e sulle linee di bilancio collegate. Ci troviamo quindi di fronte ad un difficile punto di partenza che è analogo a quello che si è evidenziato per il regolamento settoriale in materia di agricoltura. Questo significa che dovremo affrontare le cifre concrete nella relazione e soltanto poi valutarle nel contesto del quadro finanziario pluriennale. Propongo quindi di utilizzare questa valutazione di bilancio, almeno nella sua parte risolutiva, per formulare però una serie di punti che consideriamo incisivi.
La proposta della Commissione è al di sotto delle aspettative e delle reali esigenze della nostra industria della pesca. Possiamo fare riferimento alla relazione intermedia e ribadire che desideriamo vedere l'assegnazione aumentata da 2 miliardi a 7,3 miliardi di euro. Il progetto di valutazione insiste su una maggiore trasparenza e su una struttura di bilancio significativa affinché il Parlamento nell'ambito della procedura annuale possa destinare gli stanziamenti necessari. Inoltre abbiamo bisogno di un sostegno amministrativo sufficiente e solido e di una buona struttura di governance per poter spendere le risorse in maniera efficace. Altro aspetto che possiamo sollevare riguarda la difficoltà derivante dal finanziamento della politica comune disperso tra troppe rubriche del quadro finanziario pluriennale perché contenuto tanto nella rubrica 1 quanto nella rubrica 3.
Se ci sarà il sostegno della Commissione a questo approccio ci atterremo a un ambito così circoscritto di valutazioni perché se andassimo oltre gli aspetti di bilancio ed entrassimo nel merito della progettazione delle politiche della pesca invaderemmo inevitabilmente il compito della Commissione di merito. Quindi queste sono le linee essenziali che si propone di seguire. Ovviamente il rapporto e la collaborazione con tutti i relatori ombra sarà fondamentale per poter arricchire la valutazione dell'opinione di tutti in linea con quanto già è stato votato dal Parlamento nella relazione intermedia. Grazie.
Thank you. We go to the shadows now. First of all Mr. Lupo please.
Giuseppe Lupo
Grazie Presidente. Parlerò anch'io in italiano. La politica comune della pesca come sappiamo rappresenta uno strumento fondamentale per garantire il futuro di un settore strategico per l'economia europea, per la sicurezza alimentare e per la tutela delle comunità costiere in particolare. Tuttavia la proposta presentata dalla Commissione europea per il periodo 2028-2034 è del tutto insufficiente e inadeguata prevedendo appena 2 miliardi di euro per il settore rispetto alle sfide che invece il comparto dovrà affrontare. I pescatori europei, gli operatori della blue economy complessivamente hanno bisogno di ben altre risorse, risorse adeguate per migliorare le proprie condizioni di lavoro, per aumentare la sicurezza a bordo, per affrontare le sfide di una transizione che sia giusta per tutti.
Allo stesso tempo è importante sostenere il ricambio generazionale e anche il riequilibrio di genere favorendo l'ingresso dei giovani nel settore e anche delle donne, rafforzare la lotta contro la pesca illegale che danneggia gli operatori che rispettano le regole e mette a rischio gli ecosistemi marini già oggi fortemente in difficoltà a causa degli effetti dei cambiamenti climatici. Per queste ragioni come Parlamento abbiamo chiesto con forza una dotazione finanziaria di almeno 7,3 miliardi di euro per la pesca e per l'acquacoltura che resta un settore strategico affinché il settore possa affrontare in futuro con strumenti adeguati e con la dignità che merita le prospettive del domani. Presenterò alcuni emendamenti per integrare il testo. Evidentemente la proposta della Commissione presenta due criticità: una criticità legata agli stanziamenti, alle dotazioni finanziarie previste e un'altra criticità forte legata all'architettura di bilancio.
Come è stato detto, per noi è fondamentale avere prevedibilità e certezza dei finanziamenti per il settore. Non ci convince per questo il fatto di accentrare nell'ambito della rubrica 1 i finanziamenti per coesione sociale e territoriale, agricoltura e pesca e siamo fortemente preoccupati che questo in particolare possa danneggiare proprio il settore della pesca e dell'acquacoltura. Altre risorse vanno ricercate, e concludo, per il settore pesca non solo nell'ambito della rubrica 1, ma anche nell'ambito della rubrica 2 per quanto attiene alla competitività. Anche il settore della pesca ha bisogno di migliorare la propria competitività, di investire su tecnologie nuove, su transizione verde, su sicurezza. Questi sono gli investimenti che si possono utilizzare facendo riferimento ai fondi per la competitività, così come una nuova opportunità è data anche dal nuovo patto per il Mediterraneo che include una dimensione che riguarda anche la pesca nell'ambito della rubrica 3 che pure prevede un miliardo e mezzo per gli accordi di pesca.
Grazie.
Intervenant inconnu
Thank you, Chair, dear rapporteur, dear colleagues, I'm taking the floor on behalf of our shadow rapporteur Michalis Hadjipantela, but let me briefly present the position of our group on this assessment in three main points. First, we welcome the draft assessment and particularly its clear message on the budgetary implications of the Commission's proposal and we remain concerned by the significant reduction in resources dedicated to fisheries but also to aquaculture. The amounts dedicated to the common fisheries policy would not be sufficient to attain its ambitious objectives. Secondly, we share concerns regarding the discontinuation of a dedicated fund and dispersion of expenditure across several headings which risk reducing transparency, weakening visibility and limiting Parliament's ability to exercise effective budgetary oversight. Thirdly, strong safeguards must accompany any new architecture and clear budgetary nomenclature, robust performance monitoring, effective anti-fraud measures and sufficient administrative resources will be indispensable to ensure sound financial management and accountability.
So, on these lines, we support the call for a reinforced budget and for a framework that preserves transparency, oversight and the effective delivery of fishery policy objectives. Thank you.
Angéline Furet
Merci Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout d'abord remercier le rapporteur Monsieur Ruggero pour la qualité de son rapport. Le projet de budget 2028-2034 acte la mort programmée de notre filière de la pêche. Les chiffres sont un affront pour nos professionnels. L'enveloppe s'effondre à seulement 2 milliards d'euros contre 6,1 milliards pour le précédent exercice. Au moment où nos marins pêcheurs subissent des normes punitives, l'Union européenne ampute purement et simplement leur soutien.
Pour masquer ce désastre, la Commission orchestre un tour de passe-passe bureaucratique. Elle supprime le fonds dédié à la pêche pour le noyer dans un méga fonds technocratique, le fonds PNR. Le cynisme va jusqu'à fusionner l'agriculture et la pêche sur une seule et même ligne budgétaire. Cette opacité totale est une manœuvre délibérée pour empêcher notre commission d'exercer son contrôle parlementaire. En tant qu'élue de cette commission des budgets, je refuse que nos pêcheurs soient sacrifiés sur l'autel de l'austérité bruxelloise.
Nous exigeons un budget digne, porté à plus de 7 milliards d'euros, à la hauteur de cette compétence exclusive de l'Union. Les patriotes présenteront des amendements dans ce sens et voteront pour la transparence et la survie de nos pêcheurs. Je vous remercie.
Thank you. Any other MEP wanting to take the floor? Mr. Herbst, the rapporteur.
Niclas Herbst
Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, also thank you for not getting confused with my many roles. I certainly do get confused from time to time. But for the PECH Committee as the rapporteur for this sectoral regulation, I take note of course of the budget draft assessment and welcome its contribution to the ongoing discussion. For the sector, the key issue is not only the overall level, it's not only the amounts, it's also the framework within which they will be delivered.
So I welcome the draft assessment reflecting the importance of having sufficient funding of course for fisheries and aquaculture as well as the human resources to implement the MFF. So fisheries and aquaculture operators require long-term certainty in order to plan investments, support generational renewal, which is a very important issue, accelerate the green and digital transition and strengthen the resilience of control of coastal communities. So this requires a clear financial commitment at European level obviously through a dedicated and ring-fenced allocation that reflects the strategic importance of food security, maritime activities and sustainable resource management. At the same time, we recognize the need for a more flexible budget of course. We all know this overarching discussion from different perspectives, I also do.
But it needs to be capable of responding to new challenges and unforeseen crises, which we had a lot in this sector and probably will also have in the future. However, flexibility should complement rather than replace targeted support for established Union policies. We need a common Union policy here. Without minimum guaranteed resources for fisheries and aquaculture, there's a real risk that funding will be redirected towards competing priorities, undermining the achievement of policy objectives and creating uncertainty for beneficiaries. And again, I stress the fact that we need a common fishery policy.
So the future financial architecture should therefore strike the right balance between adaptability and predictability, ensuring that fisheries and aquaculture continue to receive the visibility, stability and support necessary to deliver on the Union's ambitions.
Thank you. Next is the representative of the Commission, Ms. Kristiane Canenbley. Please, go ahead.
Kristiane Canenbley
Thank you very much. And good morning and thanks for this debate and also for your insights here. Couple of comments from my side. Really thanks a lot also for the report. Very good that we advance and that we work on this.
And I think we all agree that fisheries is a very strategic sector in for the Union. And this is also why in a way we looked in the proposal into how we can best frame it. And I would like there maybe to pick up exactly what Mr. Herbst just said on the element between flexibility and predictability. On the one side, we wanted here really to create the flexibility to be able to react in case we need to react, at the same time to prepare for the predictability. And therefore, what you referred to here as the amount for fisheries in the national and regional partnership plans, I just want to be clear, this is a minimum amount.
This is the predictable element for all fishermen and fisherwomen who really can count on this to be distributed.
Also to be clear that this is a specific budget line, but we will come with the budget nomenclature a little bit later once we once we discuss the 2028 draft annual budget. So then it's also clear that we have here distinguished budget lines. Is it not the agricultural budget line, it's a different one. But the important part here is really that this one can be topped up, of course, with other budget available within the national and regional partnership plans according to the needs. Because the needs are different from Member State to Member State, from region to region.
And we also wanted to work here really or propose the to create really these synergies between what you can achieve, for example, in coastal regions together also with regional funding with support for certain rural areas, etc., which is often overlapping and therefore a better way of spending the money. I wanted to come back to the question on further assistance. I just wanted to mention that also for this part, the technical assistance of 3% is possible and available in the proposal. And one last point, it's also at the moment the focus is, of course, when we look at this report very much on the national and regional partnership plans. But the idea is indeed that for the bigger investments, we would go also via the competitiveness fund elements are there also for the for the Blue Ocean part and also for the partnership elements in in the international sphere, which is quite important on the fisheries side.
As you know, we have the instruments in the Global Europe. So I think this needs to be looked at in combination in a comprehensive way in order to see all the possibilities included in in the proposal. But that said, more than happy to to have this exchange and really to work further with with you on on this proposal. Thank you.
Yes, thank you. Grazie ai relatori ombra, grazie anche all'intervento della Commissione. Ovviamente cercheremo di rendere il report, la valutazione di bilancio quanto più aderente alle dichiarazioni di tutti e quindi sono in ansia di potere ricevere gli emendamenti e lavorare insieme a voi alla parte finale del testo. Grazie.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. I just want to recall at this point that the deadline for amendments is June 11 at 5:00 PM and the vote in BUDG is planned for July the 15th. Thank you very much. We can go to point number 16, report on the outcome of ongoing interinstitutional negotiations. And I give the floor to Mr. Sousa Silva, who is our standing rapporteur.
Please.
Sousa Silva
Thank you, Chair, dear colleagues, to return to the calm. Yeah. Okay, I would like to share with you that on the 26th of March, the Council and the Parliament reached an agreement on the reform of the Union Customs Code and on the European Union Customs Authority. IMCO was the leading committee on this file. This has been a long-awaited success in addressing issues related to the e-commerce, safety of goods, protection of European businesses, particularly SMEs, and the fairness of trading.
The main achievements are: e-commerce platforms will be treated as importers and a handling fee has been introduced for goods ordered directly by consumers. The Commission will establish the level of the fees by delegated act.
The budget, this means that these platforms will assume their share on the costs for operating in the EU single market and will contribute financially. The provisions clarify that the handling fee will be paid by importers, not the EU consumers, and it is very important, of course, this point for us. Creation of a data hub to manage all aspects related to customs procedures and store all data on customs. The new EU Customs Agency, EUCA, as we know, but I would like to underline, will be established in Lille, France. It will coordinate customs cooperation and manage the new data hub.
A single portal will make the formalities of importing and exporting much easier for our businesses and economic operators. A new status of trust and checked operators has been created to grant to verified businesses. The holders of this status perform some of the tasks of customs authorities and will benefit from simplified procedures and advantages. The initial budget opinion backs to previous term and focus on the creation of a new customs agency. The negotiations were particularly intense, involving nearly 50 technical meetings and five political trilogues over the course of seven months.
During the process, BUDG had the activity defend its positions and prerogatives, particularly on governance, own resources and the agency's financial framework. Due to the continuous involvement of BUDG, all elements of the final compromise reflects Parliament's budgetary interests and positions. All Commission's veto powers have been removed and I could protect Parliament's autonomy and prerogatives as budgetary authority and safeguard the principles of the common approach on agencies. Another key aspect of this proposal concerns the budget revenues. I ensured that from the beginning and for the next MFF, the income from the handling fee is to be treated as a traditional own resources, and it is a key, a key, a key issue.
Although Commission had expressed some reluctance, thanks to the insistence of BUDG technical team, a revised LFDS was agreed, given the additional tasks entrusted to the agency and the changes on the timeline of its establishment. The revised LFDS increases the number of posts in the establishment plan and reinforces the budget allocated to the agency, ensuring a better balance between the mandate and the resources assigned to EUCA. This is a Parliament long-standing position that we are able to defend. As standing rapporteur for the agencies, I will continue to work ensuring that the future agency-related negotiations remain fully in line with the BUDG positions and prerogative. The cooperation with IMCO and across the groups was constructive, although not always without tensions since some challenges have emerged.
The presence of the BUDG team in all the technical and political meetings, our constructive attitude, attitude, and focus on our core responsibility, the budgetary and financial aspects of the regulation, I mean, result that some resistance from the lead committee to our contributions was surmounted and we established a good working relation. By the end, BUDG contribution was accepted, appreciated and requested in specific aspects of the proposal. Our added value to the negotiations was recognized by all.
I'm suspicious to say that, but it's the right place to share this feeling. With the support of the budget team, I could react swiftly to new developments and I was always ready to defend our viewpoint at technical and political level. Therefore, my final words are to sincerely thank all colleagues and staff involved in the negotiation of this file for their valuable support. Thank you very much, Chair, and dear colleagues and all the staff. Thank you so much.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you, Mr. Sousa Silva. Any MEP wanting to take the floor on this issue? If not, then it is of course also a little bit unnecessary to ask Mr. Sousa Silva to conclude because that would be rather strange. Thank you. Thank you.
This closes our point number 16, sorry, 17, and we go to point number 18, DAB number 1, the outturn, the annual so-called surplus DAB. The outturn for 2025 was a surplus of 2.1 billion euros, which are waiting to be budgeted as additional revenue. The Commission presented the DAB in our committee in early May, and today our rapporteur, Mr. Halicki, will present a draft report, but it will be Ms. Bonjemea who takes the floor for Mr. Halicki. Please.
Isabel Benjumea Benjumea
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I will be taking the floor on behalf of my colleague Andrzej Halicki regarding the draft report on draft amending budget 1 2026, DAB 1. As you will recall from the Commission's presentation in early May, DAB 1 proposes to enter the 2025 budget surplus of 2.1 billion euros as revenue in the 2026 budget, as planned for under the financial regulation. This surplus will reduce Member States' GNI-based contributions accordingly.
In the draft report, Mr. Halicki takes note of the fact that this surplus is mainly explained by 1.9 billion euros of positive revenue outturn, driven mainly by higher than expected customs duties of 860 million euro and 840 million euro in financial revenue, default interest and fines, while underspending accounts for just 101 million euros. As Mr. Halicki has stated in our previous meeting, it is a positive element that the 2025 surplus is driven primarily by an increase in revenue of almost 2 billion euro, while the surplus of expenditure is of a very limited amount at 100 euro million, thanks to the very good level of budget implementation. That said, Mr. Halicki wants to reiterate Parliament's long-standing position. Even if this is the current system, it is regrettable that the surplus reduces Member State contributions rather than reinforces the EU programs. 2.1 billion euros of additional flexibility would be particularly valuable right now as we approach the negotiation of the 2027 budget, and we know that flexibility is one of the central issues in the next MFF negotiation.
Therefore, he believes it is of essential importance to make this point again this year in that context. This draft report also takes note of the annual rebate adjustments included in DAB 1.
And Mr. Halicki would like to recall that it is an anomaly that these rebates are inflation-linked and have increased at a higher rate than the MFF ceilings, thereby increasing the burden on other Member States. On another note, Mr. Halicki wants to welcome the method used to account for certain costs arising from settlement payments, which are incorporated as negative revenue to avoid overstretching Heading 7. This is an approach Parliament insisted on during the 2024 revision of the Financial Regulation. However, this solution expires at the end of the current MFF, and the rapporteur calls on the Commission to put forward a permanent solution for the next MFF. Finally, Mr. Halicki would like to recall that this report, being about revenue, gives an opportunity to stress a wider point: the EU budget needs sustainable, predictable, and resilient revenue.
That means new own resources, which must generate at least 6 billion euros per year under the next MFF. With this, I conclude my intervention and we look forward to hearing from the shadows.
Nils Ušakovs
Thank you, Chair. First of all, I would like to thank budget rapporteur Andrzej Halicki for his work and Isabelle Benjumea for the presentation. Our group takes note of the fact that this surplus is mostly explained by higher than expected amount of customs duties made available. We also take note that the surplus of 2.1 billion to be entered as revenue in the budget 2026, which will proportionally reduce the GNI contribution of Member States for this year. And therefore, I would like also to repeat 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 or cover legal obligations like, for example, NGEU interest rate repayment.
All of the above mentioned is very well integrated into the report by the rapporteur and our group supports the report. Thank you.
Tamás Deutsch
Köszönöm szépen, tisztelt elnök úr, kedves kollégák. Az előterjesztő álláspontját köszönettel fogadjuk. Három észrevételt szeretnék röviden ismertetni a Patrióta frakció nevében. Elsőként is azt, hogy megítélésünk szerint az Európai Bizottság költségvetési tervezési gyakorlata messze nem kielégítő, hiszen mielőtt még kizárólag csak örömtüzeket gyújtanánk a 2,1 milliárd eurós többlet kapcsán, ez azt mutatja, hogy az Európai Bizottság tervezése az pontatlan volt a 2025-ös költségvetést, uniós költségvetést illetően. Másodikként, ahogy ezt kollégáim említették, a 2,1 milliárd eurós többlet egyik forrása, hogy 1 milliárd eurós többlet jelentkezett az Európai Unió saját forrásaiból származó bevételeknél.
Mindez meggyőződésünk szerint azt a szakmai álláspontot támasztja alá, hogy nincsen szükség új saját bevételekre, hiszen a saját bevételek jelenlegi rendszere is elégséges az Európai Unió költségvetésének a finanszírozására, sőt a saját bevételek jelenlegi rendszere az a 2025-ös költségvetési évben 1 milliárd eurós pluszt hozott az előzetes kalkulációkhoz képest. És végül, de nem utolsósorban hadd jegyezzem meg, hogy a plusz költségvetési bevétel egyik forrása a tagállamok által befizetett bírságok összege. Ennek kapcsán ismételten szeretném megjegyezni, hogy elfogadhatatlan az az Európai Bizottsági álláspont, amelyik politikailag részrehajló döntés alapján Magyarországot bünteti napi 1 millió eurós büntetéssel amiatt, hogy az Európai Unió legkövetkezetesebb, leghatékonyabb és legeredményesebb illegális migrációval szembeni határőrizeti rendszerét működteti, azaz senki nem teheti be a lábát Magyarországra, így az Európai Unió területére mindaddig, amíg a belépésére vonatkozó kérelem nincsen elbírálva. Ez a gyakorlat inkább elismerést, dicséretet érdemel, mintsem azt a politikailag felháborító Európai Bizottsági döntést, hogy napi 1 millió eurós bírságot kell Magyarországnak fizetni azért, mert megállítja az Európa felé tartó illegális migrációt.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Any of the other shadows wanting to take the floor? If not, I have Mr. Sanchez in catch the eye, please.
Julien Sanchez
Oui, merci Monsieur le Président, j'appuie en tout point ce qui vient d'être dit par mon collègue Tamás Deutsch. Je voudrais également souligner que sur le paragraphe 4 qui considère que les recettes exceptionnelles provenant des amendes et redevances devraient être conservées comme recettes additionnelles du budget de l'Union plutôt que de conduire à une réduction des contributions nationales, nous sommes en désaccord parce que cette approche contribue à une augmentation progressive des ressources budgétaires de l'Union sans véritable contrôle politique des États membres. Nous rejetons, et j'ai eu l'occasion de le dire hier en réunion interinstitutionnelle sur les ressources propres, l'orientation du texte qui appelle à l'introduction de nouvelles ressources propres et envisage la création d'au moins 60 milliards d'euros de recettes supplémentaires par an pour le budget de l'Union. Pour notre groupe, les défis budgétaires de l'Union ne justifient ni la création de nouvelles ressources européennes, ni l'alourdissement de la charge pesant directement ou indirectement sur les contribuables. La priorité doit être donnée à une gestion plus rigoureuse des fonds existants, à la définition de priorités claires et à une meilleure maîtrise des dépenses, je vous remercie.
Thank you. The Commission now, Ms. Filipkova, please.
Ms. Filipkova
Good morning, Mr. Chair, good morning, honorable members. So first of all, thanks a lot to the rapporteur for the support of the draft amending budget. Maybe just to clarify again on the forecasting, it is true that the result, the surplus is mainly on the revenue side where we budget the fines that we collected and budgeted until the end of the year. Obviously, we collect the fines that comply with the court's judgment, both for the Member States and the competition cases. On the forecasting of the customs duties, we are actually doing our best in this very unpredictable world to bring the result as close as possible to the actual collection.
We have done an update of the customs duties forecast during the year last time twice.
So so we have to really balance the the forecasting and and the the result at the end of the year. So maybe in that sense can already announce that next week we will prepare a or adopt another amending budget that will also update the revenue side as we do every year at this at this time where we update all the own resources basis also customs duties, VAT, GNI, plastics to make sure that the member states contribute according to the latest available forecast but it is still a forecast we will only know at the end of the year. So thanks a lot for the for the support.
Thank you very much. The amendments the deadline for amendments is June the 10th at noon. So this closes off our morning session of the budget committee. We will have a joint BUDG-AGRI committee on RPP at 10:30 in the same room here. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Proceeding with a test, how many of you can hear me, please come in. We need to test the connection of the Interactio. We will quickly proceed with a test of the Interactio. How many of you can hear me, please connect and open your microphone.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.