Committee on Budgetary Control Ordinary meeting ICM
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Versatz
Versatz des Transkripts
Exportieren
Live aufgezeichnet
Versionen dieses Videos
- Aufzeichnung Endgültige Version · 24. Juni 2026
- Live aufgezeichnet Live übertragen am 24. Juni 2026Angezeigt
Die Transkripte können sich von Version zu Version leicht unterscheiden.
CONT European Parliament
Ihren Sitzungen folgenFranz Fayot
It was later on with REPowerEU increased to 241 million with a big focus on the energy transition. But when we were first faced with the challenge of putting it together, it was actually the challenge to find relevant projects to put into the plan and also impactful projects that fit the criteria of NextGenEU in a very short timeframe during also managing the pandemic back in 2021.
So just to say that there was not a lot of time for strategic planning. It was more a matter to find projects that were already in the pipeline of the government, which had objectives at the time that were aligned with the European objectives of the twin transition, digital and green. But that was really the big focus at the time.
The projects we identified were in the field of energy transition, but also protecting biodiversity, the future skills rollout, and also digital capacity with quantum computing, as well as governance, which was about enforcing the AML capacities for our financial sector. Now, second point from a perspective of a parliamentarian, because since 2023 I am member of parliament in the opposition. There was a switch in government in Luxembourg in 2023, and I have to say that the role of parliament in Luxembourg, both in conceiving the RRF but also in scrutinizing it, is quite limited.
Parliament had no role in when it was put together. And on reporting and monitoring, this happens through the national medium-term fiscal structure plan, which has replaced the European Semester exercise with the European Stability and Growth Pact. So actually, the parliament is informed, is also involved in the context of these discussions, but there is quite a limited role, also partly due to the fact that the objectives are not always clear and also very quantified.
Let me finish with a thought on the present context and also looking at it from the perspective of a very, very small European member state. It has to be said in hindsight that despite its flaws, the Recovery and Resilience Plans had the big merits of being a collective effort, thinking about a collective response to the pandemic on how to recover. The slogan at the time was "build back better and greener", and I think that's, that is I think still a very valid takeaway. It was also a time where Europe took on debt together for the first time.
And I think that in particular in the present context where we are facing a changed geopolitical landscape, where we are facing enormous challenges, we need more Europe and we need more collective tools such as the RRF and not less. We need more integrated markets, more common investments for the environment, for our infrastructure and our strategic industries. And my wish is that we are drawing on the lessons from the RRF, taking this forward to the MFF. Thank you very much.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Fayot, for that insight. That was very helpful. And now, before giving then the floor to Ivana Maletić from the European Court of Auditors, it's our colleague Daniel Freund who has the floor. Over to you.
Daniel Freund
Thanks, Chair, and welcome to all the colleagues here to the European Parliament and this joint discussion that we're having. Indeed, I think it's just the right moment to discuss the lessons learned from the RRF as we are now in the midst of the negotiations for the next MFF and what of the logic that we first trialed out in the RRF we now also want to apply to the entirety of the budget. And I have been a staunch defender, proponent of the RRF, that we jointly invested in climate protection, in digitalization and in many other projects following the COVID economic slowdown.
I think this was good. Nevertheless, as a budget controller here, I also have to say there were some issues with oversight with the RRF and let me mention a few of the issues that we here in the Parliament have identified and actually, I mean, the reason I was given that slot is that I was the Parliament's rapporteur for the Commission and therefore also the RRF discharge in the last budget cycle.
So the first issue were that the milestones and target were not always adequately defined and verified to provide clarity. Sometimes member states received EU funds basically for fulfilling procedural steps rather than for producing actual results or or performance. To give you an example, some member states received money for a specific administrative step or for hiring certain staff roles or spending a certain amount of funds and and none of that is is an actual result or or performance.
It was also often not quite clear whether the fulfillment of a milestone was actually satisfactory or not. The second element is that it was unclear to what extent the RRF actually did contribute to to the green transition, and this is a criticism not only by the Parliament, but but also from the European Court of Auditors. So for example, if you look at the reporting on climate spending, the RRF regulation assigns 40% climate coefficient to the construction of any new highly efficient buildings, but it's not always clear that just building new buildings saves energy or reduces the climate impact in a in a meaningful fashion.
The third criticism is that the European Court of Auditors found an increased risk of double funding due to the parallel availability of funding programs using different rules and delivery models, as well as different governance and accountability frameworks. So we really need to make sure that we don't provide the funding twice for the same project. Then the fourth element is that the RRF spending model lacks central oversight, thus particularly prone to fraud. Again, this is the European Court of Auditors saying this. At the end of 2024, EPPO was handling 311 active cases related to NextGenerationEU.
This is approximately 17% of all active expenditure fraud investigations. So yeah, there have been a number of issues. And maybe the most important issue that we have discussed at quite some length, both in this committee but in the Parliament more widely. We as European Parliament fought very hard when we negotiated the RRF regulation to be able to see who the final beneficiaries of the RRF spending actually are.
Who is getting this money? We wrote into the regulation that the 100 largest recipients per member state need to be published. And this list, which we now have from all the different member states, are mostly useless because over half of the recipients on these lists are ministries, are public entities, are not final recipients of this funding. Over 80% of the expenditure, we basically cannot see who has gotten this.
And there we have a real issue with the European Commission and maybe even more so with the member states that just interpret the RRF regulation in a different way. They say, no, this is not about final beneficiaries, if we give you the paying agency, this is, this is enough. And the Parliament has said very clearly in its discharge report that was adopted by a very solid majority that we give member states and the Commission until the end of the year to provide us with useful information on who has received these hundreds of billions of EU taxpayer money and that if we do not get that, we will consider taking the European Commission to court over this. Because this is, this is important. This was a promise made to citizens that they can see this and they can't.
And I think this aspect in particular, if we now head into the next MFF cycle, if there are false promises like that and then again citizens cannot see who receives our money, I think we have a huge issue with credibility. Thank you very much that we can exchange on this today.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague Freund. Our next speaker is Ivana Maletić from the European Court of Auditors. Over to you.
Ivana Maletić
Thank you very much. Good day everybody.
I'm happy to share today with you findings from different reports done by the European Court of Auditors on the RRF and to present weaknesses which we found and also to reflect on what is what are then the main lessons for future oversight particularly in view of proposed national and regional partnership plans. So you can see here comparison between traditional EU spending programs which focus on whether expenditure was eligible, legal and regular. Under the RRF the focus shifted towards whether milestones and targets were achieved.
This changes the nature of oversight of course significantly and the question is no longer only, and I have to underline only, whether money was spent correctly, but also whether the promised reforms and investments were actually delivered. But somehow focus completely shift to the to the delivery and fulfillment of milestones and targets and this legally and regular spending of money was forgotten. However, changing the payment trigger does not eliminate the need for assurance on how public money is ultimately used.
Ivana Maletić
So, now regarding, but I have a little bit problem with changing the slides.
Can someone help here?
Ivana Maletić
Okay, now it's, okay, now just, okay, okay. So one of the key lessons from our audit is that milestones and targets based financing does not automatically mean performance. What we said is that RRF is actually not performance based instrument.
Now in practice, many RRF milestones and targets measured implementation steps, administrative actions or legislative changes rather than outputs and results as Mr. Froud also highlighted. You can see here some of the examples and the same risk we can see also in the proposed future performance framework because this output and result indicators which are proposed in the performance framework regulation are also not in most of the cases real results or outputs. So effective oversight requires definitely meaningful information on results and outputs and not only on completed procedures if we want to really assess effectiveness.
Another point is related to the efficiency, so second lesson. The RRF was built on estimated cost, but actual cost often differ significantly from initial estimates.
And here you can see also one table from our recent report on transparency and traceability. We found in our work that measures sometimes have cost savings and cost overruns. But now in this example, out of 19 measures, 15 had savings. So this is really significant. And these savings range from 7 to 25% of the in comparison to the estimated costs.
So this is something what what is striking. And we all have to take into account that without actual cost, it is impossible to assess first efficiency comprehensively, but also to compare what was planned with what was implemented, or to determine whether EU funding achieve value for money.
If performance is to remain central objective of future EU spending which we all would like to have actual cost information will also have to be essential element. Now third lesson is that legality and regularity remain the foundation of public accountability so no matter what type of financing we have in practice we have to ensure for public money legality and regularity.
Here you can see also one table from one of our reports related to the Member States' control system. And here you can see that control systems of the Member States are completely different. In some Member States we have like full assurance on coverage and quality and audit trail of the controls done over public procurement procedures, while in some Member States there is nothing, or in some already within the Member States in different policy area you have different approach, like in the first example where for agriculture we don't have assurance, for education there is no assurance and for transport there is assurance.
So this is particularly important for the future NRPPs, which combine also elements of performance-based with traditional expenditure programs. Oversight needs to cover both dimensions: achievement of objectives of results and compliance with applicable rules. And also what is important element and very often a topic of discussion is related to the introduction of the reforms. So RRF also introduced reforms as a condition for payments. Our audits showed that around one-third of country-specific recommendations were not addressed at all and one-third were only partially addressed, even though regulatory requirement was to address all or significant subset of the country-specific recommendations.
But in practice we have completely different developments.
And now for the NRTP, we have the same requirement, which is striking and very difficult to expect that something will be changed. Oversight of reforms is also challenging because reforms differ greatly in ambitions, scope, and expected results. In many cases, payments were linked to the adoption of legislation or implementation steps, and there is no results, which we can see also in the proposal for the in the performance monitoring in the performance regulation.
These results indicators are missing for most of the intervention fields related to the reforms. And finally, effective oversight requires transparency, as also mentioned from the from Mr. Front. So oversight is important for auditors, parliament, journalists, researchers, and citizens. For meaningful public scrutiny, information should be available on who received funding, for what purpose, what results were achieved, and what the actual costs were. And unfortunately, in the RRF, we don't have this type of information.
At the level of the member states, what we saw, the information exists, but they are not reported and they are not in most of the cases publicly available. Transparency is prerequisite for accountability and trust in EU spending. And this is exactly why we have all the difficulties with the RRF and lot of cases reported to EPPO and OLAF. And in conclusion, first, legality and regularity remain the foundation of assurance and oversight. Second, performance oversight require meaningful information on outputs, results and actual costs.
And third, payments linked to milestones and targets must remain connected to verifiable implementation and transparent reporting. All these lessons from the RRF can help strengthen accountability and public trust in the next generation of EU funding instruments. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Member of the Court of Auditors Maletić, for this presentation that has been very helpful, and I would like to thank all of the speakers for their contributions. And now we would like to invite those that have already asked for the floor to comment this.
And the first one is Cinzia Pellegrino from the Italian Senate. We have already met during the lunch. Over to you. Per favore.
Cinzia Pellegrino
Grazie Presidente, onorevoli colleghi. Allora, l'RRF facility costituisce uno degli strumenti più rilevanti per l'Unione Europea proprio per l'entità delle risorse mobilitate. Intanto concordiamo con quanto detto dai due rappresentanti della Corte dei Conti Europea e siamo convinti che ogni euro debba essere speso per avere investimenti concreti, infrastrutture moderne, servizi più efficienti.
Insomma, si deve tradurre in opportunità per i cittadini dell'Unione. Crediamo che con il PNRR italiano di aver fatto un ottimo lavoro, intanto perché abbiamo avviato riforme e abbiamo ottenuto degli importanti risultati per la transizione energetica, le infrastrutture e l'innovazione, raggiungendo il 72% fra l'altro degli obiettivi previsti dal piano. E ne siamo particolarmente orgogliosi perché il 72% è superiore alla media dell'Unione.
Tuttavia, per tutelare la credibilità dell'RRF, vogliamo continuare a rafforzare i meccanismi di oversight, quindi maggiore trasparenza sui beneficiari finali, monitoraggio rigoroso delle milestones, cooperazione sempre più stretta tra le istituzioni europee, le autorità nazionali e gli organismi di controllo. Fra l'altro noi abbiamo sempre piacere ogni anno di ospitare come Senato la relazione della Corte dei Conti europea, dando insomma pieno adempimento al trattato, perché abbiamo anche a cuore il fatto di avere una visione complessiva di come vengono spese queste risorse.
Ci sentiamo però di dover dire che a nostro avviso il grande gap non è se queste risorse vanno nelle mani dei ministeri, perché insomma fino a prova contraria le istituzioni dovrebbero essere garanti, le più alte garanti sia della trasparenza che della legalità. È anche vero però un controllo serio non deve essere visto come un rallentatore di crescita, ma cercare di renderla più solida. Quindi ben vengano altri strumenti sicuramente per rafforzare e perché sono anche gli stessi cittadini europei che chiedono garanzie.
Chiediamo però dall'altro lato anche un po' più di flessibilità per evitare magari che progetti che prevedano dei paletti intermedi o delle particolari procedure poi diventino non sopportabili e non realizzabili proprio a causa di questi paletti. Quindi anche in questo caso la flessibilità deve essere un'agevolazione per la realizzazione e per la trasparenza e non un blocco vero e proprio. Grazie.
Andreas Schwab
Grazie collega. This was very helpful. We come now to a second speaker.
He's from the Lithuanian Parliament and it's Artūras Zuokas.
Artūras Zuokas
Gerbiamas pirmininke, gerbiami kolegos, taip pat norėčiau trumpai pasisakyti vertindamas ekonominio gaivinimo ir atsparumo didinimo priemonę. Mes turime sau užduoti vieną ir paprastą klausimą: ar mes valdėme investicijas, ar valdėme rodiklius? Be abejo, RRF buvo išskirtinis atsakas į išskirtinę krizę. Jis padėjo valstybėms narėms greitai mobilizuoti investicijas ir įgyvendinti reformas. Tačiau kartu jis sukūrė precedentą.
Pirmą kartą Europos Sąjunga tokiu mastu pasiskolino bendru vardu. Tačiau, man atrodo, dauguma šalių tai suprato kaip paramą, o ne paskolą investicijoms. Bendra skola reiškia ir bendrą atsakomybę. Tai nėra vien Europos Sąjungos institucijos įsipareigojimas.
Vienu ar kitu būdu tai yra ir visų valstybių narių, ir visų Europos mokesčių mokėtojų atsakomybė. Todėl vertindami RRF turime klausti ne tik kiek lėšų buvo paskirstyta ar kiek rodiklių pasiekta. Turime klausti, kokią ilgalaikę vertę sukūrė kiekvienas pasiskolintas euras. Būtent pasiskolintas euras. Na, ir svarbiausia, ar Europos žmonės mato ir jaučia šių investicijų rezultatus.
Per keletą metų įgyvendinimo išryškėjo ir kita esminė problema, apie kurią daug kas diskutuoja, nes per daug dėmesio skyrėme procedūroms, ataskaitoms ir rodikliams.
Ir kartais atrodė kad svarbiausia yra ne tai kas pasikeitė žmonių gyvenime o tai kas įrašyta pažangos lentelėse. Tai tikiuosi planuojant ateities ateities panašias programas mes turėsime išmokti labai aiškiai finansuoti ne rodiklius o rezultatus apie ką čia jau kalbėjo ir prieš tai buvę kolegos. Būtent rezultatus kuriuos Europos žmonės gali matyti ir jausti savo kasdieniniame gyvenime. Ačiū.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much Artūras. We come to our next speaker and it's Nicole Le Pe- Le Pay from the French National Assembly.
Nicole Le Peih
Merci Monsieur le Président. Je vais vous parler en français.
La Cour des comptes européenne et le Parlement ont fait à plusieurs reprises le même constat. La facilité pour la reprise et la résilience a été une initiative salutaire de l'Union européenne pour aider nos économies à sortir de la pandémie. Mais il s'agit d'une réussite en demi-teinte. La FRR a attribué davantage de responsabilités aux États membres et cela a pu mener à des divergences nationales dans la conception des plans et dans la gestion des fonds. En particulier, l'utilisation des fonds a pu manquer de transparence et les outils de contrôle n'ont pas toujours été efficaces.
Il est donc essentiel de mieux articuler les contrôles entre l'Europe et les États membres, entre la Cour des comptes européenne et les cours des comptes nationales, et entre le Parlement européen et les parlements nationaux. Avez-vous des propositions en ce sens ? Les principes de fonctionnement de la FRR seront repris dans le prochain budget. Nous devons donc apporter toutes les garanties d'utilisation efficace et transparente de l'argent public européen. Si nous ne parvenions pas, nous donnerions du grain à moudre aux partis eurosceptiques et populistes qui feraient comme d'habitude critiquer l'Europe alors que l'on sait à quel point ils font eux-mêmes un si mauvais usage des financements de l'Europe.
Andreas Schwab
Merci madame pour votre contribution. Maintenant on invite Monsieur Ioannis Paschalidis from the Hellenic Parliament. Over to you.
Ioannis Paschalidis
Ευχαριστώ κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρίες και κύριοι αξιωματούχοι της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι βουλευτές, κυρίες και κύριοι ομιλητές. Ο μηχανισμός ανάκαμψης και ανθεκτικότητας αποτέλεσε για την Ελλάδα ένα καίριο εργαλείο στήριξης της οικονομίας αλλά και ένα σημαντικό παράδειγμα νέας ευρωπαϊκής χρηματοδοτικής διακυβέρνησης.
Το εθνικό σχέδιο Ελλάδα 2.0 συνδυάζει επενδύσεις και μεταρρυθμίσεις με στόχο τον διαρθρωτικό μετασχηματισμό της ελληνικής οικονομίας. Η Ελλάδα αξιοποίησε τη χρηματοδότηση αυτή σε πολύ σημαντική κλίμακα. Οι συνολικοί πόροι του ελληνικού σχεδίου ανέρχονται σε περίπου 35,95 δις ευρώ, εκ των οποίων τα 18,22 δις ευρώ αφορούν επιχορηγήσεις και 17,7 δις ευρώ το δανειακό σκέλος. Έχουν ήδη εισπραχθεί 24,6 δις ευρώ, δηλαδή περίπου το 68,5% των συνολικών πόρων που αναλογούν στη χώρα.
Το ποσοστό αυτό αντιστοιχεί στο 10,9% του ΑΕΠ του 2023 και αποτελεί την υψηλότερη επίδοση μεταξύ των κρατών μελών. Η πρόοδος δεν αποτυπώνεται μόνο στις εκταμιεύσεις έχουν ήδη εκπληρωθεί 204 ορόσημα και στόχοι που αντιστοιχούν στο 53% του συνόλου, ενώ με τα τελευταία αιτήματα πληρωμής ο αριθμός αυτός αυξάνεται σε 238, δηλαδή στο 62%.
Οι πόροι κατευθύνονται σε κρίσιμους τομείς: πράσινη μετάβαση, ενεργειακές διασυνδέσεις, ψηφιοποίηση του κράτους, υποδομές μεταφορών, υγεία, εκπαίδευση, αστικές αναπλάσεις, δεξιότητες και ιδιωτικές επενδύσεις. Ιδιαίτερη σημασία έχει και το δανειακό σκέλος, το οποίο στηρίζει επιχειρήσεις, μικρομεσαίες μονάδες, στεγαστικά προγράμματα και επενδυτικά σχήματα, κινητοποιώντας πρόσθετους ιδιωτικούς πόρους.
Μάλιστα, σύμφωνα με την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, η πλήρης υλοποίηση του σχεδίου αναμένεται να οδηγήσει σε αύξηση του ΑΕΠ κατά περίπου 4,5%. Θα πρέπει να τονιστεί επίσης η σημασία του συστήματος διαχείρισης και ελέγχου του Ταμείου Ανάκαμψης, το οποίο αποτελεί ένα ολοκληρωμένο πολυεπίπεδο πλαίσιο διακυβέρνησης, το οποίο θεσπίστηκε με τον νόμο 4820 του 2021, προκειμένου να διασφαλίζεται η νόμιμη και αποτελεσματική υλοποίηση του Εθνικού Σχεδίου Ανάκαμψης και Ανθεκτικότητας Ελλάδα 2.0. Το σύστημα αυτό σχεδιάστηκε εξαρχής ώστε να καλύπτει τις ειδικές απαιτήσεις του κανονισμού 2021/241 και βασίζεται σε ένα συνδυασμό εθνικών και ευρωπαϊκών μηχανισμών ελέγχου. Ευχαριστώ πολύ.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you so much, colleague Paschalidis from the Greek Parliament. And I would like to inform our colleagues from the European Parliament that haven't spoken yet, that there is always a moment for you to intervene as well.
Please let me know if you want to speak. Having asked for the floor is now by Ildikó Éva Szopov from the Hungarian National Assembly, and she's the chair of EU Affairs. Over to you.
Ildikó Éva Szopov
Dear Mr. Chair, dear colleagues, thank you for the floor. This is indeed my first speech in the European Parliament as chair of the Committee on European Affairs at the Hungarian National Assembly. On April 12th, the Hungarian people made a historic choice in favor of Europe and has been granted a historic opportunity to access approximately 10 billion euro in funding under RRF.
This is a clear sign that a new chapter of trust and cooperation and constructive engagement has begun between Hungary and the European Union. We are witnessing a very intense legislative process at the National Assembly and it's a great honor for me to be part of this.
I would like to inform you formally that yesterday, the 23rd of June, that the Hungarian National Assembly adopted the legislation aimed at fulfilling the remaining RRF milestones and horizontal enabling conditions required for the release of the currently suspended EU funds. The Hungarian political leadership, needless to say, has been fully committed restoring Hungary's role, constructive role with the European Union. But I would like to take this opportunity to just really briefly outline some of the, summarizing some of the main elements of the legislative package. We all know the timeline for complying has been very, very tight. Some of the areas were anti-corruption transparency and prevention of conflict measures.
We have seen the strengthening of the competencies of the integrity authority and phasing out certain the phasing out the so-called public interest trusts in two stages. I must also emphasize that Hungary undertook a new commitment related to fight against corruption and namely accession to the European Public Prosecutor's Office. The European Commission approved on June 9th the revised post-COVID RRF and just a few examples zero emission public transport energy grid development and support for renewable energy generations has been also elements of this updated plan.
And one final remark, so let me finish with that thought. We look forward to the upcoming ECOFIN Council in July, which may formally amend the Council decisions on December 12, 2022 and approve the revised recovery plan. And one final remark, Hungary's absolute objective is to ensure that the implementation of our amended recovery and resilience plan makes a meaningful contribution to the common European priorities. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague Szopos, we are very happy that you are here. Congratulations for your intervention. And we come now to Pim van Ballekom from the Netherlands Senate and he's from the Renew group. Over to you.
Pim van Ballekom
Thank you, chairman. Parliamentary scrutiny is quite important as you underlined during your opening remarks. And in that context, I think it's slightly odd that there is no representative of the European Commission as far as I'm aware. And the European Commission is the gardien de les traités. So if we have remarks, I would like to have the reaction from the Commission one way or another.
Despite that, Chairman, I would like to put three short questions to the table. Is it correct? Is it correct that Spain used more than three billion euro to finance pension gaps, totally against the rules of the reform and resilience facility? That's my first question. The second question is, is an alternative spending allowed for all member states without prior consent of the Commission?
And lastly, are the critical remarks made by the European Court of Auditors taken into account by the members of the European Parliament? The first reaction of the Commission was quite defensive, Chairman, but after the intervention of Daniel Freund, I am very convinced that he will take care. His intervention in that sense was quite promising. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much for your intervention, colleague van Balekom.
I can only tell you on your first question that we have read these news also in the press, especially in the Spanish press. We believe that it's probably not the only country where the spending of the RRF has gone maybe a bit beyond the targets that have been fixed, which is a problem because we can, if they are completely outside of the targets, not even track the spending. For that reason, I've been writing a letter together with Mr. Freund to the Commission. And we have also invited the European Commission to the committee to explain.
And it may happen in July that we will discuss about Hungary and what the agreements will be there, and about Spain and other countries. It's also for the European Parliament a challenge to follow up this, and we have been discussing just this morning with the European Commission exactly about what has to be improved for the controlling of these moneys, of this money, and what we can do for the next MFF to avoid this. Having said that, because you asked the question, I will only answer one. I'm sure that others will come in at a later stage on number two and three. I would like to give the floor now to Mr. Sanchez for his intervention.
He is a member of our committee.
Julien Sanchez
Merci Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, bienvenue à tous les membres des parlements nationaux. J'ai été rapporteur du dernier rapport sur la protection des intérêts financiers de l'Union et j'ai pu organiser plusieurs auditions consacrées au contrôle des fonds européens, dont une spécifique dédiée à la FRR en particulier avec la participation de la Cour des comptes européenne. Et à l'époque déjà, on avait mis en lumière les défaillances importantes concernant la traçabilité des fonds, l'identification des bénéficiaires finaux et la capacité des institutions européennes à contrôler efficacement l'utilisation de l'argent public. Le rapport présenté ce matin par la Cour des comptes européenne montre malheureusement que ces constats étaient fondés.
Après avoir mobilisé 577 milliards d'euros d'argent public européen, nous ne sommes toujours pas capables de savoir précisément qui a reçu l'argent, combien a réellement été dépensé et quels résultats concrets ont été obtenus. Pour moi c'est surréaliste comme l'histoire espagnole dont on vient de parler à l'instant, surtout quand on sait que la Commission européenne veut utiliser le modèle de la FRR pour le prochain cadre financier pluriannuel. On y reviendra tout à l'heure. Donc je crois qu'aujourd'hui il faut vraiment tirer les conséquences de tout cela. Il faut être assez dur dans l'architecture du prochain cadre financier pluriannuel.
Donc j'entends effectivement les aspects positifs des réalisations qui ont pu être faites dans l'ensemble de chacun des pays. Il y a eu des choses très positives qui ont été faites. Mais ce qui serait positif c'est d'avoir une transparence totale sur l'utilisation des fonds pour rassurer nos concitoyens, nos contribuables. Et il n'est pas normal par exemple de ne pas connaître l'ensemble des bénéficiaires finaux.
Ça ne devrait pas être caché. Ça permettrait d'éviter ce qui a été dit tout à l'heure. Un dernier exemple et j'en termine sur le cas français qui est relevé dans le rapport de ce matin. La Cour indique que pour trois des cinq mesures examinées, les autorités françaises n'ont pas été en mesure de communiquer les noms des bénéficiaires finaux. Et des données ont été transmises plus de six mois après qui n'ont pas permis d'établir un lien entre les coûts réels et les bénéficiaires concernés.
Tout cela est préoccupant et doit nous interroger. Merci.
Andreas Schwab
Merci, cher collègue. Next speaker is Adriana Rodriguez from the Portuguese Assembly of Parliament.
Over to you.
Adriana Rodrigues
Dear Mr. Andreas Schwab, chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control, dear colleagues. O PRR representa um dos maiores esforços financeiros da história da União Europeia e constitui uma oportunidade única para modernizar as nossas economias e reforçar a resiliência dos Estados-Membros. Portugal foi um dos primeiros Estados-Membros a apresentar e a aprovar o seu plano de recuperação e resiliência, mantendo-se entre os países com melhor desempenho na execução dos pedidos de pagamento.
O PRR português contempla um investimento global superior a 22 milhões de euros, distribuído por diversas componentes de investimento e reforma. O caso português é frequentemente apontado como um exemplo de boa capacidade de absorção e execução relativa aos fundos europeus, embora permaneçam desafios relevantes associados ao cumprimento integral dos investimentos até ao final de 2026. Portugal já recebeu aproximadamente 14,9 mil milhões de euros da Comissão Europeia, que corresponde a cerca de 68% da dotação total do PRR.
A taxa de execução dos marcos e metas atingiu 61% e o oitavo pedido de pagamento já foi aprovado pela Comissão Europeia no valor aproximado de 1,1 mil milhões de euros. As áreas com maior peso financeiro incluem, obviamente, a habitação, a saúde, capitalização e inovação empresarial, transição climática, digitalização da administração pública, infraestruturas e resiliência territorial. Volto ao tema dos desafios relevantes associados ao cumprimento integral dos investimentos até ao final de 2026, que naquilo que eu acredito ser uma realidade transversal a vários Estados-Membros e que decorre sobretudo da falta de mão de obra e do excesso de burocracia.
Dou como exemplo os promotores, como a administração pública e as autarquias. Dizer que o governo português já deu um passo importante no que diz respeito à diminuição da burocracia a este nível, com a alteração da lei do Tribunal de Contas para acelerar a contratação pública, reduzir a burocracia administrativa e agilizar a execução de investimentos e obras públicas. Consideramos ser fundamental que a Comissão seja sensível a esta realidade, acautelando eventuais consequências financeiras, nomeadamente a devolução de verbas de projetos que não sejam executados com evidentes prejuízos para os promotores.
Senhor Presidente, a credibilidade do PRR depende não apenas da mobilização dos recursos, mas também da capacidade de garantir que os resultados prometidos são efetivamente entregues aos cidadãos europeus. Muito obrigada.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much for this insight from Portugal, that has been very helpful. We come now to another contribution from Greece. It's Michail Katrinis. He is a member of the S&D family. Over to you.
Michail Katrinis
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The experience gained from the implementation of the RRF has shaken the trust of many European citizens in both European and national institutions.
Unlike previous EU funding mechanisms, the RRF introduced a model in which speed and flexibility prevailed over transparency and accountability. Legitimate concerns have grown regarding corruption, favoritism, and the concentration of resources in the hands of a limited number of powerful economic interests as final beneficiaries. Can Europe regain citizens' trust and effectively protect its collective interests without stronger safeguards for transparency and accountability? Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much for your contribution. And then we come to Pedro do Carmo. He is a member of the Portuguese Parliament. Over to you.
Pedro do Carmo
Obrigado, cumprimento a todos.
Duas notas muito breves. A minha opinião, realmente o PRR foi um sucesso e a sua oportunidade realmente verificada e urgente. Mas em termos globais e económicos, se este neste ponto foi um sucesso, o que precisamos efetivamente saber é se os investimentos que foram feitos teriam sido feitos ou não com o PRR. Se o PRR potenciou ou não a coesão entre os estados e entre as regiões.
É fundamental que façamos essa análise. E para verificar se não tivemos um maior aumento do fosso entre as economias mais fortes da UE e as economias menos fortes, se este fosso cresceu ou não. Na questão da agricultura, que acompanho mais de perto, é urgente e necessário que os mecanismos futuros sejam sempre norteados para criar uma nova agricultura moderna, inovadora e sustentável, não uma agricultura de manutenção. É nesta senda de termos fundos que sejam efetivamente transformadores. A palavra-chave, mais do que assegurar o bom resultado económico, é necessário transformar, preparar o futuro, aproximar os estados-membros entre si com a confiança dos cidadãos.
Este tem que ser o norte para o próximo quadro plurianual, fazendo a análise do que foi feito. Disse.
Mennuni.
Lavinia Mennuni
It's a very Italian surname, but it's rather complicated. I shall switch to my main language that is Italian.
Il 72% delle opere realizzate, come è stato fatto presente dalla collega la senatrice Pellegrino, 556.000 interventi che sono stati conclusi dall'Italia in un periodo piuttosto breve, se ci pensiamo. E allora l'analisi che io credo che possa essere svolta anche eventualmente per il futuro, laddove si vogliano utilizzare strumenti di questo genere che sicuramente sono assolutamente rilevanti e utili, è che non sempre la rapidità è sinonimo di efficacia. A cosa faccio riferimento?
Il piano aveva anche la funzione ha la funzione di rilanciare l'economia. Allora io quello che vorrei chiedere a lei mi dispiace effettivamente condivido quanto detto prima dal collega parlamentare tedesco se non ricordo male sul fatto che sarebbe utile che ci fossero i rappresentanti anche della Commissione europea in questi consessi. Noi riteniamo che forse la rapidità che io comprendo è sinonimo ovviamente di efficienza porti poi a rischiare di non avere un beneficio autentico e profondo nel lungo termine per le nostre economie perché è chiaro che il moltiplicatore rispetto al prodotto interno lordo rischia di essere minore.
Noi abbiamo il problema che soprattutto quella che è l'ossatura prevalente della nostra economia, penso alle piccole e medie imprese, laddove si statuisca che un obiettivo è quello del digital piuttosto che quello della transizione verde, richiede comunque una conversione di moltissime aziende. Questa conversione delle aziende da attività ad altre attività così specificamente individuate richiede spesso tempo, richiede formazione per esempio del personale. Quindi ecco io credo che questa sia un'analisi che si debba svolgere.
Qual è l'obiettivo che dobbiamo raggiungere? Vogliamo rinforzare la nostra economia, la nostra competitività, facciamolo con una programmazione efficace. E poi sicuramente il tema della semplificazione delle procedure credo che sia un elemento sul quale dovremmo assolutamente misurarci e lavorare. Grazie.
Andreas Schwab
Grazie, collega Mennuni. Now we come to Béla Radics, as well from the Hungarian Parliament, and then we have Nuno Fazenda, and then we come back to our speakers and then we will have a little coffee break. Over to you.
Béla Radics
Thank you very much, dear Mr. Chairman, dear colleagues. It is a great honor to be here with you today, especially in this building named after Antall József.
As this is my first intervention before this committee, I would like to address you in my native language. Szóval, őszintén szólva érdekes volt hallgatni ezt az értekezést. Kicsit megmondom az őszintét, furán is érzem magam. Mifelénk ezt úgy mondják, hogy ez olyan, mint valami úri huncutság. A fordítóknak segítek, ez kábé olyan, mint a rich man's game.
Miközben itt egyesek arról értekeznek, hogy mire költötték, vagy mire használták fel az RRF forrásokat, azokat hogyan használták fel, addig Magyarország még mindig nem jutott hozzá azokhoz a pénzekhez, amely a magyar embereket jogosan illetik meg. Más tagállamok már rég felhasználták ezeket a forrásokat.
Vannak országok, ahol már szinte el is felejtették, hogy valaha létezett ez a helyreállítási alap. Magyarország pedig még mindig azért küzd, kapálódzik, izzad, hogy megkapja azt, ami neki jogosan jár. Én nagyon örülök, hogy az áprilisi miniszterelnöki székcsere hirtelen eltüntette a jogállamisági problémáktól izzó vörös ködöt jó pár brüsszeli szem elől. És tapsolni fogok, ha megjön végre az a forrás, ami a magyaroknak jár. De azt is elvárom, hogy a magyarokat ne nézze másodrendű állampolgárnak senki, és azt is elvárom, hogy tisztán lássunk a mögött a díj mögött, ami most létrejött.
Ki kell mondani, ezeknek a pénzeknek a visszatartása politikai döntés volt.
A jogállamisági aggályok a választások után azonnal köddé váltak, ezzel pedig nem Orbán Viktort büntette a Bizottság, hanem minden magyart, az egész nemzetet. Hiába teljesítettünk szinte minden szupermérföldkövet, nem azzal volt a probléma. Orbán Viktor nem volt hajlandó igent mondani a migrációs paktumra, a bevándorlás elősegítésére. Nem volt hajlandó behódolni a genderlobby ideológiai követeléseinek. Nem voltunk hajlandóak soha feladni nemzeti szuverenitásunkat.
Ez volt a probléma. Csak most valami megváltozott. És itt a kérdés, hogy most van-e, és ha igen, akkor mi az ára a nekünk járó források hazahozatalának?
És innen is üdvözlöm Daniel Freund képviselő urat. Érdekes volt most élőben látni, hogy adta azonnal át a névjegyét a már kormánypárti képviselőnek, de nem fogom elfelejteni, hogy ön volt az éllovasa a Magyarország elleni politikai hadjáratnak. Mindenféle konkrétum és egyébként jogalap nélkül ideológiai követeléseket, értsd zsarolásokat fogalmaztak meg velünk szemben. Dicséretes a különleges vonzalma a magyar emberek iránt, de ebből még a magyarok csak kárt szenvedtek. Ő mondta azt pont, hogy hazánk újdonsült miniszterelnöke egy csomag ígérettel, és nem pedig egy zsák pénzzel megy haza Magyarországra.
A kérdés csak az, hogy mik ezek az ígéretek. Az európai polgárok egyenlőek. A magyar emberek nem másodrendű uniós állampolgárok.
Ha valóban a jogállamiságról van szó, akkor legyenek egyenlő mércék minden tagállammal szemben. Ha pedig politikai nyomásgyakorlásról van szó, akkor legalább mondják ki őszintén, és tegyük tisztába végre. Megkapják-e a magyar emberek a nekik jogosan járó uniós forrásokat, vagy továbbra is politikai furkósbotként és ideológiai zsarolásként használják ezeket a forrásokat? Várom a kérdésekre a választ. Köszönöm szépen.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague. You have to switch off your microphone now. Thank you very much.
And that leads us to the last speaker, which is Nuno Fazenda from Portugal.
Nuno Fazenda
Muito obrigado, senhor presidente. Cumprimento o senhor comissário, o senhor relator, Andreas Schwab, cumprimento todos os colegas. Os fundos europeus têm desempenhado um papel fundamental no desenvolvimento dos diferentes Estados-membros, incluindo em Portugal, em diferentes áreas, na educação, na economia, na saúde, na cultura, e têm tido um papel de facto transformador nos diferentes países. Mas evidentemente que tem permanentes, tem desafios permanentes, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à transparência, ao rigor e também uma cultura de avaliação do impacto dos fundos europeus.
E estando nós numa fase em que se encontra em fase de conclusão o PRR nos diferentes Estados-membros, incluindo em Portugal, importa também garantir que há uma cultura de avaliação do pós-PRR. Isto é, aquilo que é o impacto do PRR nas pessoas, nas empresas e nas famílias e também, no fundo, se foi garantido o rigor na aplicação desses mesmos fundos europeus. E por isso a minha primeira pergunta é a seguinte: o que é que se recomenda, nomeadamente do próprio Tribunal de Contas Europeu, no que diz respeito para uma melhor avaliação de resultados do Plano de Recuperação e Resiliência? O que é que está previsto para que o PRR seja objeto de uma avaliação sobre o impacto dos projetos?
E se não está previsto, o que é que deve ser previsto para o futuro? A segunda questão e última é a seguinte: o Tribunal de Contas Europeu tem naturalmente experiência na avaliação da aplicação dos diferentes pacotes de fundos europeus, nomeadamente no âmbito da política de coesão e também agora do PRR, e hoje mesmo fez aqui uma avaliação ou partilhou connosco uma avaliação ao Mecanismo de Recuperação e Resiliência. E por isso a pergunta que se coloca é a seguinte: comparando aquilo que foi a avaliação que têm feito da política de coesão e agora com o PRR, qual destas duas abordagens garante maior rigor no acompanhamento e na aplicação desses fundos europeus?
Porque o Tribunal de Contas Europeu uma das coisas que falou foi precisamente que importa assegurar que os pagamentos devem estar ligados a uma verificação dos investimentos. E por isso a pergunta é muito simples. Qual destas duas abordagens garante maior rigor e acompanhamento? Um quadro financeiro plurianual do género do Portugal 2030 ou de um PRR? Eram estas duas questões e quero também saudar o papel do Parlamento Europeu que tem tido nestes últimos tempos na defesa da política de coesão para o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual.
Muito obrigado.
Andreas Schwab
Obrigado, Nuno Fazenda. This leads us to our final round. And I would like to give back the floor to our colleague Fayot from Luxembourg.
Franz Fayot
Thank you very much, Chair. Maybe just a few brief remarks on this very, very rich debate. I think it's by and large a question of speed and scale prevailing, or rather its relation to scrutiny and being careful with taxpayers' money. Obviously, we need to take very seriously the remarks made by the European Court of Auditors. We've had many exchanges with them in Luxembourg also on this subject.
Also what Daniel Freund said is obviously extremely important. We need to make sure that there is no double usage, there is no double payments, that the payments go to where they should be. But in order to do that and to take away the good sides from the RRF, I think we need to be in the future more specific on objectives. We need to be more precise and also more strategic. I think one of the weaknesses of the RRF was that it was put in place very rapidly as an implementation of the NextGenEU, but not with very specific strategic objectives that were common to all European member states.
And I think that this is a weakness we need to fix. We are now in this moment in time where I think everybody realizes that Europe must be more strategic in order to be more autonomous and more independent and less weak also towards other large powers. And I think we need to get our act together and deepen Europe. I see many tendencies also in this round of very nation-state-minded discussions and saying less Europe is the way to go. I'm not, I don't think that's the way to go.
There are things that we can only do at the European level and RRF is the is I think an interesting tool. It's not the only one but we should we should not discard it all in all but obviously need to take seriously the the transparency and the scrutiny questions regarding it. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much colleague Fayot and then we give again back the floor to Ivana Maletić and then we come to the coffee break. Over to you.
Thank you very much. Thank you all for your interventions and I'm happy to hear actually that we have all similar worries regarding the RRF.
Ivana Maletić
You are all aware that it was introduced under specific circumstances and we also took that into account during our audits. But however, we have regulation, we have financial regulation. We are talking here about public money. For public money, we have to ensure legality and regularity of the transactions.
And you all now witnessed with your interventions that rules were not completely clear from the very beginning, that systems in the member states are very different, that some member states established all controls which are needed, some did that in a different way, that it is not even possible to compare some of the systems. So this is something what is for the same funding, for the same money, is not acceptable. And I really hope that now for the future we will improve the system, this what you also said in many of your interventions. Actually, what is our goal? Do we want to reinforce our economies with the money which we are spending?
Also you said not only mobilization of resources but results achieved, this is what we want. You said that speed and flexibility prevail over transparency and accountability in the RRF.
This is all true. And now what is important, the ball is in your hands for the new proposal, because in the new proposal we have very, very similar weaknesses which are present in the RRF, and this is the biggest problem.
So when you look in the performance regulation, you have this output and result indicators which are your final milestones and targets in the plans and they are not output, they are not results, they are leading you in a completely different direction from what you need and what you would like to achieve for development of your economies. And this is the problem because I know that all of you and you told me many times, you can now find the way how to fulfill these indicators, how to make your plans in order to fulfill the indicators. But what is the purpose of this exercise?
You will need to have like huge administrative employment, additional burden to fulfill certain indicators which are not leading you to some specific and concrete results and objectives and recovery and resilience, which was also the idea of the RRF and improving competitiveness and productivity. And this is what is important to change on top of the fact that we are lacking transparency and verification of the cost because performance is important, but we always have to ensure legality and regularity because we are talking about public money.
And last question and my last intervention related to the last question and comparison between the cohesion and RRF. What we said even in our review on the RRF, we said that actually cohesion has more performance than RRF, even though it was introduced as a performance instrument. Because in the RRF, we cannot in most of the cases really trace and see what was achieved. And on top of that, RRF has all these weaknesses related to who gets money, how much, and what was really spent that you legitimately ask the questions what was done in different member states with the funding, which is really pity that we have doubts on what was done and that this is not clearly reported and very transparent to all of you. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague, former colleague Maletić, now a member of the European Court of Auditors. I would like to conclude that first round by first of all saying that we can all be lucky that we have been having no economic downturn after COVID and that most of the Europeans have well survived this. There was a contribution by the program that we have been discussing about. We know about the shortcomings and I think it's also justified to be critical, but we have also to see the bigger picture. And that's maybe the perfect moment to have a coffee break.
I'm very happy that my colleague Marc Angel has joined us. He was sitting with me yesterday in a trilogue on e-declaration. Sorry. Successful, yes. And we will have now a coffee break of round about half an hour outside here in front of the room.
You are all invited and then we have the second panel. Thank you.
So, welcome back colleagues.
I'm very happy that you all here again. I was scared that you might take the coffee as a reason to leave. But I can offer you another additional service now because you have all on your table these papers. And here you can if you want find an access to speech to text service which is then giving you some subtitles for the speech. But I think headphones are still better, but it's up to you to choose.
I'm very happy that we are back. Our second session is about the future outlook concerning the next multiannual financial framework. I'm very happy that we can also discuss about that.
It's a very good second step after what we have been discussing before. And I'm very pleased that we have two speakers at the very beginning. First is Lavinia Mennuni. She is a member of the Budget Committee of the Italian Senate. And later it's Florence Blatrix-Contat du Sénat français.
And like that, we will then come to Mr. Felix Kloos from the Dutch House of Representatives. And at the end, it's Carla Tavares who will give the opinion of the European Parliament.
I'm really glad that then we have also a representative of OLAF, Mrs. Sala-Sastamoinen. And like that we have I think a very round sound of speakers, a very good round, a very sound round of speakers. Thank you very much. It's like that. And unfortunately some of my colleagues had to leave but Carla is there and Mr. Sanchez and Mr. we have a few members and maybe some others will join.
So I would like to invite now Lavinia from the Italian Senate to start. Please, over to you.
Lavinia Mennuni
Thank you very much, honorable members, ladies and gentlemen. It's a great honor for me to be here as a representative of the Italian Parliament.
I was last here in the parliamentary week and since then some notable achievements have taken place. As you know, the European Parliament adopted its negotiation position on the proposal for the new MFF whilst in the Council the member states have not yet reached agreement on a common position. The European Council called on the institutions and member states to work together towards reaching an agreement. Progress has been made in the negotiations, the possibility for member states to increase allocations for the common agricultural policy is now recognized, safeguards for regions have been strengthened, greater protections for small and medium-sized enterprises have been included in the competitiveness fund and finally the principle of technological neutrality in industrial decarbonization has been acknowledged.
These are important milestones. But we still have to address and resolve a number of substantial issues. In terms of methodology, significant work still remains to be done to reach an agreement by the end of the year. We should not bind ourselves to arbitrary negotiation deadlines.
Italy will assume the responsibilities of an agreement only when we are certain that the best possible compromise has been reached both for our nation and for Europe as a whole. Competitiveness should be at the forefront of our joint agenda because it will determine our growth, our ability to address the needs of our constituents, of our position in the world. But we have to be clear about what really makes us more competitive. The Commission's proposal on own resources is based on the need to fund competitiveness, defense, security, and green and digital transition. For our part, we believe that this must not come at the expense of the common agricultural policy and cohesion policy.
Agriculture is one of the few areas in which we are not dependent on others. Therefore, I fail to understand why we create difficulties for ourselves in this field and then speak of strategic autonomy. The European Parliament is calling for separate, sufficient, and clearly defined funding for the CAP, fisheries, cohesion, and European Social Fund. Italy has expressed a reservation regarding the single fund, taking the view that the CAP and cohesion policy must be clearly identified and backed by dedicated, adequate, and predictable resources. These policies are in fact essential for strengthening economic, social, and territorial cohesion, food security, competitiveness, and resilience across the Union.
For Italy, it's important that the new own resources do not hinder EU competitiveness or impose excessive burdens. We believe that cohesion and competitiveness are interconnected and mutually reinforcing, each being a prerequisite for the other. Without cohesion, we risk increasing disparities between regions, which could ultimately undermine competitiveness. Let me also address the important issue of conditionalities. We support clear and transparent rules, but not instruments that can be used to exert undue pressure on national and sovereign governments.
In particular, the application of the "do no significant harm" principle could result in the automatic exclusion from EU funding of entire categories of investments deemed incompatible with environmental objectives. Such a mechanism could hinder industrial development and competitiveness. In a world where the United States and China are mobilizing billions of dollars to support their domestic industries, Europe cannot choose the opposite path.
To this end, I also believe that we should consider rolling over NextGenerationEU debt in order to free up resources and that the next MFF should cover the repayment of NextGenerationEU without making undue cuts to EU programs or excessively increasing GNI-based contributions. Finally, I would like to conclude my remarks with a call to reflect and take action. We spoke about that before during the coffee break, as you probably remember, to take action on the serious demographic crisis affecting many European countries.
According to some estimates, this could lead to 10% drop collapse in Europe's population by 2100, going from the current level of over 450 million to approximately 390 million people. This will be accompanied by a pronounced demographic aging trend, with the number of people aged over 80 expected to triple and the workforce set to shrink significantly. We need to explore joint initiatives at the European level, including financial measures to support birth rates and large families. I suggest considering the use of cohesion policy for this purpose through the allocation of dedicated funds under the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund Plus. Without a marked shift in demographic trends, we are seriously compromising our ability to provide for our future generations.
We are still in time to reverse the decline.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Andreas Schwab
Grazie, collega. Thank you so much for that kickoff of our discussion in that second panel. That's very kind. Thank you, Ms. Minunni. And I give the floor now to Florence Blatrix Contat, the French Senate.
Merci, Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues. En avril 2026, le Sénat français a publié un rapport sur les négociations du CFP 2028-2034. Avec ma collègue Christine Lavarde, j'en ai été la rapporteure.
Florence Blatrix Contat
Je voudrais profiter de cette intervention pour vous présenter brièvement les conclusions de nos travaux qui peuvent éclairer nos discussions aujourd'hui. Notre rapport insiste surtout sur trois points principaux : l'enjeu de l'architecture, l'enjeu du financement et enfin l'enjeu du soutien à la compétitivité. Je commence par la question de l'architecture du budget. D'abord, le volume global fixé dans la proposition initiale doit pour nous être conservé. Ensuite, nous savons qu'il faut renforcer la flexibilité du budget.
Les multiples crises traversées par l'Union nous l'ont rappelé, nous l'ont appris.
Nous nous sommes opposés néanmoins à de grandes fusions qui conduiraient selon nous à une grande confusion. Chers collègues, l'Union européenne marchait traditionnellement sur deux jambes, la PAC et la cohésion. Avec la fusion proposée via les plans nationaux, la Commission veut faire entrer ces deux jambes dans une même chaussure au risque en réalité d'une perte d'équilibre. Les plans nationaux et régionaux tels qu'ils sont prévus par la Commission ne sont pas acceptables pour nous. D'abord et avant tout parce qu'ils conduiraient à une renationalisation du budget européen.
Les régions seraient marginalisées, leur place dans la gouvernance des plans restant encore très floue. De plus, cette fusion conduirait à faire entrer en concurrence la PAC et la politique de cohésion. Pour financer davantage la PAC au sein des plans, les États membres devraient alors faire le choix de sacrifier des montants attribués à la cohésion et inversement. Par ailleurs, l'enveloppe de la PAC est en baisse de 20 %, passant de 387 milliards à 300 milliards. Certes, il serait possible de compléter cette enveloppe via les plans nationaux, mais ce complément se ferait nécessairement au détriment d'autres politiques et rognerait la réserve de flexibilité pourtant nécessaire pour réagir aux crises.
Enfin, le budget européen ne peut pas oublier nos outre-mer. Pour les RUP, il est nécessaire de rétablir les lignes budgétaires réservées, notamment pour financer le POSEI. Et pour les PTOM, nous saluons la hausse de l'enveloppe prévue, mais cette hausse doit bénéficier à tous les PTOM avec une clé de répartition équitable. Et je rajouterais que la session précédente a montré également les limites du modèle de la FRR. Notre deuxième grande conclusion porte sur les financements, car ce sujet conditionne tous les autres.
Vous le savez comme moi, en l'état actuel, l'équation budgétaire est intenable. Côté dépenses, l'Union européenne doit rembourser NextGenerationEU, poursuivre ses politiques traditionnelles et financer de nouvelles priorités en matière de défense et de compétitivité. Or, côté recettes, le budget européen repose encore très majoritairement, à plus de 70 %, sur les contributions des États membres. Et celles-ci atteignent d'ores et déjà des niveaux records. Pour la France, la contribution doit ainsi atteindre près de 29 milliards en 2026.
Il n'y a qu'une seule solution acceptable, c'est d'introduire de nouvelles ressources propres. Notre rapport propose de compléter le paquet de la Commission par une taxe sur les services numériques, et je suis heureuse de constater que le Parlement européen défend également cette proposition. Il faut d'urgence que les chefs d'État et de gouvernement en débattent, le paquet actuel n'étant pas suffisant. Par ailleurs, la suppression des rabais maintes fois promise et jamais actée est aussi indispensable pour assurer une meilleure transparence du système et une meilleure équité des contributions national.
Enfin, notre rapport insiste sur les enjeux de compétitivité. Nous nous réjouissons que les financements accordés en la matière soient en forte hausse, comme le sont également les dépenses en matière de défense. Mais nous avons deux points de vigilance sur le Fonds européen de compétitivité. D'abord, la Commission européenne ne peut pas s'octroyer des compétences démesurées via les programmes de travail du FEC. Ensuite, il faut intégrer un critère obligatoire de préférence européenne dans ce fonds.
C'est indispensable si nous voulons renforcer les capacités de l'Union et non financer celles de nos compétiteurs. Mes chers collègues, les négociations sur le CFP sont souvent longues et difficiles. Nous devons dépasser nos intérêts nationaux et à défaut c'est l'échec assuré. L'enjeu est de taille. Le prochain CFP nous engage pour la prochaine décennie afin de répondre aux grands défis de notre monde au service des citoyens européens.
Je vous remercie.
Andreas Schwab
Merci cher collègue pour cette contribution, ça a été très utile. Now we come to Felix Kloos who is our next speaker. Please.
Felix Klos
Thank you chair.
And I am here as one of the rapporteurs on the MFF from the Dutch parliament. We don't yet have a position confirmed within our committee but that's also not the way we work. We organize our information flow and we organize parliamentary scrutiny ahead of decision making. We also differ wildly in opinion within our committee but we do agree from left to right on one thing. The next MFF should modernize, modernize and modernize.
The Dutch government wants a strong MFF for strategic priorities and a majority in the Dutch parliament wants that too. It is our number one priority. We want a budget for the 2030s and not for the 1990s.
We want European added value. We want to add value in terms of competitiveness and security, because as Europeans we are at a critical juncture where our security is at stake and our competitiveness is at stake as well. The European Commission in its proposal went in this direction, but we would have liked to see more collectively. I would like to draw your attention to a couple of major points. One is the European Competitiveness Fund.
That should be merit-based. That's a discussion between the member states right now. We insist that it should be merit-based. And this is why the Cypriot proposal also for us is unacceptable because it lowers the European Competitiveness Fund while that is crucial to our European future.
Also, we are open to own resources. We have just heard from my French colleague. We are open to the ones that the European Commission proposed, but we are also open to the one that the European Parliament has proposed, which our Prime Minister has just confirmed in a national debate that we had on this. Then on common debt, we are in favor of existing mechanisms, but not for creating new ones. And then how to spend, because this is less on the architecture but more how we do it.
We are in favor of performance-based spending, but we have to take into account the lessons of the RRF. We have just spent a full session debating that.
We want transparency and we want traceability of those funds. It doesn't happen very often, but in the Dutch Parliament, we accepted a motion unanimously asking to implement what the European Court of Auditors has said on this. And then we want rule of rule of law conditionality as well, which should be waterproof, and we want reform conditionality based on the country-specific recommendations, not just the low-hanging fruit, but everything that the European Commission actually proposes. So, concluding my remarks, I would like to say we want a budget for the future, we want a budget for Europeans. Europeans are asking more of Europe and we should deliver for that.
Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Felix, for that very precise and also very short contribution that makes it very easy for colleagues to follow and to remind what has been said. That gives me the chance to invite our colleague Carla Tavares, who is the rapporteur for the budget in the Budget Committee, but she's also the coordinator in this committee. Over to you, Carla.
Carla Tavares
Thank you, dear chair. Dear chair Andreas, dear parliamentary colleagues from the national and European Parliament, I will speak in Portuguese. Em primeiro lugar, agradecer também este momento proporcionado pelo nosso chair e pela equipa do secretariado da CONT aqui no Parlamento Europeu, porque é, de facto, muito relevante no momento em que estamos a trabalhar no próximo quadro financeiro plurianual.
E eu queria voltar aqui um bocadinho atrás, não me levem a mal.
Nós passamos a manhã também na nossa comissão numa discussão e num trabalho importante com o Tribunal de Contas Europeu, porque este é o momento, de facto, para aprendermos com aquilo que correu menos bem relativamente ao mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência e procurarmos que o próximo quadro financeiro não tenha estas mesmas fragilidades que o próprio Tribunal de Contas aponta e que identifica como sérias fragilidades num modelo muito baseado no desempenho através e que põe em causa a implementação e a eficácia. As propostas da Comissão Europeia para o próximo quadro financeiro assentam fortemente num financiamento não associado a custos, tal como acontece com o mecanismo de recuperação e resiliência, e para nós, Parlamento, o nosso interim report é muito claro, significa uma preocupação grande.
O Parlamento Europeu está convicto, e afirmamo-lo no nosso relatório, de que sem salvaguardas adequadas, esta abordagem cria riscos substanciais e enfraquece a possibilidade de auditabilidade, conforme tem sido inclusive discutido aqui nesta comissão. Uma das nossas grandes preocupações desde o início foi a abordagem da Comissão de um plano por Estado-membro, que também já foi aqui referido pelos colegas, e a proposta para os planos de parceria nacionais e regionais.
E a proposta para os planos de parceria nacionais e regionais, consideramos que a proposta apresentada pela Comissão Europeia compromete as políticas da União consagradas nos tratados, cria uma concorrência desnecessária entre beneficiários, e nomeadamente aqui quando falamos das questões, por exemplo, da coesão e da agricultura, põe em risco a dimensão europeia da despesa, enfraquece a governação multinível, põe em causa os princípios da subsidiariedade e da proporcionalidade e reduz, do nosso ponto de vista, a transparência. Mais concretamente, no âmbito da discussão hoje aqui no nosso painel, preocupa-nos a ausência de uma metodologia clara e harmonizada para avaliar os planos nacionais ou os pedidos de pagamento, que arriscam um tratamento desigual entre Estados-Membros, algo que também é assinalado pelo Tribunal de Contas Europeu. Já o dissemos muitas vezes, mas nunca é demais repetir: precisamos, de facto, de simplificação, mas as propostas de simplificação da Comissão Europeia beneficiam sobretudo a própria Comissão, não os beneficiários finais, e deveria servir era aos beneficiários finais.
Isto arrisca o aprofundar o défice democrático em vez de o colmatar. O Parlamento tem defendido de forma consistente uma simplificação que funcione para os utilizadores finais: menos encargos administrativos, acesso mais fácil ao financiamento da União e despesa mais eficiente. A simplificação não pode ser feita à custa da transparência, da responsabilidade democrática ou do papel de supervisão do Parlamento, nem comprometer a qualidade dos programas. O Tribunal de Contas Europeu partilha da preocupação do Parlamento: a abordagem da Comissão simplifica as suas próprias interações com os Estados-Membros, transferindo os encargos para os níveis nacional, regional e dos beneficiários.
A verdadeira simplificação, a nosso ver, implica harmonizar as regras e os requisitos de reporte entre os níveis europeu, nacional e regional. A proposta atual dos planos de parceria nacional e regional arrisca a renacionalização das políticas da União Europeia, concedendo aos Estados-Membros tanta flexibilidade que a dimensão horizontal a nível europeu se perde. O mosaico de abordagens nacionais compromete o valor acrescentado que o financiamento da União deve proporcionar. E o orçamento europeu deve manter o foco no valor acrescentado europeu e preservar uma abordagem horizontal sólida.
Em conclusão, a experiência do Mecanismo de Recuperação e Resiliência é clara: um quadro robusto exige regras harmonizadas, uma supervisão mais forte da Comissão Europeia, mecanismos de execução eficazes e plena rastreabilidade dos fundos. Senhor Presidente, se me permite, só duas ou três notas, e no seguimento também do que as colegas dos parlamentos de Itália, França e Países Baixos acabaram de dizer relativamente ao ponto em que estamos neste momento no Parlamento.
Nós tivemos oportunidade em abril de em plenário discutir e ter uma maioria que mandata os dois correlatores deste ficheiro, quer a minha colega Siegfried Mureșan por parte do PPE, quer eu próprio por parte do S&D, que trabalhamos com os relatores-sombra dos outros grupos políticos para um processo que temos consciência que vai ser um processo difícil, mas que por parte do Parlamento estamos profundamente empenhados e todos os colegas nos diversos comités estão a trabalhar nas opiniões para termos uma posição fechada até ao final de 2026, porque sabemos que o ano 2027 será muito mais difícil e além do mais estamos por um conjunto vasto de eleições que vão acontecer e estamos também sobre uma nova arquitetura de um próximo quadro financeiro, o que vai exigir tempo aos Estados-Membros para trabalharem os regulamentos e todos os processos que têm que trabalhar para ser possível começar a trabalhar, implementar o quadro financeiro.
Bom, entretanto, há duas semanas conhecemos a Negobox e eu não queria deixar de aproveitar este momento para sermos muito claros enquanto Parlamento e com base não na minha opinião, mas no mandato que temos. Nós não gostamos do que conhecemos.
Nós percebemos e o Parlamento defende que as questões da competitividade e da segurança e defesa são áreas absolutamente essenciais, conforme foi partilhado pelos colegas, enquanto novos desafios, mas isso não pode ser feito à custa da política tradicional, nomeadamente questões que foram aqui também partilhadas, como a agricultura, a coesão, as pescas, as regiões ultraperiféricas, o Fundo Social Europeu. E o que vimos nesta proposta, desde logo, é uma redução no Heading 1 de 0.5% e depois no Heading 2 e no Heading 3, onde, por exemplo, no Heading 2 temos as questões da competitividade, da segurança e da defesa, uma redução de 3.5% quando comparado com aquilo que tinha sido a proposta da Comissão de 1.15 de rendimento nacional GNI mais os 0.11 do pagamento do Next Generation EU e quando comparado com 1.27, que é a proposta do Parlamento do interim report e o mandato que temos, ainda mais longe fica.
Entendemos que coesão e competitividade são duas faces da mesma moeda, que não é possível nos desafios que a União Europeia tem neste momento olhar para a competitividade sem trabalhar a coesão e vice-versa, mas há no entanto uma questão que preocupa o Parlamento e que aqui também já foi referido e que nos parece ser um caminho que tem que ser priorizado. Saudamos o facto de já estar na mesa das discussões e que se prende com novos recursos próprios. Não é possível sustentarmos mais ambição para o próximo quadro financeiro se no Conselho Europeu não houver condições para uma verdadeira discussão sobre novos recursos próprios.
Nós saudamos naturalmente a proposta inicial da Comissão que foi apresentada em julho. O Parlamento Europeu naturalmente quer ser parte desse caminho e portanto juntamos, como há pouco o colega dizia, novas possibilidades de recursos de recursos próprios, seja no jogo online, seja nas compras digitais, seja nos criptoativos, porque sabemos que há três formas de pagarmos a ambição europeia: ou os Estados-Membros contribuírem mais, e sabemos que neste momento isso não é um caminho fácil, ou reduzir o investimento europeu no próximo quadro financeiro de sete anos, e não nos parece caminho atendendo aos desafios que temos e que aqui temos partilhado, ou naturalmente encontrar novos recursos próprios.
E parece-nos absolutamente essencial que nestas discussões que vão haver, a questão dos recursos próprios seja uma prioridade também para a Comissão e para o Conselho. Portanto, temos procurado nos últimos dias expressar aquilo que é a opinião do Parlamento e que resulta não da nossa opinião individual enquanto relatores, mas do mandato que nos foi dado pelo Parlamento. Estamos naturalmente disponíveis para começar de forma mais visível as negociações com o Conselho e com a Comissão, mas também não estamos disponíveis para negociações parcelares.
Entendemos que quando começarmos a discutir o Heading 2 e o Heading 3, o competitividade, segurança e defesa e o Global Europe, temos que paralelamente conversar sobre os planos nacionais e regionais e o Heading 1, onde, naturalmente, está centrada uma posição, não só nessa, mas nessa em particular, muito clara do Parlamento Europeu. E até, e estão aqui outros colegas de outros grupos políticos, sabem que relativamente, por exemplo, aos planos nacionais e regionais, a posição do Parlamento Europeu na Comissão REGI é, diria, quase por unanimidade, pelo menos dos diversos momentos em que quer o Siegfried, quer eu, quer os dois em simultâneo, estivemos na Comissão.
Portanto, senhor presidente, peço desculpa por me ter alongado, mas achei que era importante fazer também um ponto de situação, já que estão aqui os colegas de outros parlamentos, e dizer-vos que este não é um desafio unicamente do Parlamento Europeu. Todos nós, nos parlamentos nacionais e com os nossos governos, temos agora que fazer também o nosso trabalho em cada um dos Estados-Membros para ser possível até ao final do ano termos um orçamento plurianual que sirva essencialmente os nossos cidadãos e os interesses da União Europeia. E esse trabalho faz-se, naturalmente, no Parlamento Europeu, com a Comissão e com o Conselho, mas também se faz em cada um dos nossos parlamentos nacionais. Muito obrigada.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Carla Tavares, for this contribution. And we come now to the final contribution at the very beginning of Sala Saastamoinen. She's Deputy Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF. Over to you.
Sala Saastamoinen
Thank you, dear Chair. Dear Chair, indeed, honorable CONT Committee members and honorable members of the national parliamentaries. So, it's a great pleasure for me to present the views of the OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, on how we will protect the next multiannual financial framework. So my perspective is indeed to look the protection of financial interest, this strong supervision that was already mentioned. So I will, I will look into that perspective.
OLAF is the EU's Commission's first line of defense for the next MFF from these perspectives. We fight against the misuse of EU funds by delivering financial recommendations and reinforcing sound financial management. In this way, we act as an independent stress test of the national internal control systems.
If we find and when we find systemic weaknesses, we propose concrete actions to cure them, such as setting up the scrutiny mechanism to strengthen the protection of Union financial interests, our resources. However, we also prevent fraud in many ways, like driving the Commission's anti-fraud policy that covers all policy areas, and we administer the Union anti-fraud program that allows then the Member States to access the funds that support the fight against fraud. We protect all EU finances, so also the RRF, Resilience and Recovery Facility, that we have discussed in the first panel. We continue this type of the work on the future performance-based instruments, including then the MFF. So before the RRF came operational, we developed an RRF risk framework which Member States could use to update national fraud risk frameworks.
So this is also one supportive measure and was one supportive measure for the Member States. In the precise investigation then on the wrongdoings, like last year, we had 18 cases with allegations on fraud against the RRF. And this experiences are the basis on which we now think we should look at the future MFF. Just to say that in the future MFF, naturally, it is the essential to keep the OLAF's investigative powers and the independence, so this is the starting point.
OLAF and the Union level measures cannot do this protection alone. The national measures and in national level, the national parliament's oversight and supervision is very important. The national parliaments are vital for this protection of the next MFF, as they are the one that gives the democratic oversight on the EU spending.
They can scrutinize national governments and that directly influences on the allocation and implementation of the Union funds. In the new MFF, there's a greater reliance of the national control systems and that way the role of the parliamentary oversight in the new MFF becomes also even more critical. The national anti-fraud systems, they play a critical role and they must be strong and robust. And strengthening of these systems where necessary is the key to allowing the MFF to deliver a tangible results. Naturally, in the parliament, your cooperation of the CONT committee with the national parliaments, like with the event like today, continues also to play a very significant role.
We in OLAF, we are also, we want to support also then the national systems.
So we work together with the Member States to improve the national and quality of the anti-fraud measures in many ways. When we make investigations, we give the very detailed investigative reports that enable the national authorities to tighten controls and improve the implementation.
We are offering intelligence, analyses and technical aid to the law enforcement, customs and judicial bodies so that they can take this into account in protecting Union funds. We work closely with anti-fraud coordination services, so in each of your Member States there is a so-called AFCOS, Anti-fraud Coordination Service, which is following and working with us on the protection of the Union funds. And we have also an advisory committee of coordination of fraud prevention, COCOLAF, where the Member State representatives are gathering and where we give guidance and support on the development of the national anti-fraud strategies and risk assessments.
In OLAF, we also keep an eye on the irregularities levels at the Member States and manage the Irregularity Management System that reports the detected irregularities. These systems will continue also in the time of the new MFF. Looking at then the key policy proposals in the next MFF from the perspective of supervision and oversight.
So we have identified some major challenges and these will not come as a surprise or new to you because we are in many cases also on same lines as the the Court of Auditors. In order then to to protect the next MFF from the wrongdoings, the the one point is to introduce the final beneficiary data that is sufficiently final grained that we can use that also for investigating the wrongdoings and for example avoid the double funding. It's not sufficient that when we find a wrongdoing, if there's something where the Union money has been misused, the taxpayers' money has been misused, there has to be also an efficient mechanism to recover that funds back to the Union budget. And the investigative power should be linked with the ability to suspend payments when we are when we find the irregularities on the moment where the payments have not yet been done.
So all these require a solid legal basis, solid legal basis for the Commission to reclaim the funds back to the Union budget. When I mentioned the irregularity, so it's fraud as a crime, but also the irregularity that has to be covered, and there it should cover any breach of the EU and national law. Not only those direct linked to the milestone, but any compliances including with the public procurement legislation. We should consider a cost monitoring tool for funding ceilings, and we must build a robust data sharing architecture between the national and EU systems that allow the analytics.
My final point is the national anti-fraud strategies and risk assessments that should be mandatory for all member states. Currently, there are 10 member states who have a full national anti-fraud strategies. There are others have partial or sectoral, and the Commission has recommended a long time to improve the system. So, honorable members, by deepening this type of the cooperation, information, partnerships is a way forward to protect also the MFF.
We want to combine the rigorous investigation by independent bodies like OLAF with the proactive guidance and the commitment for transparency that has been also raised today. Thank you for your attention. I look forward for the debate and the future joint work. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague Sastamoinen from OLAF. That has been very helpful. And now we come to an exchange of views with you, and we are really grateful that you are all here. Thank you very much. I just have to remind you that we are a bit after the time, so we have, we run a bit late.
I kindly would like to ask you therefore to limit your intervention to one and a half minute. And we have already plenty of speakers, and we will start with Adriana Rodrigues from Portugal.
Over to you.
Adriana Rodrigues
Dear chair, dear colleagues, o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual será determinante para a capacidade de Portugal continuar a crescer, a modernizar a sua economia e a reforçar a coesão territorial. A União Europeia enfrenta hoje novos desafios nas áreas da competitividade, da inovação, da transição digital e energética, da segurança e da defesa. São prioridades legítimas e necessárias.
Contudo, o desafio para Portugal passa por garantir que estas novas prioridades não sejam financiadas à custa da política de coesão e da política agrícola comum, instrumentos fundamentais para a convergência económica, social e territorial. Portugal precisa de uma política de coesão forte, capaz de continuar a apoiar os territórios de baixa densidade, o desenvolvimento do interior, a qualificação das pessoas, a inovação das empresas, a modernização das infraestruturas e a melhoria dos serviços públicos. É igualmente fundamental garantir que as regiões continuem a desempenhar um papel ativo na definição e execução dos investimentos europeus. A proximidade aos cidadãos, às empresas e às instituições permite identificar melhor as necessidades de cada território e aplicar os recursos de forma mais eficaz.
Uma Europa mais forte constrói-se também com regiões mais fortes, das quais destaco as regiões ultraperiféricas. Mas Portugal também precisa de uma política agrícola comum robusta, que assegure condições de estabilidade aos agricultores, promova a renovação geracional, valorize a produção nacional e contribua para a vitalidade económica e social dos territórios rurais. Muito obrigada.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague Rodrigues. Next speaker is Nicole Le Peih.
Nicole Le Peih
Merci Monsieur le Président. Le futur budget de l'Union européenne va s'inspirer de certains mécanismes de la facilité pour la reprise et la résilience avec les plans de partenariat nationaux et régionaux.
Donc les marges de manœuvre pour attribuer les fonds européens seront beaucoup plus importantes et les enveloppes budgétaires plus flexibles avec des marges de précaution. Face à la multiplication des crises, introduire plus de flexibilité dans le budget est un objectif louable. Mais quand le contexte est instable, nos acteurs économiques ont aussi besoin de financements prévisibles. Chefs d'entreprise, artisans, agriculteurs, moi-même agricultrice, tous ont besoin de visibilité pour investir et développer leur activité avec confiance. Il faut apporter cette flexibilité sans créer un flou défavorable.
Le budget doit être flexible sans être imprévisible.
Dans cette nouvelle architecture, la PAC ne risque-t-elle pas de devenir une variable d'ajustement ? Comment garantir la pérennité de ces dépenses essentielles à nos agriculteurs et à la protection de notre souveraineté alimentaire ? Considérez-vous que le projet de budget de l'UE en l'état apporte suffisamment de garanties et quelles évolutions faut-il encore obtenir ? Je vous remercie.
Andreas Schwab
Merci chère collègue pour votre contribution. Now it's Isabel Benjumea who is speaking for the European Parliament. Over to you.
Isabel Benjumea Benjumea
Thank you chair, I'll be speaking in Spanish. Muchísimas gracias y bienvenidos a todos los colegas de los distintos parlamentos nacionales.
Cuando hablamos de los fondos Next Generation, de la RRF, la pregunta que nos hacemos es si verdaderamente podemos hablar de un éxito. Y para poder hablar de un éxito hay que saber si podemos medir el impacto que las inversiones y las reformas que iban vinculadas a los planes nacionales han tenido en los Estados miembros. Y yo quiero hacerme eco de lo que ha dicho el Tribunal de Cuentas Europeo, que es que no son capaces de evaluar ese impacto y que no tenemos ni siquiera información de los beneficiarios finales. Y hay un impacto que sí que podemos medir, que es el impacto directo que está teniendo los fondos Next sobre el próximo marco financiero plurianual, que básicamente es un recorte en el marco financiero.
¿Y por qué? Porque hay que devolver la deuda de los fondos Next y también hay que pagar los intereses. Por lo tanto, no podemos hablar de un éxito y además ese programa está lastrando ahora el marco financiero y hay que denunciarlo. Y la solución no puede pasar exclusivamente por crear impuestos, nuevos impuestos a los ciudadanos que lastrarían gravemente la competitividad. Lo más importante es que el próximo marco financiero no repita los errores de la arquitectura y el modelo de los fondos Next.
Por eso reuniones como estas para analizarlo son fundamentales. No podemos volver a tener un modelo en que gobiernos elaboren planes nacionales sin tener en cuenta a las regiones o que nos encontremos con un sistema en el que no hay transparencia ni rendición de cuentas por parte de este tribunal. Así que apelo a un ejercicio de responsabilidad a la Comisión y al Consejo porque verdaderamente este Parlamento ha hablado alto y claro y en su informe de abril dijo que no a la nueva arquitectura. Muchas gracias.
Andreas Schwab
Gracias, colleague Benjumea. Our next speaker is then Daniel Karas from Slovakia.
Othmar Karas
Ďakujem pekne za slovo, vážený pán predseda, vážené kolegyne, kolegovia. Budúci rozpočet Európskej únie nesmie byť ďalším nástrojom, ktorým sa bude moc presúvať z rúk členských štátov do Bruselu. Preto sa musíme ozvať jasne. Pre Slovensko je podstata jednoduchá. Na odstraňovanie regionálnych rozdielov je postavená celá Európska únia.
Práve preto nie je možné znižovať objem finančných prostriedkov určených na kohéznu politiku. Nech nám nikto netvrdí, že konkurencieschopnosť sa buduje tak, že zoberieme peniaze regiónom a priemyslu.
Práve naopak, kohézia a konkurencieschopnosť sú absolútne spojené nádoby. Sme pripravení hovoriť o nových prioritách, o bezpečnosti aj o fonde konkurencieschopnosti. Ale tento fond nemôže byť postavený na tom, že ho dostanú iba výnimoční. Ak peniaze pôjdu iba tam, kde už dnes existujú najlepšie kapacity, Brusel nebude znižovať rozdiely, bude ich skôr prehlbovať. Rovnako nesmieme oslabiť poľnohospodárstvo.
Slovensko je postavené na veľkých farmách a rozpočet to musí rešpektovať. Slovenský farmár nemôže byť občanom druhej kategórie oproti farmárovi zo západnej Európy. Táto diskriminácia proste musí skončiť. Vláda Slovenskej republiky nie je izolovaná.
Šestnásť krajín z dvadsiatich siedmich hovorí jasne, že kohézia a poľnohospodárstvo nesmú byť obeťou nových bruselských priorít. To nie je okrajový názor, to je názor väčšiny členských štátov, ktorú treba rešpektovať. Dnes od prvého júla Slovensko preberá predsedníctvo Vyšehradskej štvorky a aj V4 sa stáva platformou na koordináciu rozpočtových otázok, konkurencieschopnosti a férových cien energií. Preto hovoríme jasne. Budúci rozpočet Európskej únie má slúžiť ľuďom v regiónoch a nie ďalšej centralizácii moci v Bruseli.
Ďakujem veľmi pekne.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague Karas.
Next speaker is Artūras Zuokas from Lithuania.
Artūras Zuokas
Dėkoju, gerbiamas pirmininke. Diskutuodami apie būsimą Europos Sąjungos biudžetą, dažniausiai kalbame apie tai, kad pinigų visada trūksta. Tačiau dažniau turėtume kalbėti apie tai, kaip už tuos pačius pinigus padaryti daugiau. Ir turiu du aiškius pasiūlymus.
Pirmas, aišku, jam reikės ilgo kelio nueiti. Šiandien Europoje daug diskutuojama apie penkių procentų BVP skyrimą gynybai, tačiau leiskite pažvelgti į skaičius. Jeigu visos Europos valstybės pasiektų penkių procentų BVP lygį, bendros Europos gynybos išlaidos priartėtų prie vieno trilijono eurų per metus. Tai būtų gynybos biudžetas tokio, kokį šiandien turi Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijos. Tačiau Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijos su šiais pinigais išlaiko apie septynis šimtus penkiasdešimt karinių bazių ir objektų daugiau kaip aštuoniasdešimtyje pasaulio valstybių.
Europa tokių tikslų neturi ir neplanuoja turėti. Taigi, ar problema pinigų kiekis, ar jų panaudojimas? Pagrindinis klausimas, ar šias lėšas išleisime kartu kaip Europos Sąjunga, ar dvidešimt septynis kartus atskirai.
Tačiau jei kursime bendrus europinius karinius pajėgumus, bendrą sienos apsaugą, logistikos infrastruktūrą, galėsime pasiekti daug daugiau su tais pačiais pinigais. Kiekvienas milijardas, kurį sutaupytume, galėtų būti skiriamas kitoms funkcijoms finansuoti ir Europos žmonių gyvenimo kokybei gerinti. Taip pat noriu pabrėžti, kad Europos saugumą ir konkurencingumą ateityje lems ne tik raketos ir tankai, bet, be abejo, dirbtinis intelektas, superkompiuteriai, duomenys bei technologijos.
Tam taip pat turime skirti ne mažesnį dėmesį nei JAV ar Kinija. Antrasis pasiūlymas – tai dvigubos paskirties kriterijus. Turėtų tapti vienu iš svarbiausių prioritetų skirstant Europos Sąjungos finansavimą, nes infrastruktūra turi tarnauti ne tik taikos metu. Pavyzdžiui, metro, požeminis transportas, logistikos koridoriai vienu metu galėtų kurti ekonominę vertę ir stiprinti Europos atsparumą. Tai kelios idėjos, keli siūlymai, apie kuriuos galėtume diskutuoti planuojant kitos perspektyvos finansavimą.
Dėkui.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague Cvokas. Next speaker is Cinzia Pellegrino from the Italian Senate. Over to you.
Cinzia Pellegrino
Thank you, Mr. President. Allora. È chiaro che siamo in un momento in cui questo quadro finanziario pluriennale deve dare intanto una risposta concreta a quella che è l'attuale situazione geopolitica che ci vede da un lato con delle pulsioni fortemente contrattive rispetto al Mediterraneo e alle zone che ci circondano, compresa l'Ucraina. E dall'altro ci vede con una guerra commerciale silenziosa, ad esempio con la Cina. Quindi intanto bisognerebbe ragionare su come combattere tutti insieme queste distorsioni commerciali e la loro sovrapproduzione.
Noi per esempio in Italia abbiamo istituito una tassa di due euro su tutti i pacchi che provengono da Temu e da operatori commerciali sleali. In secondo luogo, visto anche quello che è risultato evidente da Evian, per venire incontro a quello che è il nostro modo di rapportarci con l'estero, secondo me bisognerebbe insistere intanto sulla revisione dell'ETS, ma soprattutto prendere spunto da quanto detto, intanto dalla relazione sulle frodi e quindi cercare appunto di magari istituire delle delle linee di recupero tramite i rimborsi, tramite una linea più ferrea.
Ma secondo me è ancora più interessante lo studio commissionato dalla commissione CONT sulla trasparenza che dice che il rischio principale degli interessi finanziari dell'UE non è tanto la frode, quanto il finanziamento con fondi dell'UE di progetti che hanno scarsa rilevanza per le nostre priorità. Quindi anche su questo va fatta una profonda riflessione per recuperare risorse. Sono concorde sul reperire nuove risorse piuttosto che incentivare ulteriori tassazioni e magari potrebbero derivare non soltanto dal digitale, dall'online gambling, ma anche dalle sigarette elettroniche.
Sarei invece un po' più prudente sul ragionare sulle cryptocurrencies perché l'Europa ha bisogno di avocare a sé alcune alcuni asset e quello delle cryptocurrencies secondo me invece va incentivato. Infine proprio sul Next Generation EU dovremmo valutare senza pregiudizi a mio avviso anche un eventuale rollover da parte di una parte del debito per consentire magari di evitare una riduzione delle risorse destinate agli investimenti strategici alla coesione alle politiche agricole non da ultimo alla difesa.
Alexander Jungbluth
Thank you chair, I will speak in German. Ich möchte mich erstmal auch bei Ihnen allen bedanken, dass Sie heute da sind für diesen konstruktiven Austausch. Und ich möchte gerade, wenn es um den MFF geht und damit korrespondierend um die Own Resources geht, möchte ich Ihnen mal vielleicht eine Sache mit auf den Weg geben. Kein nationales Parlament, niemand von Ihnen wird die Abgabenlast für Bürger, wird die Abgabenlast für Unternehmen senken, wenn wir die Abgabenlast auf europäischer Ebene steigern werden. Und ein MFF in dem Umfang, wie er aktuell von dem Parlament geplant wird, wird nur mit massiven Einnahmensteigerungen möglich sein.
Und hier sprechen wir dann immer über Own Resources. Und bei Own Resources sprechen wir über eine Mehrbelastung von Unternehmen, sprechen wir über eine Mehrbelastung von Unternehmen. Ganz konkrete Ideen, die ja aktuell gegeben sind, ist das BEFIT-Programm, das heißt, dass Unternehmen mit einem Umsatz, ich meine von mehr als 100 Millionen Euro, eine Zusatzbelastung seitens der EU bekommen sollen. Das heißt, wir sprechen davon, dass in einer wirtschaftlich schwierigen Zeit Unternehmen durch die EU noch mal zusätzlich belastet werden. Und ich sage Ihnen eins: Die beste Wirtschaftspolitik der Welt wird diese Belastung, die wir erst mal an die Unternehmen geben, nicht ausgleichen.
Wir werden eine Belastung für die Bürger haben. Es ist im Gespräch, dass eben eine Zusatzbelastung, ein Anteil von der Tabaksteuer ist im Gespräch, die Einführung einer Elektroschrottsteuer ist im Gespräch.
Das heißt, wir werden mit einem massiven MFF eine Zusatzbelastung haben. Und ich freue mich, dass wir Widerstand haben aus den Mitgliedstaaten. Ich bin selten mit dem deutschen Bundeskanzler einer Meinung, aber selbst der hat ja in einem Interview bereits gesagt, dass ein solcher Aufwuchs des MFF mit den dazugehörigen Own Resources in der aktuellen Zeit nicht vertretbar sind. Insofern denken Sie gut darüber nach, ob Sie es Ihren Bürgern zumuten wollen, diese Zusatzbelastung in Kauf zu nehmen.
Andreas Schwab
Danke, Herr Kollege Jungbluth. Nächster ist, next one is Patricia Almeida, also from Portugal. Over to you.
Patricia Almeida
Thank you, Chairman, dear colleagues. O próximo quadro financeiro plurianual parece, a esta data, caminhar para um modelo mais centralizado, menos transparente e potencialmente menos escrutinado. A Comissão Europeia apresenta esta reforma como uma simplificação da arquitetura financeira da União, concentrando vários instrumentos num plano nacional único, num modelo de pagamentos baseado em metas e marcos, semelhante ao mecanismo de recuperação. Simplificação esta, e como já ouvimos hoje por parte da correlatora Carla Tavares, que não pode ser feita à custa da transparência. A esta preocupação acresce ainda o caso da PAC.
A PAC perde o seu fundo próprio e é absorvido num fundo europeu combinado. O tribunal alerta para riscos de perda de previsibilidade, dificuldades na rastreabilidade das verbas e até potenciais distorções concorrenciais entre agricultores de diferentes Estados-Membros. Em países como Portugal, onde estas regiões dependem fortemente da PAC e dos fundos de coesão, isto levanta uma questão essencial: a de como garantir que a simplificação administrativa não se transforme numa fragilização da transparência e da justiça distributiva.
Termino com uma última nota: o Tribunal de Contas Europeu alerta repetidamente para falta de critérios claros, insuficiência de indicadores de impacto e fragilidades nos mecanismos de auditoria e prestação de contas. E por isso perguntava como atingir igualdade de tratamento entre Estados-Membros quando o próprio Tribunal identifica falta de critérios claros, insuficiência metodológica e fragilidades nos mecanismos de auditoria e controlo. Obrigada.
Andreas Schwab
Obrigado, dear colleague, for your contribution. Now we come to Michail Katrinis from Greece again.
Michail Katrinis
Thank you, Chair.
The debate on the next MFF is about the kind of Europe we want. Europe is clear that needs stronger defense and greater competitiveness, but it cannot ask farmers, regions, and less developed areas to foot the bill by weakening the fundamental pillars of European solidarity and convergence. Nor can we accept a governance model marked by opacity and reduced accountability, one that concentrates more and more resources and decision-making power in the hands of a few powerful economic interests. And the critical question is how can Europe become stronger if it becomes less fair, less cohesive, less democratic, and ultimately less Europe? Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you so much, colleague. We will work together in Europe, I'm sure. Next speaker is Jan Bert Ruissen.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel, voorzitter, en dank aan alle collega's uit de nationale parlementen voor hun komst hier naar Brussel. Mooi om deze bespreking zo met elkaar te hebben. Ik heb vanmiddag vaak gehoord: we moeten lessen trekken uit het RRF. En daar ben ik het natuurlijk helemaal mee eens. We moeten echt lessen trekken uit wat er gebeurd is.
We moeten de verantwoording verbeteren. We moeten de transparantie versterken.
Maar er is nog een derde belangrijke les die we moeten trekken uit het RRF en dat is deze les: geld lenen kost geld. Toen we hier eenmaal aan begonnen, toen dachten we dat geld lenen gratis was, want toen waren de rentes vrij laag. Inmiddels weten we beter en zitten we tegen een enorme lastenpost aan te kijken die ook enorm gaat drukken op het nieuwe MFK. Dus dat is wat mij betreft de grote les uit het RRF. Laten we alsjeblieft stoppen met die leningenfaciliteiten, want daarmee zijn we alleen maar bezig om de investeringen af te wentelen op toekomstige generaties, want ooit zullen die leningen toch weer moeten worden afgelost.
Ik denk ook dat we niet de fout moeten maken om te denken dat we alle uitdagingen via de EU-begroting moeten willen laten verlopen. Natuurlijk, we hebben te maken met grote uitdagingen, zeker ook op het vlak van defensie bijvoorbeeld. Maar ik denk dat we ons moeten realiseren dat heel veel van de uitdagingen die op ons afkomen, dat we die toch hoofdzakelijk zullen moeten opvangen via de nationale begrotingen, wat vaak ook veel efficiënter is. En een laatste punt: flexibiliteit, een nieuw begrip.
Ik denk dat het goed is om ons te realiseren dat daar natuurlijk ook nadelen aan zitten. Namelijk dit nadeel, dat als lidstaten hele verschillende keuzes gaan maken, bijvoorbeeld binnen het NRPP als het gaat over inzetten op landbouwgelden bijvoorbeeld. Als er enorme verschillende keuzes worden gemaakt, dan zul je ook zien dat dat leidt tot een enorm ongelijk speelveld tussen de landen. Dus daarom mijn oproep, laten we ook op dat punt voorzichtig zijn en in ieder geval ons sterk maken voor een afzonderlijk fonds, zowel voor landbouw als voor visserij bijvoorbeeld. Dank.
Francesca Vigiano
Grazie, signor Presidente, io parlerò in italiano.
Sul prossimo quadro finanziario pluriennale, io ritengo che l'Europa debba evitare un errore, cioè pensare che la sfida sia soltanto quanto spendere. La vera questione in realtà è come spendere e per quali priorità politiche. L'Europa non è ovviamente più quella del 2020. Grazie al piano di, all'RRF siamo riusciti, come diceva prima bene il Presidente, a non vivere la recessione in Europa.
Però bisogna fare un passo in avanti visto e considerato che molte delle misure che si sono rese necessarie per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi in realtà non può divenire strutturale. Il che vuol dire che oggi affrontiamo contemporaneamente non solo la competizione globale con Stati Uniti e Cina, la transizione ecologica, la rivoluzione tecnologica dell'intelligenza artificiale, la sicurezza energetica e le conseguenze geopolitiche della guerra ai confini dell'Europa. Quindi un quadro onestamente molto mutato rispetto a quello del 2020. Per questo io ritengo che il nuovo bilancio europeo possa e debba poggiarsi su tre pilastri fondamentali. Il primo, quello degli investimenti strategici comuni, in quanto nessuno Stato membro da solo può competere sulle tecnologie del futuro.
Ed abbiamo bisogno ovviamente di più risorse europee per ricerca, innovazione, industria, difesa comune, energia e infrastrutture digitali.
Secondo, la coesione economica e sociale. La competitività non può essere costruita aumentando le diseguaglianze territoriali. Le politiche di coesione devono rimanere uno strumento fondamentale per garantire che la transizione verde e digitale non lascino indietro regioni, lavoratori e comunità più fragili. E terzo, democrazia e responsabilità. L'esperienza del PNRR ci insegna che i meccanismi basati sui risultati possono funzionare, ma solo se accompagnati da trasparenza, controllo parlamentare e coinvolgimento degli enti territoriali.
L'efficienza non può sostituire la legittimazione democratica. In questo senso, il futuro bilancio europeo non deve essere soltanto più flessibile, ma deve essere anche più giusto, più trasparente e vicino ai cittadini. Perché la vera domanda che i cittadini europei ci pongono non è quanto spende l'Europa, ma è: l'Europa migliora concretamente la mia vita? Ed è a questa domanda che il prossimo quadro finanziario pluriennale dovrà rispondere. Grazie.
Andreas Schwab
Grazie, cara collega. Next speaker, and we will then come to an end up to six o'clock, is Ildikó Éva Sopov from Hungary. Over to you again.
Ildikó Éva Szopov
Dear Mr. Chair, dear colleagues, thank you.
Speed does not always mean efficiency. We've discussed that even in today's debate. Regarding the MFF, we will remain constructive during negotiations. However, under no circumstances should speed be prioritized over the quality of negotiations. Hungary believes that the next MFF must equip the European Union and its members to respond to new security, economic and technological challenges without undermining cohesion policy and common agricultural policy.
The financing of new priorities should not come at the expense of these core treaty-based policies. There must be continued sufficient resources available and stemming from these policies, and at the same time, objectives should be pursued fundamentally changing or altering the revenue structure of MFF and placing disproportionate burden on less developed member states. However, the Commission's proposal seems to decrease the national envelopes whilst introducing new own resources, which are regressive and put more pressure on less developed member states. Allow me to name just one example, which is Hungary would be in the situation of paying 18% more additional tax revenue stemming from the adoption of the new customs code.
One point I would like to reiterate is the concern regarding the two legs being put in one shoes. I think this is the notion that has been used in today's debate. Obviously, Hungary is in the same position, cohesion policy and common agriculture policy should retain their own structure and funding schemes. And as a final remark, we must place great emphasis on increasing the members' ownership over their single plans.
We should not turn non-binding recommendations, such as country-specific recommendations, into mandatory obligations. Member states should therefore have the possibility to negotiate and adopt individual chapters separately, and that would actually mean that national plan would not hold approval of the entire package if there are several differing opinions. Thank you very much for your attention.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much for that contribution, Ms. Sopov. We come now to the last contributions from the round, and then we come to our speakers. Next one is our colleague Sanchez.
Julien Sanchez
Merci Monsieur le Président. Donc simplement sur ce cadre financier pluriannuel, plusieurs remarques. D'abord sur le calendrier, les précédents avaient été négociés en 30 mois et 31 mois. Celui-ci, on s'oriente sur 17 mois, vraisemblablement pour qu'il soit adopté avant la présidentielle française.
C'est quand même un problème démocratique. Ensuite sur la structure, nous sommes opposés à une fusion abusive des rubriques et des budgets. Il y avait auparavant sept rubriques et 52 programmes. Nous passerions sur quatre rubriques et 16 programmes principaux. Cette fusion abusive met des phénomènes de pots communs, ce qui veut dire qu'on pourra piocher dans l'un pour prendre pour donner à l'autre.
Et nous, nous voulons une traçabilité. Elle n'existera pas avec cette méthode.
Sur les priorités, nous sommes pour évidemment la compétitivité, le développement économique. L'Union européenne doit être une plus-value pour l'Europe pour les Européens avec une Europe des nations et des coopérations. Plus de moyens aussi pour la lutte contre l'immigration et la protection des frontières. Sur l'aide internationale, nous sommes pour la conditionner aux sujets de coopération sur les matières migratoires également. Et nous trouvons que nos régions ultrapériphériques notamment sont sous-dotées.
Avant de penser à être généreux avec le monde entier, faisons en sorte déjà que l'eau potable arrive à Mayotte et dans les territoires ultrapériphériques. Ce n'est pas le cas aujourd'hui. Sur l'agriculture, nous passerions de 387 milliards à 300 milliards de CFP à CFP. C'est un scandale.
Nous sommes tout à fait opposés à ça. Il faut ajouter à ça aussi l'élargissement de l'Union européenne à l'Ukraine et à d'autres pays qui auraient un impact encore négatif et plus négatif sur le budget de l'agriculture. J'alerte chacun sur le sujet. Enfin, dernier thème, les ressources propres. La procureure générale européenne, Madame Kövesi, a elle-même dit qu'avant de créer de nouvelles ressources propres, il faut déjà aller chercher l'argent qui échappe au budget de l'Union européenne, notamment la fraude à la TVA.
Mieux contrôler les ports, les douanes. Beaucoup d'argent nous échappe.
Et donc j'alerte sur ce sujet, également sur les conditionnalités qui seraient épouvantables. Et j'alerte notamment les parlementaires de droite, la conditionnalité environnementale et la conditionnalité genrée qui seraient des catastrophes idéologiques et budgétaires. Merci Monsieur le Président.
Andreas Schwab
Merci cher collègue Sanchez. Now we come to the final speakers of the first round. I would like to give the floor again... Ah no, there is one speaker that I have forgotten, it's Mr. Nuno Fazenda from Portugal. Over to you for your last intervention.
Nuno Fazenda
Thank you very much Mr. President.
Muito obrigado, senhor presidente, caros colegas. Quero começar por saudar aquilo que tem sido o posicionamento do Parlamento Europeu relativo ao novo quadro financeiro plurianual e quero a este propósito também felicitar a minha conterrânea, deputada relatora Carla Tavares, por aquilo que tem sido o seu trabalho feito no âmbito da negociação do quadro financeiro plurianual. Senhor presidente, não haverá uma Europa competitiva sem uma Europa coesa. A coesão territorial é pois a garantia de que o lugar onde se nasce ou vive não determina as oportunidades de desenvolvimento. A Europa não pode ter regiões de primeira e regiões de segunda.
A Europa e a Comissão Europeia e o projeto europeu deve promover uma harmonia de desenvolvimento entre as diferentes regiões.
E é nesse quadro que os fundos europeus têm um papel essencial para assegurar a convergência e o equilíbrio entre os diferentes territórios. E nesta fase em que nos encontramos da negociação final do quadro financeiro plurianual, de um modo mais simples, da negociação do próximo ciclo de fundos europeus, aquilo que nós assistimos é um retrocesso na desvalorização da coesão territorial, quer ao nível dos fundos europeus, onde se reduz, quer ao nível da governação, onde há uma nacionalização e uma centralização na gestão dos fundos europeus e, até se quisermos, numa redução da transparência. Ora, o que nós esperamos é que, de facto, no processo de negociação que está em curso, é que a coesão territorial continue a ser uma das prioridades do projeto europeu, porque só haverá, de facto, uma Europa competitiva e solidária com mais coesão territorial. Muito obrigado.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, colleague Fazenda. And now we come back to our main speakers from the very beginning and I would like to give the floor first of all to our colleague Minunni.
Lavinia Mennuni
Yes, thank you very much.
Quello che emerge con grande chiarezza da tutti gli interventi che sono stati svolti dagli autorevoli parlamentari qui presenti è che innanzitutto c'è grande preoccupazione sul tema della flessibilità che non deve essere assolutamente a scapito della prevedibilità e quindi a quello che è anche il tema famoso del balance of power between the Commission e i national governments e quindi il Consiglio.
Mi sembra sia emerso con grande chiarezza è che le nuove risorse che seppur necessarie e comprendiamo possano essere necessarie non devono tuttavia andare assolutamente a gravare su quelle che sono le popolazioni, le imprese, le piccole e medie imprese perché noi abbiamo adesso un periodo comunque indubbiamente complicato a livello economico generale europeo e quindi non si può immaginare che queste risorse possano gravare su di essi. Quindi vanno trovate delle fonti di nuove risorse che non abbiano questo tipo di elemento fondamentale anche qui sono tanti gli interventi.
Sono tanti gli interventi, ma ancor di più, colleghi, vediamo che gli interventi sono Portogallo, Francia, Slovenia, Germania, insomma tutti orientati sull'evitare la divisione dei fondi, cioè sull'avere, appunto, questa divisione del fondo PAC da quello coesione in quanto non vi può essere competitività se non vi è autentica coesione, se non vi è equilibrio tra le varie aree che compongono l'Europa. E su questo vorrei dire soltanto un esempio. Prima con il presidente dicevamo che siamo tutti e due stati membri, insomma, concreti rappresentanti di quelle che sono territori ed aree. Io, per esempio, vengo da una regione italiana che si chiama Abruzzo. È una regione bellissima, si produce olio d'oliva, vino, tante cose belle.
Ebbene, io vi dico che se non arrivano i fondi PAC in modo adeguato, siccome sono piccoli poderi, lì la produzione agricola si ridurrà in modo drammatico. Quindi noi rischiamo, se non abbiamo dei fondi PAC dedicati, di impoverirci dal punto di vista dell'alimentazione e della sicurezza alimentare.
Quindi io penso che questo sia uno di quei temi a cui non possiamo assolutamente non porre adeguata attenzione.
Florence Blatrix Contat
Merci Monsieur le Président, chers collègues. Donc je remercie l'ensemble des intervenants et le Parlement européen pour l'organisation de cette conférence qui permet d'exprimer la position des parlements.
Et malgré des divergences, nous l'avons vu notamment sur les ressources propres, mais c'est un sujet essentiel sur lequel on devra avancer collectivement, donc c'est bien normal que nous ayons des divergences. Mais je constate de nombreuses convergences, notamment concernant le soutien à la PAC et à la cohésion qui sont des priorités pour de nombreux pays. Ce que nous pouvons tous partager, c'est que l'Union européenne retrouve son autonomie stratégique, sa souveraineté dans un monde en plein bouleversement géopolitique et dans un contexte, cela a été dit par une collègue, de guerre commerciale et pas toujours loyale. La question qui nous est posée, l'Union européenne s'en donnera-t-elle les moyens ? Et je crois que ce cadre financier dira beaucoup de nous et de ce que nous voulons pour l'Union européenne.
Voulons-nous prendre notre destin en main ?
Et pour cela, voulons-nous nous en donner les moyens ? Nous le faisons au travers d'outils législatifs et à ce titre, la mise en place de l'Union de l'épargne et de l'investissement, la mise en œuvre des préconisations du rapport Draghi seront essentielles. Mais la capacité de l'Union européenne à renforcer ses économies, la solidarité et à préparer l'avenir des générations futures dépendra aussi de l'ambition de ce cadre financier. Je vous remercie.
Andreas Schwab
Merci, chers collègues. Comme ça, on a conclu les interventions de nos hôtes. I know, I know, de nos hôtes, si.
But we have still a speaker from the European Parliament, Carla. You don't want to do that anymore? Maybe one last comment from your side?
Carla Tavares
Thank you, chair. Seria mesmo muito, muito rápida, apenas para agradecer este momento e os contributos dos diversos colegas dos diversos parlamentos. Temos de facto meses desafiantes pela frente e estaremos cá, naturalmente, para trabalhar também com os parlamentos nacionais. É muito mais aquilo que nos aproxima do que aquilo que nos divide.
As preocupações que temos são muito comuns. Precisamos de encontrar recursos para suportar a ambição europeia e é esse trabalho que o Parlamento também fará juntamente com o Conselho e com a Comissão, com preocupações com a previsibilidade, a flexibilidade do próximo quadro financeiro, as questões que estão relacionadas com a política de coesão, a política agrícola comum e um bocadinho esta proposta que temos em cima da mesa por parte do Conselho, por parte da presidência cipriota e que naturalmente também nos preocupa a todos.
E portanto o Parlamento cá estará para no cumprimento do mandato que lhe foi atribuído iniciar e dar continuidade aos processos negociais com o Conselho e com a Comissão com o objetivo naturalmente de termos um orçamento que esteja à altura daquilo que são os desafios da União Europeia. Senhor Presidente, muito obrigada por esta iniciativa e por este dia muito produtivo que começou logo pela manhã também com os momentos que tivemos com o Tribunal de Contas Europeu.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much Carla, and to close this we give the floor to Felix Kloss.
Felix Klos
Thank you Chairman and I know it's a bit later than we all expected so I'll keep it very short again. Yes, I'm hearing a lot of common ground between us. I also hear that there's a gap to be bridged.
We have different priorities and we have to keep them straight. So I will say this. Countries worried about having to pay much more should probably realize that what's on the table is actually not that crazy. It goes from 1.13% to 1.15% and that Europe is a solution and also actually a vehicle for frugality to the member from Lithuania who mentioned that our defense fragmentation is very costly. Yes, it does cost us 90 billion a year.
So let's do it together. To the countries worried about receiving less, I think we should all realize that investments in defense, in energy, in climate, in innovation benefit all of us. The rule of law benefits all of us. Economic reforms benefit all of us. So divided we fall, united we stand and I think we are closer than we actually think.
80 years ago we fought a war together.
And now we're in this room, and I think it's beautiful, talking about combining our resources to build a European future. And the fact that we're able to do this as national parliamentarians together, I think is really amazing and a testament to our common will as Europeans. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Felix. This has been an amazing concluding remark already from your side, because what could I do then adding some words? I'm just grateful that you have all come to Brussels to discuss with us today about this important topic that will keep us busy, especially Carla and her colleague and his colleague Siegfried Mureșan in the next months.
But we will try to integrate also the concerns that you have been expressing here. All the questions that have been raised during our conversations will be registered and we will try to get some answers from the European Commission or from the other authorities that you have been referring to. Thank you very much and have a good trip back home.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.