Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Joint meeting Committee on Security and Defence
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
ITRE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsMarie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much. Sorry, technical. It's okay. So, now I will pass the floor back to my, no, I don't. Okay, so now I give the floor to ITRE co-rapporteur Ijabs for four minutes.
Ivars Ijabs
Yes, thank you very much, Marie-Agnes, thank you very much, Mr. Budka.
Let me begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to all the shadow rapporteurs and to my co-rapporteur from the SEDE committee. You engaged with this file seriously, you submitted amendments of a real substance, and crucially, we are all respecting the tight timeline that Tonino Picula and I put on the table for this file. That kind of discipline and political will is not something to take for granted, and I want you to know that it really made a difference. Now on the substance. The Agile regulation is built on a simple but very urgent premise, namely Europe has defense innovators who are ready, and we must stop being the obstacle between their ideas and the battlefield.
That means three things. First of all, the speed. We are not here to design another multi-year program that produces reports while threats evolve. The whole architecture of Agile is about moving fast: fast calls, fast decisions, and fast deployment. The ultra-fast procedure we applied to this very file is not just a procedural quirk, it is a statement of intent.
The second, money that actually reaches recipients. We have worked hard to ensure lump-sum financing, not because we want less accountability, but because compliance burdens have for too long been an invisible wall that keeps the most innovative, most agile companies out of the EU programs. A startup does not have a grants management department. A lump sum does. That changes who can participate and who benefits.
The third, integrity of the European defense technological and industrial base. Let me be direct: entities that are established in or effectively controlled from countries whose actions are incompatible with the Union's foreign and security policy objectives will not be eligible. This is not protectionism, this is basic strategic hygiene. We are building European capability and that means we must know whose hands we are strengthening. To European companies, and in particular to SMEs, startups, scale-ups, I say this: be ready.
The window will open and it will open quickly. Do not wait for a second call. Prepare your consortia, identify your readiness gaps, understand the eligibility requirements. This program is designed for you. And to innovative companies from outside the EU who share our values and our commitment to a stable, rules-based international order: Europe is a place of innovation and we want disruptive technologies that can protect not just this continent, but a much broader community of nations that depends on security and stability.
If you bring genuine capability, there is a place for you here. Chair, I conclude with a confidence: both committees have moved at a pace that the Council did not expect from us, actually. We will adopt this report before the summer recess, and when Agile program enters into force, it will do what its name promises. Thank you very much.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much. And now I will pass the floor back to co-chair Boris Bütikofer for the Q and A with SEDE and ITRE shadow rapporteurs. So, Boris.
Borys Budka
Okay, thanks a lot, our co-rapporteurs. And now I will give the floor to Mr. Jan Farský from ITRE.
Jan Farský
Thank you. First of all, I truly welcome the Commission proposal on Agile.
We urgently need a faster, simpler and more flexible instrument to support defense innovation and research in Europe. The war in Ukraine has shown very clearly that speed, adaptability and the ability to bring new solutions quickly into operational use are no longer optional. They are essential. I also want to express my support for the rapporteur's intention to move this file as quickly as possible. And I would like to thank rapporteurs and colleagues for the constructive spirit in which the technical negotiations are progressing.
The pace is essential. Our amendments are limited and targeted. They are not intended to change the basic logic of the Commission proposal, which we support. First, we clarify that disruptive potential should not be understood only as an entirely new technology. It can also mean a smarter, faster, cheaper or more effective use of existing technologies.
Second, we ask for clearer links between Agile calls and the real capability needs of Member States, including through a structured mapping in the work program. Third, we support simplification, in particular the use of lump sums wherever it's possible. Fourth, we propose a cap on inducement intervention so that this useful flexibility remains proportionate. And finally, given the pilot nature of Agile, we ask the Commission to assess whether the instrument should be continued and reinforced in the next MFF. Let me underline one point in particular: the role of prime contractors, system integrators and first-tier subcontractors.
Agile is rightly focused on SMEs, startups and scale-ups. We fully support that. But if we want their innovations to reach the market and ultimately armed forces, they often need to work with larger defense companies. Testing, validation, certification, integration and access to supply chains are often impossible without prime contractors and system integrators. Therefore, including these actors in the scope of the file is not about weakening support for SMEs.
It's about making that support effective. The objective must be not only to finance good ideas but to help bring them into real defense capability. I look forward to continuing the work in the same constructive spirit and to reaching an agreement swiftly. Thank you.
Giorgio Gori
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Italian. La guerra di aggressione della Russia ha dimostrato la rilevanza operativa di soluzioni di difesa a basso costo e basate su software che possono essere integrate rapidamente e schierate con velocità. In Ucraina le PMI, le startup e le scale-up innovative hanno svolto un ruolo chiave dimostrando che la difesa ha bisogno di nuovi attori capaci di offrire innovazioni più rapida, maggiore flessibilità e soluzioni più efficienti. È fondamentale quindi garantire che questi nuovi attori abbiano un ruolo determinante nella nostra base industriale permettendo l'utilizzo di prodotti innovativi in tutta l'Unione, a partire dalle tecnologie che possono ridurre le dipendenze strategiche e favorire lo sviluppo di catene del valore europee.
Agile nasce per questo. Per funzionare deve essere rapido e di facile accesso e deve finanziare progetti che possano avere un impatto rilevante nel breve termine. Bene quindi che la Commissione abbia predisposto procedure accelerate per l'aggiudicazione di questi finanziamenti. Nel presentare gli emendamenti mi sono concentrato su alcuni punti chiave. Considerando il ruolo di Agile come progetto pilota per l'implementazione del futuro fondo per la competitività, proponiamo che la Commissione predisponga un report da presentare a Parlamento e Consiglio con i risultati di questa iniziativa.
Due, i progetti finanziati dovranno rispettare i criteri di cybersicurezza per evitare potenziali attacchi per gli utilizzatori dei prodotti. Tre, infine i criteri di aggiudicazione dovrebbero valutare espressamente il contributo dei diversi progetti all'innovazione dell'industria europea della difesa, la cooperazione transfrontaliera e la diffusione dei risultati tra gli Stati membri. Sostengo inoltre vari punti introdotti dai relatori, in particolare la proposta di garantire ai prodotti supportati e finanziati da Agile l'accesso ai finanziamenti del prestito a sostegno dell'Ucraina e la limitazione quantitativa alla partecipazione di società estere. Grazie.
Julie Rechagneux
Merci Monsieur le Président, mais je vais laisser la parole à ma collègue pour la partie PFE pour ITRE.
Oui, merci. On sait aujourd'hui ce qui manque à nos armées, on sait aussi que de nombreuses entreprises européennes développent déjà les technologies dont nous avons besoin. Le véritable enjeu, c'est désormais de réduire le temps qui sépare l'innovation de son déploiement sur le terrain, et c'est tout le sens du fonds Agile. Le compromis en l'état améliore le texte. Nous saluons un meilleur encadrement de certains financements et nous saluons aussi l'élargissement du soutien aux composants et technologies stratégiques indispensables à notre défense.
Enfin nous nous félicitons que la sécurité de nos approvisionnements soit désormais prise en compte parmi les critères d'attribution. Ce sont des avancées concrètes qui rendent ce fonds plus utile et plus proche des besoins de nos armées. Permettez-moi cependant de rappeler deux de nos priorités. La première concerne la gouvernance du fonds. Nous regrettons le rejet de notre amendement visant à mieux articuler Agile avec les travaux de l'Agence européenne de défense.
Cela aurait permis d'éviter les doublons, de simplifier les procédures et d'accélérer la mise en œuvre du programme. Et la seconde concerne le rôle des États membres. Nous continuons de penser qu'ils doivent disposer de davantage de garanties pour orienter ce fonds en fonction des besoins de leurs armées. Si nous voulons renforcer nos capacités de défense, ce sont bien les besoins du terrain qui doivent guider les financements. Enfin pour être véritablement agile, ce fonds doit s'appuyer sur une gouvernance plus simple et sur l'expertise des États membres qui restent les mieux placés pour identifier les besoins de leurs forces armées.
Je vous remercie.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much and now I will go back to Mr. Pascal de la Parte, the floor is yours. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so okay, I've got my list, sorry for this, so I can't see Mihau, so our great chair Elena Donazzan.
Elena Donazzan
Grazie presidente, grazie presidenti. Io ringrazio tutti i relatori ombra per il lavoro che è in corso, un lavoro molto veloce, molto stretto di questo file Agile. Come dice il nome, ha l'obiettivo di accelerare questo sviluppo tecnologico che cerchiamo e l'innovazione nell'ambito della difesa. Nonostante il budget limitato, io ritengo comunque che lo strumento sia uno strumento adatto a riprendere le necessità di una maggiore velocità nel rafforzare lo sviluppo di queste nuove tecnologie di cui abbiamo bisogno con un ampio impatto nel settore della difesa. Passare dalla prototipazione è oggi quanto mai necessario per rispondere alle esigenze di un apparato di difesa moderno.
Ritengo necessari alcuni elementi. Il primo, quello che questo programma deve rispondere a un'esigenza di semplicità e semplificazione.
Non possiamo creare uno strumento troppo complesso considerando che il target principale sono le PMI e le startup. Call facilmente accessibili e meccanismi come il lump sum devono essere al centro di un'impostazione nelle call. Il secondo, bisogna investire in tecnologie dirompenti, dall'altro dobbiamo però tenere in considerazione la loro reale applicazione operativa. È essenziale colmare il divario tra innovazione e implementazione concreta. Il programma quindi deve essere strettamente allineato ai bisogni prioritari delle forze armate degli Stati membri.
Non quindi semplice teoria o sola ricerca. In questo senso è fondamentale sostenere l'adozione effettiva delle soluzioni innovative promuovendone il coinvolgimento con l'industria della difesa in particolare e con i principali contraenti e i subfornitori di primo livello. È solo una filiera forte che ci può far essere autonomi e ovviamente si deve guardare all'assorbimento del mercato. Il terzo luogo, è fondamentale garantire la complementarità con gli strumenti già esistenti sia a livello europeo come l'EDF sia a livello della NATO. Infine, l'innovazione non deve restare sulla carta.
Questa è la sfida di questo programma che può essere un programma pilota ma si deve tradurre in capacità operative integrate nelle nostre filiere industriali ma soprattutto, lo sottolineo, rispondenti alle esigenze delle nostre forze armate. Grazie.
Engin Eroglu
Ja, sehr geehrte Frau Vorsitzende Strack-Zimmermann, sehr geehrter Herr Vorsitzender. Wir müssen in der Verteidigung besser und vor allem günstiger werden. Mit ECHAI hat die Kommission einen Vorschlag vorgelegt, den wir jetzt brauchen, dringender denn je. Denn wir haben gesehen im Krieg im Iran, wie schnell denn die Verteidigungsfähigkeit an seine Grenzen kommt und wie teuer es ist, den Luftraum zu verteidigen. Und deswegen begrüßen wir als Renew-Fraktion ausdrücklich den Vorschlag der Kommission mit ECHAI innovative Firmen zu fördern, die aktuell noch nicht im Oligopol der Verteidigungsindustrie vorhanden sind mit dem Ziel günstiger, schneller, besser und vor allem in höheren Kapazitäten zu produzieren.
Zwei Punkte haben wir, die wir dort gerne ansprechen wollen noch mal als Fraktion. Die Verhandlungen sind sehr konstruktiv gelaufen bei 309 Änderungsanträgen für die Förderrichtlinie. Und Punkt Nummer eins ist, dass wir als Renew-Fraktion ganz klar sagen, wir brauchen unbemannte und autonome Systeme, die schnell und günstig zu produzieren sind und ich würde mich freuen, wenn wir dort auch noch zu einer Einigung kommen. Der zweite Punkt, den wir gerne noch einbringen wollen ist, wir haben als Parlament bewiesen gegenüber der Kommission, wie schnell wir hier sind. Wir wollen noch dieses beziehungsweise nächstes Jahr die Förderrichtlinie auszahlen und das zeigt auch, dass wir handlungsfähig sind im Parlament.
Deswegen wünschen wir uns als Renew-Fraktion tatsächlich eine bessere parlamentarische Kontrolle bei der Herausgabe dieser Fördermittel und auch vielleicht gerne Teil des Systems, wenn es darum geht, welche der wenigen Firmen denn in diese Förderrichtlinie reinkommen. Vielen lieben Dank für die guten Verhandlungen zu allen Fraktionen. So können wir tatsächlich besser werden und vor allem günstiger in der Verteidigungsindustrie.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much and now we finished our lists, speaker list, so it's the time for the catch the eye procedure and Mr. Christian Ehler.
Christian Ehler
Thank you very much, colleagues, for the impressive and very agile work. I mean, the question for us in in practical terms, in perspective, is that we are now already negotiating the ECF, so the framework of the next defense program. And the question is a little bit what kind of conclusions we're going to draw since the time for the deadline for amendments had been already ended. So in a way, I think we have to have an intelligent idea for an integrative approach in our then final finally formulating the the position of the of the Parliament, because somehow, although we are acting fast, but somehow we're disconnected because Agile will be finished actually practically at the same time where we hopefully going to finish the final compromises for the EPB position of the Defense Fund. And I think we we have to find a solution how, I mean, it doesn't make sense if you have a a position on Agile and then it's not translated for for our position in the defense program.
Two issues I would like to raise. One issue is the lump sum issue. I think it it sounds plausible, but we have to be aware there are certain restrictions in terms of budget control, because it's really a challenge for budget control. And secondly, we learned in a lot of other programs, but also specifically there, there is a lot of institutions, and that is why I'm backing so Mr. Fasky's position, there are a lot of institutions which actually can't do lump sums. For example, a lot of RTOs, so institutes, research institutes related to that defense, there are legal restrictions to that.
So I think to have a proposal saying we want to have lump sums, it is a proper instrument, but we don't reduce that to lump sums because then we exclude institutions which simply for for their national legal setting can't do that. So and I think we have to it sounds so good, lump sum, and not to exclude the ones who can't use lump sums. And secondly, the question is in terms of what are the partnerships? And so far we have a relatively restrictive position from the SEDE committee on that, it more or less is Ukraine, Liechtenstein, and and Norway. But if we look for really the hot issues, for example, a cooperation on cryptology with with Canada is almost unavoidable.
So we should be aware that we have a kind of we need to have a coherent position on the association to the defense program and then also to the R&D schemes, because it doesn't make sense if that differs between the defense program and the research part. Thank you very much.
Nicolás Pascual de la Parte
Thank you very much, chair. It's only to take the floor only to to share that the Commission intention to go forward with the disruptive technologies development and the inclusion of the SMEs into the supply chain. It is it is already in the text of the Agile text and I congratulate everybody for that, but I think that there is a missing link here because it is important to make sure that the first constructors, the first-tier subcontractors, are included also in the program. Otherwise we lose the the logical the logical link with the SMEs. SMEs okay, but also included in the first constructor and first-tier subcontractor.
Thank you.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. I can't see any other colleagues to catch-the-eye procedure, so now it's the time for Commission, so I'm giving the floor to Mrs. Dinka Dinkova.
Two minutes. Or three minutes. Sorry.
Dinka Dinkova
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Mrs. Chair. Thank you to all the honorable members. First of all, I would really like to express a word of gratitude and congratulate you for the extremely swift work of this committees on the Agile proposal, including your decision to apply a simplified procedure. Speed is really one of the essential characteristics of this proposal and we are very glad that you have understood the urgency. We are also glad that the other co-legislator is moving fast.
We think that Council is soon, if not today, going to adopt its position and mandate. So we look forward to swift start of trilogue negotiations so that we will be able to put Agile in motion as quickly as possible. I would like to make just a few points in reaction to the very valuable comments and inputs that members of the two committees have provided. They will definitely enrich the final text of the Agile regulation. First, the purpose of Agile is quite clear and you have very clearly understood it.
It is designed to strengthen the innovation capacity of the SMEs in the defense sector and to accelerate the development, the deployment, delivery of these emerging and disruptive products and technologies to our armed forces. This is not just yet another program where we develop technologies or we develop reports. It is a very practical instrument designed to bring quickly, cost-efficient, new technologies to meet the needs of the operational people on the ground. And this is in direct response to what the needs have been expressed by industry, by member states, but also by this house. And the Commission has responded.
You have called for targeted, agile and flexible instrument in support of new defense sectors and Agile is this response. Now, the nature of this and the scope of this instrument. It is a 115 million euro instrument, as you all know. We know that this is a limited envelope, but this is what we can work now. It is a pilot instrument, but it is a targeted instrument and it will make a real difference for the SMEs that we want to support.
The budget comes from redeployment of the existing defense and space programs, but it's very important that you are reassured that existing work programs and policy priorities will not be significantly impacted because we are simply directing funds towards the same beneficiaries but in a much more agile and direct manner. I would like also to react to a few points that were raised in the interventions of the members. So it is a small-scale program, a pilot program. It's not possible to cover everything. We have other instruments, the European Defense Fund, the European Defense Industrial Program, where we address issues of security of supply.
And while the issue of components and sub-components and reliance on external suppliers is a very critical issue which the Commission understands very well, with Agile we need to focus our efforts in order to deliver tangible impact. Then the role of the member states.
Be assured that Member States remain at the center of this program. Agile is a mission-driven instrument. This means that calls will be defined in close cooperation with the Member States and the associated third countries based on the needs they identify on the ground. This means that Member States will be involved upfront in the definition of the calls, but they will also be involved in all the testing, demonstration campaigns so that they can see very practically what is the performance, what are the solutions coming out of Agile and thus facilitate the uptake of these solutions and technologies directly by the armed forces, including we have provided for an opportunity for procurement directly of the products emerging from Agile without having to go through complicated procurement procedures. Ukraine will be fully associated to Agile.
Given the realities that our Ukrainian partners are facing on the ground, this is a strategic but also a moral necessity. Now, Agile is designed to benefit the EU defense industry as a whole, but the focus is on SMEs. SMEs across all the Member States should have a genuine opportunity to participate and benefit. This is a very important policy priority which runs across all of our defense industrial programs. A strong and resilient European defense industry must be built bringing together the strength of all actors, and this includes primes and this includes first-tier subcontractors.
But Agile is focused on the SMEs. We will involve the primes in the definition of the calls, in the testing and demonstration campaigns to ensure also that the primes can also uptake the solutions and technologies that will be developed in the context of Agile. And finally, just a word on the future. The Commission intends to draw lessons from Agile for the next multiannual financial framework without, of course, preempting the ongoing discussions and negotiations on the future ECF program, the European Competitiveness Fund. Our goal is simply to ensure continuity and potentially scale up this kind of targeted defense innovation support in the next MFF.
So Agile should not be seen as a one-off. It is a starting point. It's an opportunity to test a new instrument, an agile, fast, speedy instrument, and then draw lessons for the future European Competitiveness Fund. So, dear chairs, dear honorable members, we Commission looks forward to a very constructive discussion and negotiations in the trilogue phase so that Agile can be put into operation as quickly as possible and we have at least one year of testing ground to draw the lessons for the next MFF. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you very much. Any follow-up questions before I give the floor to the co-chair and rapporteurs? Christian.
Christian Ehler
I would have a question to the Commission on the do-no-significant-harm principle. I mean, you had been reducing, we have a light version of do-no-significant-harm, but still, for example, if you develop AI software for military technologies, I mean, you have to prove in a self-declaration that you're running your program on CO2-efficient high-computing centers which are feeded by low-carbon or green energy and so on and so. I mean, either we take the do-no-significant-harm principle seriously, but then it's an obligation almost not to bear for the military technology. Or we ask for self-declarations where a small company has to prove what is the CO2 footprint of a server which they had been using to develop the software. Then you have to go to the high-computing center, prove that they're using preferably green energy and things like that, all in a self-declaration.
Wouldn't it be time, if we pretend that Agile is Agile, that that would be the moment where we say we exclude these fast-running programs from the do-no-significant-harm principle? Because we ask for ridiculous self-declarations for small companies which are not going to change any environment because we're not going to stop to use high-computing center for developing AI and what is the meaning to prove that? So in a way, wouldn't it be time to have an exclusion from the do-no-significant-harm principle for Agile because otherwise, I mean, we ridiculous our efforts in terms of efficiency and also in terms of the pretension that would somehow serve the environment.
Borys Budka
Thank you. And there is another, the last question, Mr. Gomart. Sorry for my pronunciation.
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in French. Merci beaucoup à la Commission et merci beaucoup aux rapporteurs pour ce texte sur Agile. Je soutiens pleinement l'ambition d'Agile dans un environnement stratégique où l'innovation se mesure désormais en mois et parfois en semaines. L'Europe a besoin d'un outil capable d'accélérer le passage des technologies de rupture vers les capacités opérationnelles.
Mais nous devons veiller à ce que la vitesse ne se fasse pas au détriment de la cohérence et de la souveraineté. Mon premier sujet de vigilance concerne la finalité même du programme Agile, qui ne doit pas devenir un simple instrument de soutien à l'innovation. Il doit être pensé dès l'origine comme un outil au service de nos besoins militaires, de notre base industrielle et de nos futures capacités. Cela suppose une meilleure articulation avec les instruments existants, comme vient de le souligner la Commission, une implication plus forte des États membres dans les choix effectués et une prise en compte de l'industrialisation dès la sélection des projets. Mon deuxième sujet de vigilance concerne notre autonomie stratégique.
Les financements européens doivent d'abord renforcer la base industrielle technologique de défense européenne. Cela implique des garanties plus solides en matière de préférence européenne, une limitation des dépendances critiques et une vigilance particulière vis-à-vis d'entreprises qui pourraient chercher à accéder aux financements européens sans réelle implantation industrielle durable sur notre territoire. Enfin, nous devons préserver ce qui fait la force de notre écosystème d'innovation, nos PME, nos ETI innovantes, nos organismes de recherche et surtout leur propriété intellectuelle.
Yeah, and there was the question to the Commission from Mr. Ehler, so if you can ask just one minute and then we will be finishing.
Christophe Gomart
Accélérer ne doit jamais signifier fragiliser ce qui crée la valeur technologique que nous cherchons précisément à développer.
Dinka Dinkova
Thank you very much and thank you for the question. I will be very brief. Agile is designed to be a very swift, a rapid, agile instrument. So it means that we need to strike a balance between being too detailed on requirements and the speed of implementation. So the Commission has crafted the proposal with that in mind.
To my understanding, defense and military activities already are excluded from the application of the do not significant harm principle and in the context of the European competitiveness fund, the discussion will come back to the table and the Commission will come with a official position, formal position in that context. Concerning the questions of autonomy and bolstering the European defense industrial base, of course this is the objective of the proposal. There is a very targeted and very limited inducement logic that we have built into the proposal, the logic of which is to bring innovation to Europe. We are not creating a backdoor for third country entities to enter into Europe. They will have to relocate if they would like to relocate to Europe, have their management structure in Europe and comply with a number of requirements if they want to enjoy the possibility to, yes, the possibility to apply within the agile, within the agile instrument.
So there are very strict requirements and the instrument is quite limited in its application. Thank you, Chair.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much and now my dear colleague Marie-Agnes. Thank you very much and I now give the floor for concluding remarks to our co-rapporteurs starting with EDR co-rapporteur Ivars for two minutes.
Ivars Ijabs
Yes, thank you very much and thank you very much, dear colleagues, for your input. Without prejudging the results of our still ongoing negotiations, let me just comment on some of the sensitive issues that have been raised and I'm really looking forward to reach a compromise on many of them. I think that of course the speed is crucial. This program is basically for the year 2027 and that means that our capacity to learn from mistakes when simultaneously working at the same time on the EDF and the European competitiveness fund is rather limited in a sense but nevertheless I would fully support the idea that was proposed that the Commission could produce a report about the lessons learned from this project and this program, it being a pilot project. As for the lump sums, this is really an important issue and we of course we have to maintain it as a default option but at the same time having the deviations possible for those cases where this is not possible and this is to my mind really an important point.
The same applies also to what was commented by our EPP colleagues about the inducement interventions and capping of them. I think that we will reach a compromise on this one as well. And well, as for the larger defense companies not being sidelined or not being excluded, yes, but at the same time of course keeping in mind that this is really primarily a program for the SMEs and in that sense I think that we are also moving towards a compromise which would also allow to keep larger defense companies in the loop when it's needed for the security of supply but at the same time really having that focus on the SMEs.
And as for the involvement of the member states, yes, this is a fair point, but again, we have to balance on the one hand involvement of member states in terms of comitology and so on and so forth, on the other hand, of course, having this agile nature of the very project just to move forward fastly because the time is basically rather high because this is, as I said, primarily a program for the year 2027. I thank you very much for your input and I am really looking forward to have a swift and a very constructive debate on the conclusion of the negotiations and the final compromises and the vote in the ITRE and SEDE committees. Thank you very much.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much. I now give the floor for concluding remarks to the SEDE co-rapporteur Tonino Picula. The floor is yours.
Tonino Picula
Thank you, Madam Chair. Allow me to thank everyone who participated in this discussion for your constructive contributions and stimulating feedback on this really important and timely proposal. I've taken carefully note on the points raised today and look forward to continuing our discussions at the upcoming shadows meeting. I remain confident that we can advance this file swiftly and efficiently with a view to securing Parliament's negotiating mandate in July. Subject to the degree of convergence between Parliament and Council, I believe there is a realistic opportunity to reach a political agreement in trilogue during the first months of upcoming Irish presidency.
It's particularly encouraging to see broad support across the political groups, both for maintaining an ambitious timetable and for preserving the proposal's focus on pragmatic approach. This gives us strong foundation of which to build consensus and deliver results. Of course, in addition, SMEs in this regard must be translated not only in the small and medium-sized enterprises, but a speed, motivated and efficient approach to the matter. Thank you once again for your engagement and cooperation, look forward to working closely with all of you in the weeks ahead.
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann
Thank you very much, dear colleagues. I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their work on this file and our members for the useful exchange of views. Thank you very much also to DG DEFIS for their participation in this meeting. I encourage the co-rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs to continue the excellent cooperation we had under EDIRP and the Defense Omnibus. Thank you also to my co-chair for chairing the debate.
Before giving the floor back to Boris, I would like to note that the SEDE committee will continue its meeting at 10:15 in room Spinelli 3E2. Thank you very much.
Borys Budka
Thank you, Agnes, and I join in thanking both the rapporteurs and shadows for the fast progress in adopting our mandate due to the urgency of the file. And thank you, Agnes, once again for co-chairing and I close our joint committee meeting. And remember, dear colleagues from ITRE committee, that punctually at 10:00 we will start our votes.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.