Committee on Culture and Education Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
CULT European Parliament
Follow its sittingsNela Riehl
Vielen Dank. And for the voting, I will now switch to English. Please all insert your voting cards and we do a test vote. So please all press yes, no, or abstention. I open the vote.
And I close the vote. Ah, no, we are waiting for... now, yes. So it's all working fine. Perfect. So we can start with the vote.
Yeah, that's a problem. We have one less vote for the EPP, but I don't think we can help you right now. No. So we start with the first vote. You run, yes, you run and then we... yeah.
So we start with the first vote, which is compromise amendment one. Compromise amendment one. Who's in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. We go to compromise amendment number two. Who's in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. We go to compromise amendment number three. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number four. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number five. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number six. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number seven. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number eight. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number nine. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number ten. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number eleven. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twelve. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirteen. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number fourteen. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number fifteen. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number sixteen. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number seventeen. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number eighteen. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number nineteen. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty, perfect. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-one. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. We go to amendment number two hundred and thirty-seven. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Rejected. We go to compromise amendment number twenty-two. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-three. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-four. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-five. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-six. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-seven. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-eight. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-nine. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty-one. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty-two, pardon. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty-three. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty-four. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty-five. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty-six. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty-seven. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty-eight. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number thirty-nine. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. We go to amendment number one hundred and seventy. One moment please, which is fifty-five. There we are.
In favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected. We go to amendment three hundred and twenty-three.
In favor? Against? Abstentions? Can we do it again please? In favor?
Against? Abstentions? We need to check please. Amendment two hundred and thirty-three. I open the vote.
Two hundred and twenty-three. I open the vote. Two hundred and twenty-three. And I close the vote. And it is adopted.
We go to compromise amendment number forty. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise amendment number forty-one. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise amendment number forty-two. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
We go to IMCO one. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
We go to IMCO eleven. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
We go to IMCO two. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
FEMM one. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Please check.
I open the vote for FEMM one because I saw like this and I don't know.
I open the vote. And I close the vote. And it is adopted. We go to IMCO 12 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We go to FEMM 2 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
FEMM 3 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. FEMM 4 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We go to compromise amendment number 17, pardon, amendment number 17 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We go to amendment number 18 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We go to FEMM 7 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
IMCO 3 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. We can check IMCO 3. IMCO 3, I open the vote. And I close the vote. And it is adopted.
So we go to FEMM 8 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We go to FEMM 9 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. LIBE 2 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. LIBE 3 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment, not compromise, amendment number 6, sorry, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
LIBE 4 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 7 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. LIBE 5 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. IMCO 5 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. IMCO 6 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
8 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. FEMM 10 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. 9 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number 10 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number 11 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Amendment number 13 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Number 16 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. We go to amendment number 15 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. FEMM 11 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. 19 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
FEMM 12 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. 21 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. IMCO 7 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number 22 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. IMCO 8 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Amendment number 23 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. IMCO 10 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. We go to amendment number 296. In favor?
Against? Abstentions? Please check. I open the vote for amendment number 296. And I close the vote.
Oh, and this is, yeah, very, it is adopted. You can see it. No, you cannot actually see it. Ah, yes, you can see it. Yes.
Okay, perfect. So we go to compromise amendment number 44. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 45. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 46. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 47. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 48. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 49. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 50. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 51. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 52. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 53. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 54. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise amendment number 55. In favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. We go to the final vote, which is a roll-call vote, and I open the vote. And I close the vote. And it is adopted. Thank you very much, Mr. Bucolo.
Thank you. Now I switch into German for a little while. Einfach nur um kurz anzukündigen, dass wir zur nächsten Abstimmung kommen über den CULT-Ausschussbericht über die Umsetzung der EU-Jugendstrategie 2019 bis 2027. Berichterstatterin war Sabrina Repp von der S&D. Sabrina, möchtest du ein paar Worte sagen?
Sabrina Repp
Ja, vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Stellen Sie sich vor, eine junge Schülerin aus einer Kleinstadt in einer ländlichen Region. Ihre Eltern hatten nie die Möglichkeiten, in den Urlaub zu fahren. Es fehlten schlichtweg die finanziellen Ressourcen. Für diese junge Frau scheint Europa weit weg.
Eine Idee auf dem Papier, aber nicht Teil ihres Alltags. Genau hier setzt die europäische Jugendstrategie an. Sie ist das Fundament, das Europa zusammenbringt und auch in den kommenden Generationen weiter stärkt. Dabei geht es um mehr als neue Ziele und Ambitionen. Es geht um die konkrete Umsetzung, um echte Teilhabe und darum, junge Menschen in ihren Lebensrealitäten ernst zu nehmen, unabhängig von Herkunft, Wohnort oder Einkommen.
Es geht um entscheidende Zukunftsfragen: um Bildung, um Mobilität, mentale Gesundheit, bezahlbarer Wohnraum und um die Frage, wie wir jungen Menschen wieder Vertrauen in eine gute Zukunft geben können. Europa beginnt dabei vor Ort. Entscheidend ist, dass die Ziele der europäischen Jugendstrategie auch in den Regionen, in den Städten, in den Gemeinden umgesetzt werden und junge Menschen überall erreichen, gerade auch im ländlichen Raum. Dafür müssen wir die Strategie mit erfolgreichen Programmen wie Erasmus+ verknüpfen und zugleich europäische Fördermittel bereitstellen, die jungen Menschen, Jugendorganisationen und lokale Projekte ganz konkret unterstützen. Gemeinsam haben wir einen starken und ambitionierten Bericht erarbeitet.
Er stärkt die Jugendbeteiligung, die soziale Inklusion und die Berücksichtigung junger Menschen in allen europäischen Politikbereichen. Damit leisten wir einen wichtigen Beitrag für die nächste europäische Jugendstrategie nach 2027.
Ich hoffe, dass wir das heute mit breiter Unterstützung durchstimmen können und am Ende ein starkes Signal und ein gemeinsames Signal nach außen senden. Mein herzlicher Dank gilt an der Stelle an allen Schattenberichterstatterinnen und Schattenberichterstattern sowie allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen für die konstruktive und lösungsorientierte Zusammenarbeit. Ebenso danke ich insbesondere dem CULT-Sekretariat, Daphne und Ivan, für ihre hervorragende Begleitung und den politischen Beraterinnen und Partnern der S&D-Fraktion, Eva, vielen Dank für deine Mitarbeit sowie meiner Mitarbeiterin Aso, die diesen Bericht möglich gemacht haben und wo wir gemeinsam junge Menschen in ganz Europa stärken können. Vielen Dank euch.
Nela Riehl
Thank you very much and we move to the vote. We start with compromise amendment number one, who's in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number two, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number three, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number four, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment number five, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number six, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number seven, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number eight, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number nine, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment number ten, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number eleven, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number twelve, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number thirteen, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number fourteen, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment number fifteen, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number sixteen, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number seventeen, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number eighteen, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number nineteen, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise amendment number twenty, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-one, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-two is here, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise amendment number twenty-three, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. And we go to the final vote, which is a roll-call vote again, and I open the vote.
And I close the vote. And it is adopted. Congratulations. And then I switch into German again for a little while. Wir wenden uns nun den Abstimmungen über die Änderungsanträge zum Haushaltsplan 2027 zu, einschließlich der Vorschläge für Pilotprojekte und vorbereitende Maßnahmen, die sogenannten PPPAs.
Wie Sie in den Abstimmungslisten sehen können, werden Sie am Ende dafür stimmen, dem Berichterstatter das horizontale Mandat zu erteilen, den Haushaltsentwurf in den Haushaltslinien wiederherzustellen, die der CULT-Ausschuss nicht ändert, sondern in denen der Rat Kürzungen einführt. Gratulation an den Berichterstatter für seine Bemühungen, einen gemeinsamen Ansatz zu finden und sich auf die Prioritäten dieses Ausschusses zu konzentrieren. Möchte der Berichterstatter auch hier einmal dazu das Wort ergreifen?
Hélder Sousa Silva
Thank you, Chair, and dear colleagues. Of course, I would like to, I mean, to make some small remarks related with this file. And I would like to start by thank my shadow colleagues and, of course, the CULT secretariat for the collaborative approach in these budgetary amendments, being able once again to reach a common approach to call for investment in Europe's culture, education, youth, sports, and media.
This year we have decided to make an important political statement. The first amendment ask for the restore of, it's a huge amount of money, 357 million in recoveries to the main Erasmus+ education and training strand. And these funds belong to Erasmus+ and should be used to create budgetary margin for Eurocosts as agreed in the interinstitutional agreement on budgetary discipline. Beyond this, we propose targeted and realistic reinforcements for the different strands of Erasmus+, Creative Europe and European Solidarity Corps given their extreme oversubscription and high provided added value. These programs open doors, support artists and media and give young people opportunities to learn, volunteer and cooperate across borders.
This is the way to support a more resilient, competitive and united Europe. The budget is always, I mean, a critical topic for us and as a standing rapporteur during this mandate I'm fight not only here but as you know in the budget committee for the culture budget. And this is, I mean, a good example that we are fighting for more money this year especially in this Erasmus+. Thank you so much.
Nela Riehl
Thank you very much and we move to the vote. Amendment number one in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number two in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number three in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number four in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Amendment number five in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number six in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number seven in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number eight in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment number nine in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
And we go to the vote on the horizontal mandate by numerical strength. So it's not a roll-call vote but I open the vote now. And I close the vote. And it is adopted. Congratulations and thank you.
Now I switch into German again for a little while. Kommen wir nun zum nächsten Tagesordnungspunkt, einem Entschließungsantrag zum Pilotprojekt Allianzen der europäischen Schulen in Zusammenarbeit mit einer bereits an die Europäische Kommission gerichteten Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung. Die in der Mitteilung Union der Kompetenzen und im EU-Aktionsplan für grundlegende Kompetenzen vom März 2025 angekündigte Initiative wird bis Ende des dritten Quartals dieses Jahres im Rahmen des Bildungspakets auf den Weg gebracht. Als Berichterstatterin möchte ich allen für ihre ausgezeichnete Zusammenarbeit bei diesem Entschließungsantrag danken, in dem die Kommission aufgefordert wird, dafür zu sorgen, dass staatsbürgerliche Bildung, demokratische Kompetenzen, Medienkompetenz und auch kritisches Denken und Wissen über die EU, und Sabrina hat das vorhin schon so ein bisschen angesprochen, und ihre Werte integrale Bestandteile dieses Pilotprojekts sind.
Darüber hinaus fordert der Antrag die Kommission auf, den Verwaltungsaufwand und die Komplexität für die teilnehmenden Schulen so gering wie möglich zu halten und ermutigt das Pilotprojekt, die barrierefreie und auch inklusive Mobilität von Schülern und Lehrern zu unterstützen. In dem Antrag wird betont, dass die Gestaltung und Umsetzung eine enge Zusammenarbeit mit den Mitgliedstaaten und den zuständigen nationalen und regionalen Behörden, Schulen, Lehrkräften und auch anderen einschlägigen Interessenträgern umfassen soll, und es werden auch geografisch und territorial ausgewogene Partnerschaften gefördert. Schließlich fordert er, dass das Europäische Parlament während der Vorbereitungsphase und Durchführung des Pilotprojekts regelmäßig informiert wird. Wir kommen zur Abstimmung, and I switch into German again. So we go to compromise amendment number one.
In favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. And then we move to the roll-call vote, which is the final vote, which is a roll-call vote, and I open the vote.
And I close the vote. And it is adopted. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you. And I will switch into German again.
Wir kommen zum nächsten Tagesordnungspunkt, das ist die Stellungnahme des CULT-Ausschusses zum Initiativbericht des EMPL-Ausschusses mit dem Titel "Stärkung der Kompetenzen in der Union: Möglichkeiten der beruflichen Aus- und Weiterbildung in Zeiten des Übergangs" von Laurence Farreng, Renew, als Berichterstatterin. Sie können sich daran erinnern, dass die Koordinatorinnen des CULT-Ausschusses aufgrund des engen Zeitraums im federführenden Ausschuss und der Tatsache, dass die Kommission die neue Strategie für die berufliche Aus- und Weiterbildung voraussichtlich bereits im Oktober annehmen wird, am 17. Juni beschlossen haben, eine Stellungnahme in Form eines Schreibens aufzugeben und nur auf Englisch zu arbeiten. Da Frau Farreng aufgrund eines weiteren Engagements heute nicht bei uns sein kann, möchte ich allen für die reibungslose Zusammenarbeit bei dieser Stellungnahme danken. In der Stellungnahme wird betont, dass die künftige Strategie für die berufliche Aus- und Weiterbildung weiterhin auf die Lernenden ausgerichtet sein muss, um sowohl die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Europas als auch die persönliche Entwicklung der Lernenden, die soziale Inklusion und die demokratische Teilhabe zu unterstützen und eine hochwertige, inklusive, innovative und auch attraktive Aus- und Weiterbildung zu fördern. Er fordert die Kommission ferner auf, einen gemeinsamen europäischen Rahmen für die automatische gegenseitige Anerkennung von Studienabschlüssen und Lernzeiten im Ausland in Schule, Berufsbildung und auch Hochschulbildung zu schaffen.
Und wir gehen zur Abstimmung. And this is just the final vote, which is a roll-call vote, and I open the vote. And I close the vote. And it is adopted. So, Laurence not here, but still very good job.
Thank you very much. These were all the votes. We finished very early, so we have 15 minutes of a break. I wasn't aware. So 15 minutes to grab a coffee or anything.
You can, yes, 15 minutes.
Okay. So we are still waiting for some members, but I think we can slowly start.
There they are. And I'll switch into German again. Am 26. bis 28. Mai hatte der CULT-Ausschuss eine sehr erfolgreiche Reise nach Tromsø, Norwegen, der diesjährigen europäischen Jugendhauptstadt. Ich möchte nun den Co-Vorsitzenden der Delegation für jeweils fünf Minuten das Wort erteilen, und Herr Sousa Silva beginnt. Sie haben für fünf Minuten das Wort.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Dear Chair and dear colleagues, together with my colleagues Sabrina Repp and Antonin Staněk, I had the pleasure of representing our committee in Tromsø, Norway, in the European Youth Capital 2024 mission. And I have taken part in several parliamentary missions since the beginning of this legislature, but I must say that this was one of the best organized missions I have taken part in. And it's necessary to say this in the very explicit way. And I would therefore like to thank the CULT Secretariat very sincerely. The quality of the program allowed us to make full use of our time and to engage with many different relevant stakeholders.
In Tromsø, we saw how youth participation can work in practice. At the Tvibit Youth Center, young people have shown us projects being developed on the sustainability, inclusion, innovation, and indigenous heritage. At the municipal level, we had the opportunity to testify how the Youth Council is involved in concrete policy priorities. And at the Arctic University, our discussions with Erasmus+ students and researchers connected their local experience directly with our work on the future of European youth and education policy. Our meetings with Sami youth gave us a better understanding of the challenges faced by indigenous communities, particularly in preserving their language and cultural heritage.
These are matters that deserve careful consideration in our work. These missions are useful because they help us understand how policies are applied in practice. They also give local authorities, organizations, and young people direct access to the Parliament and to the members working on these files. I would therefore strongly encourage colleagues to take part in the future CULT missions to European Youth Capitals and the European Capitals of Culture. These missions should not be treated as an optional addition to our parliamentary work.
They are part, I mean, a planned part of our work. It belongs to our core work. As members, we have the responsibility to understand how European policies and programs function in practice, to hear directly from those implementing them, and to bring those lessons back into our discussions in the Parliament. Participating in these missions gives us the evidence, contacts, and especially the understanding needed to do our job properly. Thank you very much to all the members of this mission and all the staff, and especially the CULT Committee staff, and also all the staff coming from the different party groups.
Sabrina Repp
Ganz herzlichen Dank, Sabrina.
Thank you very much. I can only agree to what has been said, so thank you very much for this whole organization and thank you for this great mission with my colleagues. I think it was for us really good to have these exchanges also with many young people because in Norway you have really strong youth councils. It is really important that young people are getting in touch with policy-making processes very early. And this is maybe something also we can discuss here in the CULT committee, how we can engage young people and member states to build up that structures so that young people can be engaged very early into policy-making processes.
And this was very impressive also on the last day, we had a big youth conference and also these young people who joined this youth conference were so powerful and so so so great in in shaping Europe's values and Europe's policies and especially then when Norway is not a member state of the European Union. So it was very very impressive. And also we've talked about democratic resilience and challenges young people are facing in this Arctic region, especially with Russia, for example. Also these take a big part. Also some challenges with the European Union, for example, when it comes to environmental issues in Norway.
So also these young people who were very at some points points critical about European policies but also very looking forward to work closely on these issues together. And this is also maybe when we have a next delegation from Norway and also of young people from Norway, we can really get in touch with them. In general to this question of European youth capitals, I think it is a very good construction and idea to have these youth capitals. And I think personally as a CULT committee we should work closely together with the Youth Forum on that because what we see is that when you have that youth capital, then you need to make it very visible. And I really don't know if anyone knows that Tromsø is now the European Youth Capital.
And I think it is also our our goal that we need to make it more visible together with the Youth Forum, especially then when we have a mission every year to these youth capitals, which is very important, but also to to make it more visible. I think a good example are the European capitals of culture because they are very visible, there is a big ceremony and I know that this is more hosted in the European institutions. But for that I think this could be a great achievement we can have also after this mission and also maybe we can get in touch with those people we've met also in some I don't know online sessions before because what I've noticed is that they are working really strongly on these youth capitals but we need to connect it at some stages more closely also to our work and to say okay what can we learn from from those people and why Tromsø, for example, is the European Youth Capital because there are so many young people, you have strong youth councils, it was so impressive. But we need to share it with each other and also to implement it in our work. Thank you very much everybody for the organization and for taking part in this great mission.
Nela Riehl
Thank you.
Vielen herzlichen Dank. Das Europäische Jugendforum hat ja gerade einen neuen Präsidenten wieder für die nächsten zwei Jahre. Das ist eine super Idee, die werde ich gleich nach dem Sommer in unser Treffen erstmal mitnehmen zu ihm. Rarisch hat einen super tollen Job gemacht, aber ich freue mich jetzt auf die nächste Zusammenarbeit. Danke allen Kult-Mitgliedern, die dabei waren.
Das klingt so, als müssten wir alle nochmal nach Tromsø fahren. Wir werden auch zu Beginn des nächsten Jahres dann Vertreter in der europäischen Kulturhauptstadt hier in den Ausschuss einladen, um einmal zurückzuberichten davon, wie das Jahr gelaufen ist, damit wir davon auch lernen können. Sie würden auch gern das Wort ergreifen.
Antonín Staněk
Hezký den vám všem, paní předsedající, budu mluvit česky. Já bych chtěl také poděkovat sekretariátu Výboru pro kulturu za opravdu excelentní přípravu celé mise, protože to bylo opravdu velmi přínosné obsahově a velmi obohacující. A já zastupuji a byl jsem v misi jako zástupce Patriotů a vy všichni víte, že Patrioti bývají občas kritičtí k některým závěrům výboru a podobně. Nicméně musím říci, že to setkání s mladými lidmi v Tromsø bylo opravdu velmi, velmi povzbudivé. Byli velmi otevření, jak už tady i kolegyně řekla.
Nesetkali jsme se samozřejmě jen s pozitivním pohledem, ale byly tam i věcné a kritické připomínky, ale bylo dobře, že jsme je mohli společně diskutovat s nimi a ukázat jim obrázek Evropské unie a jednotlivých členských států tak, jak ho vidíme my, teď myslím ne jen Patrioti, ale prostě jak ho vidíme my v Evropě. Oni nám ukázali svůj obrázek své země, jak ho zase vidí oni. Setkání s místními obyvateli, setkání s mladými lidmi, návštěva kulturních institucí, to všechno ukazuje, že kultura je nesmírně významný subjekt, který v podstatě mnohdy nepotřebuje tlumočníky, nepotřebuje překladatele a lidé si rozumí vlastně prostřednictvím různých projevů kultury. Takže já bych chtěl velmi poděkovat za tu příležitost. Opravdu to je významný projekt Evropská města mladých, protože mladí lidé jsou opravdu naší budoucností a je třeba jim naslouchat a je třeba umět naslouchat jejich kritickým hlasům, protože ten jejich pohled nebývá vždy, řekněme, úplně očištěn od takové ty, řekněme, povolené výrazy a nevýrazy.
Prostě říkají to, co si myslí, a je to jenom dobře. Takže ještě jednou děkuji moc za příležitost a děkuji i kolegům za účast nebo za možnost se zúčastnit.
Nela Riehl
Sehr schön, so dass es wirklich so ein großer Erfolg war, diese Reise nach Tromsø. Das ist ganz toll und freut mich sehr. Nochmal danke an das Sekretariat, das scheint ja wirklich unglaublich gut gelaufen zu sein. Und ich freue mich auf die Reise dann im nächsten Jahr nach Parma. Dann gehen wir zum nächsten Tagesordnungspunkt über und auch schon zum letzten für heute.
Das ist die Vorstellung der Studie Erasmus+ Evolution, Structural Challenges and Future Design, das war jetzt auf Englisch, im Auftrag gegeben von der Fachabteilung Bürger, Gleichstellung und Kultur. Kopien der Studie sind überall im Raum und es kann auch natürlich oder sie kann auch online eingesehen werden. Bevor wir zur Vorstellung der Studie übergehen, möchte ich zunächst eine Gruppe von Studierenden begrüßen. Ich muss gerade schauen, sind die jetzt... ne, die sind noch nicht da.
Not yet, no, die sind noch nicht da. Dann machen wir das später. Schon mal für Sie als Hinweis, da kommen später Studierende von der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule in Aachen. Nur dass Sie sich dann nicht wundern, wenn die alle reinkommen. Um die Studie vorzustellen, haben wir Herrn Bert-Gert Bouschol von Ockham IPS.
Im Anschluss an die Präsentation wird sich der Berichterstatter und drei der Schattenberichterstatterinnen äußern und auch Fragen stellen. Herr Bouschol wird antworten und die anderen anwesenden Schattenberichterstatter werden dann eingreifen. In den nächsten Antworten werden wir dann eine Runde Catch-the-eye machen, wie immer. Anschließend macht der Sachverständige seine Abschlussbemerkung, also das Verfahren, das wir immer haben, gefolgt von der Kommission auch heute und schließlich dem Berichterstatter. Also lade ich Sie jetzt, Herr Bouschol, ein, Ihre Präsentation zu beginnen.
Sie haben ungefähr 15 Minuten Zeit.
Piotr BOJSZKÓ
So, thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone, and thank you very much for inviting me today. It's a pleasure to present the findings of our assessment of the Commission proposal for the next Erasmus+ program. Rather than discussing every element of the proposal, I would like to focus today on five structural challenges that have shaped Erasmus+ for many years. These challenges repeatedly emerge in evaluations and research, making them a useful lens for assessing whether the new proposal addresses the program's underlying issues.
The five questions are: does the proposal bridge the gap between ambitions and resources? Secondly, does it balance flexibility with democratic oversight? Thirdly, does it provide adequate financial support? And fourthly, will it improve inclusion? And lastly, does it reduce administrative complexity?
For each challenge, we ask three questions: does the proposal solve the problem, what do we recommend, and are these recommendations already reflected in the proposed amendments? Where they are, we indicated this with a tick mark on the sheets presented here. Let me begin with what's probably the biggest structural issue. Erasmus+ has become one of Europe's most successful programs, but success also created expectations. And today, Erasmus+ is expected to contribute not only to mobility, but also to skills, competitiveness, inclusion, democratic participation, and resilience.
The budget does increase, and that's certainly positive. But the objectives expand at the same time, like the mobility targets set for higher education and VET in the Council recommendation. At the same time, the regulation proposal also new instruments like the scholarship scheme, but no clarity is provided on the potential cost compared, for example, to normal mobility and budget implications. So as a result, the underlying tension remains: demand continues to exceed available resources, and it's not clear how the increasing ambitions relates to the overall program budget, since no specification is provided on budget allocation. Besides, it is important to mention the proposed regulation placed greater emphasis on the combined and cumulative funding with other funds like ESF to address this funding gap.
But it's not made sufficiently clear how this would succeed in practice. Experiences with the current program show that such mechanisms have not been widely used so far. So what would be different in the new program is the question to ask. At the same time, guaranteed revenues from Erasmus+ from competition fines would disappear under the proposed financial framework, as provided in Article 5 of the current regulation. Instead, these resources would be channeled through broader flexibility instruments rather than earmarked for specific programs like Erasmus+.
So our conclusion is that ambition the ambition capacity gap has not really been resolved. And if the program does not receive the resources needed for support expanding participation or new activities and a wider range of policy objectives or in the case if resources are reduced, the alternative is to clarify priorities and establish clear funding limits. Nevertheless, the proposal proposes removing earmarking between education sectors and actions in the new program altogether as well as between directly and indirectly managed funds. While this approach would increase the Commission flexibility to redefine program's priorities through annual work programs, it also reduces the ability of co-legislators to steer the program ex-ante. And it may weaken transparency and oversight regarding how funding is distributed across sectors at the EU level.
This leads to a possible reduction of funding in the new program.
An important remark to be made in this context is that the mid-term evaluation concluded for the current program 2021-27 that it had already demonstrated considerable flexibility and resilience responding to major external challenges, for example dealing with COVID and the Ukraine crisis. At the same time, national agencies were able to reallocate budgets between key actions and sectoral fields. The mid-term evaluation also pointed out the importance of stability and continuity in the program structure and manager. They were considered as key factors for its success and efficient delivery. So our recommendations are actually quite straightforward to this respect.
First, make the relationship between objectives and budget more explicit in the in the regulation. This link is not sufficiently clear due to the removing earmarking. Secondly, ensure if you if there are new priorities and actions are proposed to accompany these by corresponding financial resources. This avoids creating competition for limited funding. And third, introduce clear participation and mobility targets linked to available resources, such as in the current program.
This creates transparency and help align political expectations with operational capacity. And finally, retain targeted earmarking to safeguard transparency, predictability and balance across the program. I should note that several of these recommendations are already reflected in amendments proposed by both the Parliament and the Council, as shown by the green tick mark in this sheet. The second issue concern governance. One of the most significant changes in the proposal is the increased importance of the annual work programs.
Together with the removal of the current key action structure, this gives the Commission considerable greater discretion in determining priorities and allocating funding during the program period. At the same time, the proposal no longer refers to the comitology procedure that involves Member States, and no references are made as well to delegated acts or implementing acts for the annual work programs or program indicators. That means considerably more discretion for the Commission when determining annual priorities. The proposal does not include a clear justification for this choice, and the impact assessment only mentioned broad efficiency gains and possible justification as possible justification and the need for flexibility to be more responsive. And what is striking is that the recent evaluation do not identify weaknesses in the current governance model.
On the contrary, the mid-term evaluation conclude that it functioned well and provides an appropriate balance between flexibility and accountability. In other word, the evidence for changing this system is rather limited. And if the flexibility increase, strong monitoring becomes even more important.
Yet the proposal actually contains no Erasmus+ specific indicators, but only refers to indicators included in the performance regulation. And this may come at the expense of the visibility of outcomes that are either sector-specific or target group-specific. And that's already reflected in the recent opinion of the Court of Auditors. Altogether, the combination of broader objectives, reduced earmarking, and more aggregated monitoring therefore risks weakening the transparency and comparability across sectors and beneficiary groups. So what we recommend here is not to reduce flexibility, but to balance it with accountability, including earmarking for budgets.
Stakeholders and member states should remain closely involved when annual priorities are determined. Member states should remain formally involved through the examination procedure, retaining the comitology procedures, and delegated acts above implementing acts are more appropriate in case the basic legislation is too general and secondary policy choices need to be made later. We also believe that Erasmus+ needs its own monitoring framework alongside the broader MFF indicators. More program-specific indicators are already proposed in the proposed amendments, but these are still missing broader impact indicators. And finally, Europe would benefit from more integrated approach to measuring program impact, building on existing initiatives such as the RAY network for youth and the RIA adult education network for adult education.
The third issue is the adequacy of funding levels provided to participants and the implementing national agency. We all know that living costs have been risen considerably across Europe. Increasingly, Erasmus+ grants simply do not cover the actual cost of participating in mobility. The proposal recognizes this and introduced housing support, which is certainly welcome. But fundamentally, the way grants are calculated does not really change.
We see limited attention for the organizations that actually organize the mobility. This concern was especially raised in the youth and the adult education sector, where smaller organizations lack the capacity to facilitate mobility activities. The lack of funding for hosting organizations reduces their willingness and ability to participate, which in turn create difficulties in finding suitable partners. There is also limited attention to rising NA management cost, only optimizing management cost like reducing the number of NAs, common IT system, and simplified project management and reporting. But no substantial changes are proposed.
We therefore recommend looking again how grants are calculated. A more dynamic grant calculation model that reflects actual living cost would make participation more realistic. Secondly, it's also to recognize affordability as a broader structural challenge affecting all participants, not only those classified as participant with fewer opportunity. And we also recommend stronger support for both sending and hosting organization, better recognition of project management costs, and ensuring national agency have sufficient resources to deliver the program effectively. Coming to the fourth issue.
Inclusion is rightly become one of the defining priorities of Erasmus+, and the proposal builds on that with additional support measures and national inclusion and diversity strategies.
But despite these positive developments, participation remains uneven. And it's important to mention that financial barriers are only part of the story. Administrative burden, organizational capacity, and personal circumstances all continue to play an important role. And the proposal is not clear about how this need will be addressed. And another important observation is that the proposal does not translate the EU participation ambitions of 20% participation of fewer opportunities into clear program targets and measurable milestones.
So here we would like to recommend supporting not only individual participants, but also the organizations working with those having fewer opportunities. And in addition, inclusion's ambitions should be translated into clear targets and measurable benchmarks. Finally, administrative complexity. Simplification is one of the central objectives of the proposal, and that's certainly welcome. However, it also introduced a completely new program structure based on two pillars instead of the current three key action.
And interestingly, also here the midterm evaluation conclude that the current structure function well. This raised the question of whether such a major structural change is necessary, particularly given the transition cost for national agencies and beneficiaries. One of the lessons learned from the previous evaluation is that beneficiaries and implementing organizations benefit from stability and continuity and are not in favor of drastic changes to the program architecture, limiting the take-up in early years. So no reform is wished for. At last, the proposal does not include program-level specific indicators to monitoring whether this simplification proposed is actually being achieved.
We therefore recommend a strong evidence base for changing program structure. We also recommend monitoring simplification through concrete indicators, such as reporting effort or time to grant. Also in the amendments proposed there is already an indicator related to reducing administrative burden, and that's also quite helpful. Finally, stability should be recognized as a strength that support long-term partnerships. Let me conclude with four key messages.
First, the proposal represents a significant shift towards greater flexibility in the governance of Erasmus Plus. And flexibility is valuable, but it should not come at the expense of transparency and democratic oversight. Second, for several of these governance changes we found only limited supporting evidence in the available evaluations. The Commission needs to provide a clearer justification for the proposed governance model and changes made, otherwise the rationale remains unclear. Third, the proposal weakens program-specific monitoring and accountability.
And finally, from Parliament perspective, the proposal could be strengthened by providing greater clarity on program priorities, funding allocation, and formal involvement in adoption and scrutiny of annual work programs. Without such adjustment, there is a risk that Parliament will not be able to fully exercise its framework-setting and control function. I hope these observations are helpful for further reflection on Commission proposed regulation, helping making the program more effective and efficient. Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
Nela Riehl
Thank you and yes they are helpful. Vielen Dank Herr Bojszkó für die Präsentation. Da erteile ich den Schattenberichterstatterinnen das Wort. Wir beginnen mit Herrn Zdrojewski für jeweils zwei Minuten und er ist natürlich der Berichterstatter von der EVP.
Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski
Chciałbym na wstępie bardzo serdecznie podziękować autorom i całemu zespołowi Ockham, panu Bojszkólowi także za tą prezentację. Muszę przyznać, że nie spodziewałem się akurat aż tylu komplementów pod adresem programu Erasmus+. Finał de facto pana prezentacji był taki, że jeżeli chcemy cokolwiek zmieniać, powinniśmy czynić to bardzo ostrożnie i po dobrym monitoringu. Według mojej oceny to jest bardzo właściwa ocena, bo wartością jest stabilność tego programu, przewidywalność określonych rozwiązań i też jasność i transparentność rozmaitych procedur. Wiemy, że Erasmus to jest bez wątpienia jeden z najbardziej widocznych sukcesów integracji europejskiej.
Połączył on blisko 18 milionów przede wszystkim młodych ludzi i realnie wzmocnił także naszą tożsamość. Dziś jednak stoimy przed kluczowym wyborem dotyczącym właśnie tego, jak ten program ma wyglądać w następnej perspektywie. Państwa raport dość precyzyjnie punktuje najważniejsze wyzwania strukturalne nowego wniosku Komisji Europejskiej, od pewnych luk pomiędzy politycznymi ambicjami a realiami budżetowymi. Mamy też tu uwzględnione ryzyko ograniczenia demokratycznej kontroli i nadzoru parlamentarnego. Bardzo mnie ucieszyły te kilkukrotne wzmianki dotyczące konieczności stałego monitorowania, czyli takiej precyzyjnej, dobrej wiedzy o tym, jak program jest realizowany.
Od razu dodam, że w pracy nad swoim raportem uwzględniłem spostrzeżenia eurodeputowanych w pierwszej kolejności, ale także rozmaitych ekspertów, którzy pojawiali się na rozmaitych naszych konsultacjach. Przywróciliśmy poprzednią strukturę programu oraz odrębne alokacje budżetowe, wzmacniając jednocześnie postulat, aby mechanizmy grantowe i wsparcia mieszkaniowe były kalkulowane w oparciu o faktyczne koszty życia. Bardzo się cieszę z pana uwag dotyczących przede wszystkim kwestii finansowych. Budżet powinien być zwiększony. Podaż nie nadąża za popytem.
Powinniśmy raczej redukować ilość celów, ale starać się, aby one były bardziej klarowne, bardziej precyzyjne. I ta ostatnia pana uwaga, że reformy de facto takie poważne reformy są zbędne. To jest największy komplement pod adresem tego programu, bo oznacza, że on ogólnie rzecz biorąc jest po prostu znakomity. Dziękuję bardzo.
Sabrina Repp
Vielen Dank für die Studie. Vielen Dank, dass Sie die heute hier präsentieren. Die Befunde sind ja sehr deutlich und wir sehen das in den Haushaltsverhandlungen insgesamt gemeinsam mit der Kommission, dass eben grundlegende Umstrukturierungen vorgeschlagen werden und wir uns eigentlich auch als Europäisches Parlament hinterfragen müssen: Gibt es überhaupt eine Notwendigkeit dafür? Sie haben das angesprochen mit dieser neuen Struktur eben von diesen zwei Bereichen, wo Sie eigentlich sagen: Okay, so wie es jetzt ist, funktioniert es ja eigentlich gut. Ja, warum fangen wir immer an, die Themen wieder so umzustrukturieren?
Und gleichzeitig sorgt es eben für weniger Verlässlichkeit gerade auch bei denjenigen, die eigentlich die Förderung empfangen sollen.
Also wie schaffen wir es da tatsächlich eine Balance zu halten? Vieles Richtige wurde auch schon gesagt, die Frage der Transparenz, der demokratischen Kontrolle und auch, dass die Europäische Kommission ein Stück weit in der Begründungspflicht ist für diese tiefgreifenden Umstrukturierungen. Und ich denke, das können wir uns auch mitnehmen, gerade für die anstehenden Verhandlungen als zuständige Schattenberichterstattende, weil wir natürlich auch immer in den Verhandlungen dazu geneigt sind, viele Sachen schnell zu befürworten bzw. die Struktur dann zu akzeptieren, obwohl wir grundsätzlich auch die Umstrukturierung infrage stellen. Ich habe zwei Themen, die mich noch mal interessieren würden. Wie sehen Sie gerade unter dem Deckmantel der oder anbetracht der Zugänglichkeit, also wir haben ja auch viel über Zugänglichkeiten zu Erasmus+ geredet, die Implementierung oder die Idee von diesen strategischen Stipendien?
Weil wir ja sehen bei den Kritikpunkten, die Sie angebracht haben, dass eigentlich diese Idee der strategischen Stipendien der Inklusivität und der Zugänglichkeit widersprechen würde. Wäre es aus Ihrer Perspektive eine Möglichkeit, einen konkreten Rahmen für diese Stipendien zu finden, zum Beispiel zu sagen, nur wenn es gemeinsame Auslandsstudiengänge betrifft, klares Budget dafür festzuhalten? Also wie sehen Sie das? Und wir haben jetzt eine neue Situation, nämlich sind die europäischen Freiwilligendienste Teil von Erasmus+. Und Sie haben auch deutlich gemacht, dass die Unterstützung von Sending- und Hosting-Organizations total wichtig sind.
Das gilt ja auch gerade für die europäischen Freiwilligendienste. Das haben wir auch versucht zu implementieren. Aber hier wäre konkret auch meine Frage: Wie sehen Sie die Rolle der europäischen Freiwilligendienste in dem Erasmus+-Programm? Sorgt es tatsächlich auch für diese Freiwilligendienste für mehr Zugänglichkeiten, für eine Sichtbarkeit, für einen Erhalt dieser Freiwilligendienste oder drohen die tatsächlich auch in diesem Erasmus+-Programm unterzugehen? Das würde mich noch mal interessieren.
Vielen Dank.
Nela Riehl
Dankeschön. Weil wir keine weiteren Schattenberichterstatterinnen hier haben, würde ich nun zu den Koordinatorinnen übergehen und da beginnen wir mit Herrn Heide.
Hannes Heide
Thank you very much. I want to refer to ambitions and budget realities as the study says that structural tension concerns the gap between the program's political ambitions and its operational capacity. And another quote: while the program's budget has increased, the imbalance between available funding and the program's ambitions remains unsolved. Our goal is that every European citizen once in a lifetime has the opportunity to take part in Erasmus+. To reach to these goals, the question is not only that we need more budget, the question is how much more budget do we need because the European Parliament is quite ambitious.
But even with our ambition, for me it is clear that there will be a lot of expectations that we still in the next MFF we cannot fulfill. I also want to thank you for this study because I take out that evaluation, monitoring and control by the European Parliament is very important, that it's very important to get the earmarks we are demanding. And when I mention the earmarks, we often are quite in a conflict with the proposals from the European Commission concerning earmarks, concerning the overall budget. And so my question is, or my thanks go to you because this is a lot of arguments and support we can take out from the study.
Nela Riehl
Dankeschön. Und weil wir noch Zeit haben, gehen wir direkt zum Catch-the-Eye und Marcos Ros Sempere hat sich gemeldet.
Marcos Ros Sempere
Gracias, gracias presidenta y gracias por presentarnos este estudio que además coincide con muchas de las cosas que venimos diciendo ya en este en esta comisión muchos de los ponentes, diputados, el propio ponente y nuestra ponente en la sombra para el el dossier de Erasmus. Y hay cosas que son clarísimas y el propio Tribunal de Cuentas también lo dijo, el aumento presupuestario que se prevé no viene acompañado de un marco de asignación claro y eso corre el riesgo de diluir las prioridades en lugar de reforzarlas. Nosotros ya defendimos con las enmiendas de nuestra ponente a en la sombra elevar el la asignación financiera a esos 47.390 millones de euros, cifra que finalmente la la vemos recogida en el informe, en el interim report del Parlamento Europeo, pero también hemos presentado algunos de los diputados enmiendas para garantizar líneas presupuestarias diferenciadas por cada ámbito con un anclaje muy reforzado para tema de educación, formación que debe seguir siendo el pilar histórico de de este programa. Y el estudio también nos está demostrando que la estabilidad de la gestión descentralizada ha sido un factor de éxito del programa y las agencias nacionales tienen cada vez más tareas, pero la financiación de la gestión no está creciendo al mismo ritmo y eso es otro riesgo que está evidenciándose en esta propuesta de programa Erasmus. Y por otro lado el tema del control, ¿no?, el el control presupuestario de los Estados miembros y del Parlamento desaparece, desaparece la comitología, el el Consejo ya lo ha recuperado en su informe y esperemos que el Parlamento sea capaz de recuperarlo en en su en su informe final.
Así que yo creo que ahora toca negociar unos buenos compromisos de las enmiendas que hemos presentado todos los grupos, pero tenemos que defender que el programa Erasmus tenga capacidad de cumplir con las ambiciones que se le han asignado y yo creo que ese es el trabajo de esta comisión y esperamos que el ponente cuente con las enmiendas presentadas desde el grupo socialista. Muchas gracias.
Nela Riehl
Ich gebe nun erstmal das Wort wieder an Sie, Herr Bousquet, bevor wir die restlichen Mitglieder drannehmen für die Catch-the-eye-Runde für fünf bis sechs Minuten, vielleicht auch sieben.
Piotr BOJSZKÓ
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the feedback and remarks and as well the questions raised. And I'm glad to hear, let's say, that a lot of findings presented echo in your remarks and and also reflect in current debates you already had in that's good to hear. Let's focus mainly on the questions because I'm here to answer the the questions. And I think, Sabine Verheyen, you referred to the important question about accessibility and also the grants and strategic grants you're referring to, I assume that you're referring to as well the inclusion top-ups in this respect as increasing, let's say, the inclusiveness of the program. We are clear, but I think we also make a clear point, it's not only about the fewer opportunities.
I think also regarding the grant calculations, it's a concern also for a broader group than only the fewer opportunities. Therefore, we propose, let's say, to come with a more dynamic grant respecting also the diversity of cost across Europe and that should be really a rethink. I think the top-ups working, let's say, in some way, although it's an rather an administrative issue as well for NAs and beneficiary organizations, but the clear message is there needs to be done more than this. So it's not only the inclusion top-up for the individuals participating, but especially if we if we talking about dealing with the those having fewer opportunities, it's also the whole organizational aspect. The organizing the mobility, especially I made the remark about the adult education sector and the youth sector, more needs to be done to mobilize these specific groups that they get engaged in the mobility.
And there funding is a crucial aspect, not only funding for the sending organization, but as well funding for the hosting organization. In sectors where cooperation between institutions in partnerships is well institutionalized, that's working quite well because you benefit from mobility from both sides because you're sending and hosting. But especially in the adult education youth sector, that's a particular issue because these stable relationships between organizations are not built up. So you need some funding for organizing that mobility. So I hope I provided an answer on that one, but at least I would like to raise some issues where we really need to take care of or rethink, let's say, the design of the program.
Regarding the position of the Solidarity Corps, I'm aware of the whole discussion whether, let's say, integrating European Solidarity Corps, what are the pros, the benefits, but also what are the cons in it in some way. And I understand the decision of streamlining the program with the European Solidarity Corps, but I see also the reasoning for branding a separate element. So you need to rethink, let's say, this branding aspect is important then dealing with youth volunteering is also a particular type of intervention. So what I see in the proposal amendments, there's already an indication that youth and this volunteering aspect have a separate attention, but also could have a separate chapter, let's say, to address more, let's say, what make this volunteering different from other mobilities with different objective, different activities. So in that way, I don't position myself really yet, but I see the point, let's say, that it should not be hidden somewhere in the general framework, but it should be well positioned in the regulation.
Yeah, and for the rest, some remarks about this imbalance between the ambition funding gap and also if the ambition is that every citizens need an experience of mobility abroad, that has budgetary consequences. It's difficult to put a number on it, but I would say clarify it or make it clear. And that's I think my key message in the presentation. So long it's not clear, let's say, how much budget is allocated to mobility, you don't know where we're heading to. So in that way, and that has also to do with monitoring and evaluation in the end.
So also as the role of the Parliament, if you set ex-ante, let's say, the frame of the program, it's also clearer, let's say, to monitor and evaluate whether we have done a good job or not in the end. So in that it's more about clarity, about budget allocation, and it's not only per sector, but also regarding objectives and especially if you're proposing all kind of new activities, what's helpful and there is also support for it, but you need to make clear also what the budgetary consequences are of it. And that's I think the key message to clarify this one. Just a last remark. Now, I value, let's say, this stability issue.
That's a remark made, let's say, don't talk about revolution of the program, but evolution of the program, let's say, fix the program where the program is not working well and fine-tune it a little bit. And it's clear that if we make big changes, and that is in the previous program of the current program and the previous program, it takes some time for the field to adapt to a new program architecture, a new ways of applying for funding and monitoring and writing final reports. And that takes some absorption time.
So in that way continuity is an valued something and I think that we we need to safeguard that a little bit. Changes could have negative consequences as well. So in that way build on the success of the programs and also regarding the NAs there is an increasing workload for NAs we see because with with increasing ambitions of the NA you also need to have an reasonable budget to perform your activities. So that we need to critical reflect on on this one as well. I hope I provided an satisfactory answer.
And still on time I see.
Nela Riehl
I think so thank you. And we come to the catch-the-eye we start with Mr. Staněk.
Antonín Staněk
Já děkuji za slovo a děkuji za otevřené odpovědi na otázky které tady zazněly. A pokud jde o Erasmus+ tak samozřejmě není není rozpor že je to nejdůležitější evropský program a že je potřeba jeho pokračování podporovat. Zároveň bych ale chtěl zdůraznit aby jeho hlavním posláním do budoucna skutečně zůstala podpora kvalitního vzdělávání studentské mobility a spolupráce univerzit. Nechci aby se Erasmus+ stal nástrojem pro financování nějakých nových politických priorit. Navýšení rozpočtu vnímám ale musí se skutečně promítnout do většího počtu studentů učitelů a nikoliv do vyšších administrativních nákladů nebo nových agend.
Erasmus+ má především investovat do lidí znalostí konkurenceschopnosti Evropy. A moje otázka je v podstatě podle jakých měřitelných ukazatelů by Komise za pět let hodnotila úspěšnost nového programu. Jaká část hodnocení bude založena na skutečných vzdělávacích výsledcích a mobilitě studentů a učitelů a jaká na plnění těch širších politických priorit. Děkuji.
Isilda Gomes
Bom dia a todos. Bom na nossa perspectiva obviamente da CULT e de tudo aquilo que já foi aqui dito e é aquilo que todos nós pensamos é que o programa Erasmus+ é um enorme contributo para a coesão social e para a igualdade de oportunidades. É isso que todos nós pretendemos. O problema é estaremos nós a cumprir esse desígnio ou estaremos a introduzir ainda mais desigualdades a reproduzir estas desigualdades ao não dar oportunidade a jovens com menos recursos económicos para poderem frequentar e para poderem entrar no Erasmus+. Sabemos que até aqui todos os estudantes tiveram que ter um suporte familiar.
Ora há muitos bons alunos provenientes de famílias com recursos muito limitados que deveriam ter essa oportunidade. E nós estamos a deixá-los para trás. E portanto aquilo que eu tenho medo o meu receio é que em vez de estarmos a potenciar a igualdade de oportunidades estejamos a cavar um fosso cada vez mais profundo entre aqueles que têm capacidade económica para o poder fazer e aqueles que não têm.
E é por isso que eu acho que o Erasmus+ não pode ser igual para toda a gente, não pode ser igual para todos os alunos de todos os países, porque cada uns têm as suas dificuldades. Não pode ser igual para todos os alunos. Eu acho que tem que haver aqui um critério de modelação do apoio a cada um dos jovens que pretende frequentar Erasmus+. Aumentar o Erasmus+ sim, sim, totalmente, não posso estar mais de acordo. Agora, que haja aqui a capacidade de rever alguns critérios no sentido de dar apoio, de dar bolsas diferentes a jovens com dificuldades económicas.
Isto sim é um contributo para a igualdade, é um contributo para melhorar a capacidade de aprendizagem, a capacidade de intervenção dos nossos jovens em cada um dos nossos países. Não deixar só para aqueles que têm bons recursos, mas que seja para todos aqueles que o querem fazer e que têm capacidade para o fazer. Muito obrigada.
Nela Riehl
Ganz herzlichen Dank. Nun Herr Vos haben Sie noch mal fünf bis sechs, sieben Minuten das Wort Zeit, Zeit um darauf zu antworten.
Piotr BOJSZKÓ
Thank you chair. I don't think I need the complete six minutes with these questions, so let's save some time. Regarding the remark about, I cannot reflect about what the program should do because that's a political decision, what the mission should be and whether it should be restricted to improving the quality of education and the mobility. But I think you make an interesting remark about what could be a good indicator that measure, let's say, the success rate of educational performance. I think that's a valid indicator and I think we should further reflect on it.
But the baseline is that the current regulation does not include a set of program-specific indicators. So that's the first remark. So I cannot reflect on the current proposal whether such an indicator is included, but it's not existing. So I strongly recommend to improve the program logic, also to include these kind of indicators. And what would be a good indicator to measure education performance, I cannot provide that directly, but that needs to be further studied.
But there are a lot of experiences in studies with measurements of education performance that that could be included, although administrative burden is always an issue. So you need to be clear, let's say, what you're measuring, if this information can also provided by beneficiaries and also timely right after intervention, because quality improvement takes time. It's an, it's a long-standing impact in some way. So you need to think about an appropriate indicator. Regarding the inclusion aspect, yeah, probably that's all what we want.
We want to be inclusive for all and there is more than finance. And there are all kind of other reasons, let's say, that people are not participating, also in the decision in front before you know what the actual financial compensation is, whether you take part in the mobility. And that's more about that are the conditions right for everyone to participate and that also include guidance, the social support, outreach kind of things. And that is a point I would like to make, let's say, that they take time and efforts. Although I have to say in critical remark, let's say, if we focus all on numbers, so volume is important, so we want to show high numbers in the end of the program.
But yeah, addressing these vulnerable groups costs more money and that's reducing the numbers. So that's a sort of balance you need to find. But my pleas would that can be more done, let's say, to assure that, that Erasmus+ is accessible for all and that's more than only the inclusion top-up what I referred to in my previous remark to Mrs. Repp.
I hope this provides some satisfactory answer.
Nela Riehl
Ganz sicher. Vielen herzlichen Dank. Danke für Ihre Präsentation. Soweit ich glaube, da waren viele nützliche Erkenntnisse für all unsere Mitglieder drin. Ich übergebe nun noch einmal das Wort an Diana Jablonska von der Europäischen Kommission auch für ungefähr fünf Minuten.
Diana Jablonska
Thank you very much for the study, for the presentation and for giving us the opportunity to take the floor. I agree with my distinguished pre-speakers that indeed I think it shows that we all have Erasmus at heart and how the Erasmus should evolve in the next MFF and how it should support all our young and all other generations of citizens with a sufficient impact. That's definitely something that comes across for me in this discussion and I think the study will be a very valuable input to shape our thinking and shape final answers as we are going into the negotiations as well. We are very happy to see that some of the results of the study are very consistent also with our evaluation of the program. I think that shows that in some aspects we are going in the same direction.
And indeed we are seeing that we note that over the years the program indeed plays much broader, much stronger emphasis on promoting EU values, European identity and reinforcing democratic participation. And here of course I would like to stress that we are discussing the next framework for the Erasmus within the broader MFF structure. Here we very much wanted to clearly demonstrate the impact of the Erasmus+ can have and therefore it deserves a significant budgetary allocation on the democracy objective and on the competitiveness objective at the same time. I think that goes also in line with what the study is identifying that we need to have clearly strategic objectives put forward. And I think that's visible also in the Erasmus+ and we have therefore strongly also focused in the regulation on the objectives of the MFF which is to make it short, more simple, more flexible and more focused.
This focus on the objectives was indeed to simplify. And therefore it led also to integration of another program. But it's in the discussion right now what is coming across is also that the integration poses some risks. I would underline that I hope the study is also showing that it gives opportunities because the volunteering for example became a key action in the whole Erasmus+ giving much more visibility to actions and possibility also to be stronger in its implementation. Secondly, the study also is noticing that flexibility is already a strong feature in the Erasmus+.
It is true, it is shown by our evaluations. It shows that Erasmus responded to such enormous situation like COVID and also the Russia war of aggression against Ukraine. Yet the evaluations are calling for more. And therefore we have proposed a flexibility embedded in this regulation.
And again, I need to point that that should be looked at in the context of the whole MFF. And I hope that the study, which we are still studying, is also showing how that can be improved within the context of the MFF. Earmarking that I heard here is of course one way, but we also have a new feature like performance regulation. We hope that we also find that the study shows how that can be improved in the next architecture that is being proposed and how, what is the option? That means, is earmarking basically the only option?
Especially that we need to also look at the synergies which were point out in the study. If we do earmarking, what will happen with synergies? How we will use them if the program is earmarked? That's an important question that we hope the study can also help us answer. If we go the road of the going reverting to the old structure, we need to understand that the whole structure evolved.
So we need to understand how reverting to something that we had now will also work in the new structure. So we hope that these answers are also provided more in the study. We will be more than happy to look at them because we also want that Erasmus functions the best way it can. And the last point that I would like to make, some of the comments made we will very much take into account going forward because not everything can be in the regulation. For example, the costs.
The costs of grants, this is of course something that is very difficult to tackle in the regulation, especially in the simplified structure. We had also discussion here in the EP about the regional and local dimension of the costs. It is very difficult. And we are more than willing to look at this. It's just that of course not everything can be in the regulation.
We also agree that NAs are important actors and here we hope that also the national contributions to the NAs are featured in the study. So a lot of these elements I think will be very important going forward. And we, as I said, we are very much looking into the details. We are studying the study and we will be therefore inspiring ourselves more and we hope that also the study will provide us some new guidance looking at the whole MFF architecture. Thank you very much.
Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski
Vielen Dank, Diana. Herr Zdrójewski, für abschließende Worte noch mal zwei Minuten.
Bardzo, bardzo dziękuję także za te głosy w dzisiejszej dyskusji. One są dla mnie bardzo, bardzo istotne, ale od razu dopowiem dwie rzeczy, które powinny być powiedziane. Otóż ja nie narzekam na współpracę z Komisją. My się oczywiście w niektórych rzeczach delikatnie różnimy, ale mamy wspólny ten kluczowy mianownik, czyli interes Erasmus+ i całej grupy beneficjentów. Mamy też porozumienie, które będzie zawarte w sprawozdaniu, dotyczący stopnia alokacji i pewnego ograniczenia elastyczności.
I za tą współpracę chcę od razu podziękować, aby nie było wątpliwości. Druga rzecz, dzisiaj mamy ostatnie spotkanie techniczne. Bardzo chciałbym, aby to spotkanie było finalne i od razu powiem, że na to spotkanie mamy bardzo silną rekomendację ze strony dzisiejszego naszego gościa, bo to oznacza, że my nie powinniśmy już mnożyć celów, nie powinniśmy krótko mówiąc rozszerzać rozmaitych naszych ambicji, ale raczej precyzyjnie je ulokować i apeluję w związku z tym do tych, którzy będą brali udział w dzisiejszym spotkaniu technicznym, aby dzisiaj sfinalizować wszystkie prace i abyśmy mieli czas na przygotowanie naszych głosowań w komisji. Trzecia uwaga, uwaga dotycząca stypendiów strategicznych. My oczywiście mówimy wprost i mocno: chcielibyśmy, aby stypendia strategiczne nie obciążały programu Erasmus+.
Aby one generalnie rzecz biorąc były finansowane albo z Europejskiego Funduszu Konkurencyjności, albo na przykład programu Horyzont Europa.
Ale bardzo istotne jest aby krótko mówiąc doprowadzać do większej efektywności tych środków które mamy. Bardzo się ucieszyłem z tego postulatu kolegi Stanga aby posługiwać się wskaźnikami. My te wskaźniki musimy wypracować w tej następnej perspektywie i tych wskaźników powinno być kilka nie kilkanaście ale kilka. Po pierwsze spróbować oszacować stan satysfakcji w bardzo prosty sposób. Po pierwsze ustalić procent beneficjentów wśród tych którzy krótko mówiąc aplikują.
Możemy to zrobić także z podziałem na państwa ale także dodając analizę o którą prosiła pani Gomez. Czyli aby sprawdzić gdzie są grupy wykluczone i do jakiego stopnia my do tych grup wykluczonych rzeczywiście docieramy. Nie jest to łatwa praca ale jeżeli ustalimy że szukamy kilku zaledwie wskaźników to według mojej oceny w tej następnej perspektywie takie narzędzia jesteśmy w stanie zbudować. I ostatnia rzecz a propos alokacji środków. Zaproponowaliśmy określoną alokację środków wszyscy otrzymali określone tabelki wiemy jakie były niewielkie rozbieżności i to co obecnie jest w finale na stole według mojej oceny jest optymalne z punktu widzenia interesów wszystkich grup politycznych.
Znaczy znaleźliśmy według mnie bardzo precyzyjne ustalenie proporcji pomiędzy akademikami stypendiami sportem etc etc mówiąc za każdym razem że są to kwoty minimalne. W związku z tym mogą być wyższe. I ograniczyliśmy tą elastyczność ale ją zostawiamy aby była możliwość właśnie korygowania tam gdzie mamy najwyższą krótko mówiąc większość aplikantów tak aby krótko mówiąc mieć większą satysfakcję i większą zdolność do reagowania na zmieniającą się sytuację już nie mówię o pandemii ale wiemy jak ta dynamika wygląda. Na tym etapie chciałem podziękować i pani przewodniczącej i naszym gościom podziękować za raport. Jest on bardzo bardzo dla nas istotny będziemy starali się aby te raporty były kontynuowane i aby ten monitoring wzbogacał krótko mówiąc naszą wiedzę.
Dziękuję bardzo.
Nela Riehl
Danke Erasmus+ ist und bleibt eines der wichtigsten oder sogar das wichtigste Programm der Europäischen Union das die EU-Bürgerinnen und insbesondere groß und natürlich für für junge Menschen von großem Nutzen ist. Unser Ausschuss ist und war dafür für dieses Programm verantwortlich und vertrau wirklich darauf und ich gehe auch sehr stark davon aus dass das was wir heute hier gehört haben den Input der Studie dass das sich niederschlagen wird in der Arbeit die wir hier in Zukunft tun werden. Und es wird denke ich auch unsere Verhandlungsposition ein wenig stärken. Ich danke allen Rednerinnen heute ich danke auch Ihnen dass Sie heute hier waren ich danke der Kommission damit schließen wir auch diesen Tagesordnungspunkt unter Verschiedenes haben wir heute nichts. Termin für die nächste Sitzung ist erst der 28. 29. September das heißt ich wünsche Ihnen nicht nur einen schönen Nachmittag sondern auch einen sehr schönen Sommer erholen Sie sich gut und bis bald.