Committee on Budgets Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
BUDG European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSkribovska
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So for DG INLO, we are requesting a transfer of 1.0.9 million to reinforce the mobility, essentially the mobility budget line. It's to finance Parliament's contribution to public transport season tickets for staff.
This scheme has been extremely successful, which is a good contribution to our environmental policy, but it has been more successful than we had planned. And there is a small amount there, 90,000, to reinforce the insurance budget line to acquire additional expertise for complex cases. And the reinforcements will come from a DG INLO budget line. A surplus has become available due to the fact that some works are taking longer than anticipated and will not be concluded in 2026. Thank you very much.
Ellen Robson
Thank you very much. Good morning. Okay, so we are seeking a transfer of 2.8 million to reinforce the staff missions and duty travel line. I need to make clear that the reinforcement is vital to guarantee the continuity of our Strasbourg plenary sessions and committee and delegation missions. And why do we have the shortfall?
There are essentially three reasons. First, the Commission adopted a regulation last year updating the daily subsistence allowances and hotel ceilings, increasing them by around 15%, and that was too late to be reflected in the estimates.
Secondly, as you all know, we have a very unstable geopolitical context, which I don't need to explain, resulting in higher inflation and which has driven up prices in transport and accommodation across all of our destinations. And third, last year we introduced an additional charter train between Brussels and Strasbourg, which was in line with Parliament's environmental commitments, but it raised the charter train costs by approximately 30%. We're seeking finance from the surplus on the parliamentary assistance line. It's just 1% of that line and it will have no impact whatsoever on members' entitlement to recruit assistants. So, thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thanks a lot. It's true, hotel prices have risen a lot. Yeah. So, now we come to the Court of Justice. I think it's the Director for Budget and Financial Affairs at the Court, Belén Huerta Rico.
Belén Huerta Rico
Thank you, Chair. Today the Court of Justice is submitting one transfer proposal to increase the budget for IT expenditure by 1.8 million euros with two objectives.
Firstly, additional resources are required to face significant increases in the prices of IT equipment and software licenses, which are estimated to increase IT expenditure in 2026 by 1.5 million euros. Secondly, the Court has decided to participate in an inter-institutional program launched by the Commission to modernize and fully integrate the various IT services in the human resources field and which is open to other institutions to create synergies. To participate in this program, we require additional appropriations in 2026 amounting to 280,000 euros to cover the payment to be made to the Commission. This transfer will therefore enable the Court to address the various challenges it faces in the IT domain. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much. We come to the European Court of Auditors with seven transfers. So, the principal manager at Human Resources, Finance and General Services Directorate at ECA, you have now three minutes because seven transfers are a little bit more, Ms. Beatrice Lesiewicz.
Good morning. I will try to be quick nonetheless. So, as you already said, we wish to make seven transfers. They can be grouped into four different categories.
Beatrice Lezevic
An amount of 480,000 is intended for maintenance costs and preventive maintenance of our buildings. This includes 90,000 or an amount for fitting out of premises, an amount for cleaning and maintenance, and also an amount for carrying out a feasibility study on options to address critical safety risks in one of our ECA buildings. The reason why we need such a huge amount for this area is that we need to cover costs that are related to the aging of our ECA buildings and also to address the increase of prices for new contracts like the one for HVAC. And I need to stress it's really to cover basic operational costs. A second block is related to IT costs for hardware and software.
And there an amount is planned for the renewal of VMware licenses. Again, the prices have increased and the acquisition of a new testing server for AI, artificial intelligence. Why is this important? These investments aim to strengthen our technical sovereignty by enabling the deployment of local AI systems capable of processing sensitive data. And this is of course important that this will be done within our own environment.
A third block is related to costs for the early childhood center, again due to increased salaries.
And this is an amount that cannot be driven by us because it's the Parliament that is sending us the invoice and we have to pay. And the fourth block is for supplementary services for the translation services and covering increased outsourcing needs in case the workload cannot be absorbed internally, particularly when there are peak seasons. And there are also some additional projects like the development of a new cloud-based translation management system where we are also investing. Yes, in total I think that's all. I hope I managed to make it in three minutes.
Monika Hohlmeier
You were perfect, 2:23. Thank you very much. So now we have the last transfer, Committee of the Regions, Ms. Martie-Wouters, head of unit at the Committee of the Regions.
Thank you, Madam Chair, honorable members. We are seeking a transfer of 155,000 euros.
Martie Wouters
It is intended to ensure that the European Committee of the Regions can meet its statutory obligations to pay for the staff who has been put on leave in the interest of the service in previous years. It will be financed from a reallocation from another budget line in the same chapter where appropriations have become available mainly due to the current vacancy rate and the developments in the area of retirements. The amount represents 0.2% of the appropriations which are available on the donor budget line 1200. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, thank you very much. And our rapporteur is Matjaž Nemec. You have the floor.
Matjaž Nemec
Good morning, Chair. Thank you so much. Dear colleagues, today we have heard a presentation of 10 transfer requests from the other sections which we have analyzed in details. I want to also thank to all institutions to provide us with reply to our requests. As usually, the closer we come to the end of the year, the more transfer requests we are faced with.
This is quite normal as adaptations are needed during the year.
Allow me just quickly to tackle them in a block. For as for the European Parliament, the transfer requests which relate to the increased translation costs due to high level of legislative work, to continue coverage of public transport costs in the mobility scheme offered, as well as to the cost of expenses for staff missions travel between the three places of work are our opinion all feel justified. I'm happy to recommend to the committee to vote in favor of this request. Similarly, as regards both the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Auditors, requests are well justified and are then deemed needed in order to respond to the current institutional needs. My recommendation to the committee is therefore to vote in favor of these requests.
As regards the European Committee of the Regions, the transfer request is needed in order to respond to the retirement trend in the institution. Following our analysis, we do not see any problems with the request and again, I recommend the committee to vote in favor. Thank you so much.
Julien Sanchez
Simplement pour dire que nous regrettons qu'il y ait des votes together sur la plupart des virements. On aimerait bien qu'il y ait des votes distincts sur chaque virement parce qu'il y a des positions nuancées à la fois sur la Cour des comptes et à la fois sur le Parlement. Pour développer très rapidement le sujet, sur le Parlement, on peut remercier les députés parce qu'on note que c'est parce qu'ils embauchent moins d'assistants et n'utilisent pas les enveloppes que le Parlement peut basculer 2 800 000 d'une ligne à l'autre, notamment pour payer les dépenses liées aux missions de personnel. C'est justifié par le fait que la Commission européenne aurait révisé les indemnités journalières et les plafonds d'hébergement, entraînant une hausse moyenne de 15 % des coûts de mission. Comment se tirer une balle dans le pied ?
Merci, Madame la Présidente.
Concernant le Parlement toujours, on note qu'on prend sur la construction des bâtiments pour mettre sur le budget de déplacement puisque le coût des abonnements domicile-travail à Bruxelles avait été mal évalué. On parle quand même de plus d'un million d'euros de sous-évaluation. Enfin, pour le Comité des régions, on aimerait bien avoir des éléments sur ces départs en retraite anticipés dans l'intérêt du service. À quel âge moyen est-ce que ces départs en retraite se déroulent ? Combien de personnes cela concerne ?
Quel est le coût global ? Ce serait intéressant d'avoir ces informations parce que ce sont quand même des cas d'avantages pour nous parfois injustifiés. Merci.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, are there any further requests of the shadows ? This is not the case. Ah, Fabien.
Fabienne Keller
Merci beaucoup aux services du Parlement et des autres institutions pour leur présentation très précise. Moi, je voudrais relever l'augmentation d'activité de la DG TRAD qui fait ce travail de juriste-linguiste et qui est en parallèle de la montée en puissance en fait de notre travail législatif qui est traditionnel à cette moitié de mandat. Donc merci pour ces présentations précises des différentes institutions.
Monika Hohlmeier
Merci. Now we go to the building policy. The first file for the building policy that we will treat this morning is a prior approval request submitted by Frontex for the signature of a lease agreement for a training center. Olivier, tu as la parole comme notre rapporteur.
Olivier Chastel
Merci Madame la Présidente, chers collègues. Effectivement, donc notre commission est saisie par l'agence Frontex d'une demande d'approbation concernant la création d'un centre d'entraînement en Pologne, près de son quartier général. Ce point avait d'ailleurs été abordé en early warning le 11 décembre dernier au sein même de notre commission. Et le projet porte sur la location du sixième étage du bâtiment A ainsi que le premier et le deuxième étage du bâtiment D du parc d'affaires Diuna à Varsovie. Frontex y loue déjà trois étages dans le bâtiment A pour accueillir l'unité centrale ETIAS.
Ces nouveaux locaux seront utilisés pour la formation professionnelle des agents du corps permanent avant leur déploiement sur le terrain. C'est un bail d'une durée de cinq ans avec deux prolongations possibles d'un an aux mêmes termes et conditions. Le budget du bail inclut les travaux d'aménagement. La remise à niveau devra être rapide puisque ces locaux devraient être prêts en décembre de cette année, date à laquelle la prochaine promotion de recrues du corps permanent arrivera à Varsovie. Et au-delà des questions déjà posées, j'en avais encore quelques-unes rapidement.
J'ai un petit problème en termes de budget global parce que dans votre réponse écrite, vous mentionnez un budget global sur cinq ans d'un peu moins de 10 millions d'euros, mais dans le questionnaire reçu, il est indiqué 14 900 000 euros. Donc j'aurais voulu savoir comment on peut s'y retrouver, c'est quoi la différence, qu'est-ce que ça comprend ? Et alors revenir aussi sur les délais puisque on parle d'une fin de travaux le 17 décembre alors que la prochaine promotion arrive en décembre. Est-ce qu'il y a un plan B au cas où d'ici décembre des retards de travaux sont à constater ? Voilà les deux questions que je souhaitais poser aujourd'hui.
Merci.
Monika Hohlmeier
Merci bien Olivier. Comme shadow rapporteur, je soutiens la demande de Frontex. I think that is a very important question, even if it's an interim solution, but I think Frontex needs to have a training center for their own officers. That's just necessary. So I fully support as Olivier just did as well.
So are there any further requests for the building policy? Madame Fery.
Angéline Furet
Madame le Président, concernant l'agence Frontex, nous soutenons également ce projet d'implantation du nouveau centre de formation à Varsovie qui pourra accueillir jusqu'à 500 apprenants simultanément. Et face au défi de la submersion migratoire, équiper et former nos gardes-frontières est vital. Nous serons toutefois très vigilants à ce que chaque euro de cet investissement serve réellement et efficacement à la formation de nos agents sur le terrain. Merci.
Kristians
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. I will answer the questions from Mr. Chastel, if you allow me.
So, for the amounts that were in the building questionnaire, the building amounts to 5.6 million for the building lease and the fit-out costs over five years, but of course there are also physical trainings in that included and that adds up to the 14 million over the five years. So that's the first answer. Then what happens if there are delays? Well, we are already procuring interim solutions, which means that we will have trainings or ad-hoc trainings established outside Warsaw where physical trainings and boot camps can be organized as an intermediate solution in case there are delays in the fit-out works of the project.
Monika Hohlmeier
So thank you very much. Are you satisfied, Olivier? Everything fine? So for the rapporteur everything is fine. Any shadow rapporteur would like to raise the hand?
I don't see it. So next we have an early warning for the construction of a new childcare facility submitted by the JRC in Ispra, in Italy.
I therefore give the floor for presentation of the pre-information note to Mr. Laurent Guéry, Director for JRC Ispra site management.
Laurent Guéry
Madam Chair, honorable members, a short presentation concerning this project. So the Ispra site is the largest site of the JRC, the third biggest Commission site after Brussels and Luxembourg. It hosts multidisciplinary research facilities. Approximately 2,500 people are working in Ispra, of which 1,600 statutory staff. Ispra is quite a remote site, 60 km northwest of Milan and 30 km from the provincial capital of Varese.
The services available in this area are very limited, including for childcare. Commission operate childcare facility in Ispra and these facilities are really necessary to ensure that the staff need for childcare can be met. And I will say that it's key for the attractiveness of the site to attract the best researcher in Europe.
There is already a crèche up to four years, another crèche for children from four to six years, and here we are working about a crèche from seven to eleven years. This building for the crèche of seven to eleven years is not the property of the European Commission, but the property of the Regione Lombardia. This building is suffering from severe aging and various architectural deficiencies. These deficiencies cannot be remediated by the JRC, which does not own the building. Furthermore, demand for after-school services consistently exceeds the capacity of Icaro, which is for sixty children, and we have a waiting list of twenty applications per year.
On top of that, we have request from our colleague to extend the garderie up to children of fourteen years. So, few words concerning the new project. The new project will be close to the other childcare services.
It will be a zero-energy building offering significant improvements in service quality and energy efficiency. It will have a capacity of 90 children to accommodate the waiting list and allow hosting also children up to 14 years. The construction cost is estimated to 3.65 million, including a 10% contingency. The planned timing is to complete the administrative steps by the end of 26 and to initiate construction beginning of 27 and to complete by the end of 28.
Olivier Chastel
Merci Madame la Présidente. Je veux évidemment remercier les responsables du Centre commun de recherche pour ce développement en early warning de ce projet de crèche à Ispra. Je pense qu'effectivement, manifestement, il y a des besoins en la matière sur cet important site.
J'ai posé un certain nombre de questions écrites pour lesquelles j'ai reçu des réponses et donc à ce stade je n'ai pas d'autres questions et nous attendons de voir l'évolution des négociations de ce dossier. Merci.
Monika Hohlmeier
Merci beaucoup. Und ich möchte sagen, dass ich ausdrücklich als Schattenberichterstatterin unterstütze, dass man nicht glaubt, dass Kinder mit 12 Jahren schon allein unterwegs sein können, sondern dass man Kinder bis 14 Jahre in Zukunft aufnehmen wird. Das entspricht eigentlich dem Standard, den man üblicherweise hat, wenn nicht sogar bis 16. Insofern volle Unterstützung. Gibt es weitere?
Est-ce qu'il y a encore d'autres commentaires? Angéline Furet, I saw it.
Angéline Furet
Merci Madame le Président. Le projet de crèche de la Commission à Ispra en Italie témoigne de mon point de vue d'une véritable déconnexion. Vous demandez 3,65 millions d'euros pour créer 30 places supplémentaires. Faites le calcul, cela revient à financer chaque nouvelle place à hauteur de 121 000 euros. Tout cela pour étendre la garderie des enfants de fonctionnaires européens jusqu'à 14 ans.
C'est politiquement inaudible pendant que l'exécutif européen finance ce type de bâtiment sur mesure et en assume la charge courante avec de l'argent public, les familles françaises subissent des listes d'attente interminables et une grande pression financière pour la garde de leurs enfants. En l'état, nous nous opposerons donc à ce projet lorsque nous recevrons la demande d'accord préalable dans quelques mois. Merci.
Monika Hohlmeier
I would suggest really to read the text because it's not only for 30 places. There was just, I just want to say that you should read the text of the institution, that would be better. So perhaps Mr. Géris, you could comment.
Laurent Guéry
En effet, le projet de crèche est pour remplacer une crèche existante qui n'est que sur laquelle on ne peut pas faire de travaux de remise à niveau et cette crèche sera construite pour 90 places et non pour 30 places et nous considérons que le budget associé est, je dirais, sur le prix du marché.
Monika Hohlmeier
Ce sont les prix du marché et je pense que 90 places sont un peu plus que 30 places. Voilà. The IAS had been postponed. I think that we can go now if nobody objects to the voting time. So first we make a test perhaps for everybody if this works.
The vote is open. It was hidden. It's closed. For everybody is it okay? Okay.
15 plus for the test, 2 minus and 10 abstentions on the test. Okay, everything fine. Let's go to the first file, the proposal for a Council regulation establishing the Union support for asylum, migration and integration for the period from 2028 to 2034. We start by compromise number 2. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions. It's adopted. Then compromise number 2, no, compromise number 1 on the second place. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions. Adopted. Then let's go to the final vote as a roll call vote.
The vote is open. Closed. 23 plus, four minus, and one abstention. Then establishing the Union's support for the Schengen area for European integrated border management and for the common policy on visas for the period of 2028 to 2034. We start with compromise two.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Then compromise one.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? It's adopted. Then the final vote as roll call vote.
Vote is open. Vote is closed. 24 plus, five minus, and zero abstentions. Then under number eight, establishing the Union's support for internal security for the period 2028 to 2034. We start with the vote.
Compromise two. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? It's adopted.
Compromise one. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
And now the final vote as a roll call vote.
I open the vote. Close the vote. 27 plus, 1 minus and 3 abstentions. Then we go to the establishing the conditions for the implementation of the Union support to the common fisheries policy, to the European Ocean Pact and the Union's maritime and aquaculture policy as part of the national and regional partnership funds set out in the regulation. That's as complicated as the regulation is.
So let's start with the voting. Compromise number 1, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise number 2, who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. And a roll call vote on the final vote.
I open the vote.
Close the vote. 29 plus and one abstention. So now let's go to number 10, establishing the European Social Fund as part of the national and regional partnership plans set out in regulation, bum bum bum, establishing conditions for the implementation of the Union's support to quality employment, all these figures, that's too much, skills and social inclusion for the period from 2028 to 2034. It's already six lines only for the title of this thing. So let's go to the vote.
Compromise number three. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstention. It's adopted.
Compromise two. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
And the final vote as compromise one is the last one here, yes. Who is in compromise one? Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Now the final vote as a roll call vote. I open the vote. Close the vote. 25 plus, five minus and one abstention.
Now we go to establishing the Justice Programme for the period 2028 to 2034 and repealing the former regulation from 21. Compromise number two. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions, adopted. Now we go compromise number one, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, it's adopted.
Now the final vote as a roll call vote, I open the vote. Close the vote. 26 plus, 4 minus and one abstention. Then under number 12, establishing the Agora program for the period 28 to 2034 and repealing regulations from 21. The first compromise is the compromise number two, who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions, adopted. Then we go to compromise number one, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions, adopted.
Then let's go to the final vote and I see it roll call vote for final vote.
I open the vote. 23 plus, seven minus and one abstention. Then let's go to 13, research and training program of the European Atomic Energy Community for the period 2028 to 32, complementing Horizon Europe, the framework program for research and innovation, and providing the community contribution to the ITER project. Compromise number two. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. We have compromise number one. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Now the final vote as a roll call vote.
Open the vote. Close the vote. 24 plus, 5 minus, and 2 abstentions. Now let's go to 14, establishing the European Fund for Regional Development, including for European territorial cooperation and the Cohesion Fund as part of the fund set out in regulation NRPP and establishing conditions for the implementation of the Union's support regional development from 28 to 34. We start with compromise number 3.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. Adopted. Then we go to compromise number 2.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. Adopted. Now we go to the final vote, no, compromise 1.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. Adopted. Now the final vote as a roll call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. 25 plus, 5 minus, and 2 abstentions. Thank you very much. So no vote for the commission under 15, under 16.
Ah, there's one, sorry. DEC 10 2026, sorry, it was my fault.
Who is in favor? It's a roll-call vote. Okay, it's written here. I open the vote, that's easier. Close the vote.
25 plus, 5 minus, and 1 abstention. Now let's go to 2026 other section under point 16. I hope Juliane Sanchez that you agree that we're not changing the voting lists anymore, because it would be very complicated now. Next time perhaps you have to ask earlier for it, not in the meeting. We start with C2/2026, C3 and C4/2026.
It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. 25 plus, 1 minus, and 6 abstentions. So, we have a second one of the Court of Justice, that's 1 INF 2026.
As roll-call vote, I open the vote. Close. 25 plus, seven minus and zero abstentions. Now we come to the Court of Auditors with seven transfers and they are all voted together. I open the vote as roll-call vote.
Close the vote. 26 plus, zero minus and six abstentions. Then the European Committee of the Regions with one transfer. I open the vote as roll-call vote. I close the vote.
26 plus, six minus and zero abstentions. Now the building policy, Frontex Warsaw. It's a roll-call vote. I open the vote. Close the vote.
31 plus, zero minus and one abstentions. Congrats to all rapporteurs.
This was very effective.
Speaker 20
So, dear colleagues. As the timetable... sorry. Thank you very much. I would recommend that we continue. If the members would agree, then we would continue earlier than foreseen in the timetable.
If there is no objection, I asked S&D and they said yes, because they were leaving. So we were talking now about the point 18, that's the BUDG mission to London from the 15th to the 17th of April. The head of the mission was Karlo Ressler, and perhaps you would be ready to present briefly the mission report. You're not under pressure, man.
Karlo Ressler
Definitely. Thank you, Chair.
Dear colleagues, I'm pleased to present with you the report of our BUDG mission to the United Kingdom a few weeks ago, which aimed in principle to gain a comprehensive understanding of realities, of practicalities, but also of challenges of enhanced EU-UK cooperation. Especially in the context of the current geopolitical changes, with the shift in the US posture, the war of aggression against Ukraine, the crisis in the Middle East, and all these factors really add an additional pressure which shows and underlines how mutually beneficial this partnership between the EU and UK can be. Our delegation engaged with a wide range of interlocutors to assess the state of the EU-UK relationship, with particular attention to program association, security and defense cooperation, and the broader financial implications of deepening strategic ties.
All this set and was in the context also of our negotiations here on the next MFF because the choices we make on governance and structure in the end will directly shape the modalities of EU-UK cooperation and determine what is actually achievable and this was the background of all of our talks. So allow me to shortly elaborate on some key takeaways in three different areas which were the core areas of our focus in the UK in London. First on research and innovation. As the largest associated country contributor, the UK remains quite committed to Horizon Europe. I think that it has been mentioned several times that Horizon Europe is one of those examples in which our cooperation has come the furthest after the UK has left the EU and in general we were there in the moments where this relationship between the UK and EU is perhaps in its best stage since they left.
And this has been particularly evident with their participation to Horizon with all the shortcomings and still challenges as well. So the participation has been partially recovering since reassociation in 2023, but improving performance in pillar 2 will be essential to sustain the financial and political case for continued association. And the UK's core demands for FP10 are full and prompt participation as well as involvement in governance mechanisms. Secondly, and this was the second topic of our discussions, this is youth mobility, where we were there in the times of the agreement for the UK rejoining Erasmus for the next for the next year 2027, 2028, which will enable students to study at host institutions without paying additional tuition fees. However, the issues of fees will need to be further discussed and addressed for continued association and other youth mobility schemes, considering the difficult financial situation of UK universities.
Thirdly, on security and defense, the main point which was mentioned by most of the interlocutors was the failure of the SAFE negotiations, which was explained by the by by them by their perception of financial demands as disproportionate.
However, the UK signaled its interest in participating in the EU loan for Ukraine, together with the awareness that it would need to contribute to the costs arising from borrowing. I'm very pleased to see that this has materialized on Monday, also with the signature of an agreement allowing UK defense companies to bid for contracts under the loan, which would give Ukraine access to a larger pool of manufacturers. Our mission confirmed in the end, and I'm trying to conclude here, both the political will, albeit in a difficult political situation, and I have to be honest that this is not something that is widely shared with everyone, but also the concrete opportunities for deeper cooperation on both sides. And it also showed that any deepened cooperation framework will need to take into account the shared reality of budgetary financial constraints, which is also something that connects us. And we can see this parallel, that this is not something that is a problem for the UK only, but for us, for the EU as well.
And any new habit of cooperation must be anchored in our mutual strategic interest and deliver clear value for money to our taxpayers. And my impression was that in all of those three areas that we were focusing, this exactly is the biggest problem, or something that should be done and should be negotiated, and in that way we can really overcome this challenge as well. And our committee will definitely need to factor all these findings into our work on the next MFF, in particular as regards the financial architecture for program association and any future UK contribution mechanisms. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much for your report, dear Carlo. The other members of the mission were Jüri Ratas, Matyas Nemetz, and Angéline Furet. Would somebody would like... oh yeah, Jüri, you have the floor.
Jüri Ratas
I just would like to say that we had really excellent chair of our delegation and leader, yeah.
Speaker 23
I can confirm that. Thank you. I would like to confirm that. That's fine. So, somebody would like to raise the hand?
Angéline Furet.
Speaker 22
En français, je vais exactement dire la même chose que mon excellent collègue Jüri.
Angéline Furet
Nous avions un très bon président de délégation et ça a été une délégation très instructrice et très agréable.
Jüri Ratas
Maybe one thing what was quite interesting for me during these meetings that the Brexit was ten years ago and my feeling during these meetings was that, let's say, our colleagues, they said that now is time to come back to the EU. And I asked that what is the main change because you made so deep and so strong decision 2016.
2016 and they said that all these kind of expectations what they had, for example, that they have better chance to have bilateral relations between other economical areas or they have special relation between United States and so on, that they see at the moment that all these kind of things is negative at the moment. And yeah, that was, of course, it was so positive to hear it that they are feeling that EU is the really big chance for them. But I couldn't say that now they are ready to join again the EU, but this topic was quite strongly on the table all these meetings what we had. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
We had already the impression at the time of Brexit that none of these wonderful dreams of more money for fishers, of more money for development, of more money for or more possibilities for bilateral agreements, no member state is more powerful with only 60, 50 or 10 million people than instead of 500 million of the European Union. That's the reality, if people like it or not, that's it. We have big players outside, China, India, not small players. The world is played by big players. So, thank you very much.
Dear Carlo, would you like to...
Karlo Ressler
Really shortly, yes.
I mean we just marked this anniversary of the 10 years of Brexit and yes, the UK is in special situation now with new developments also after our visit. But I think that it's quite clear that politically it's still a delicate topic, delicate issue of these relations with the EU. But also I think that there is increasing understanding that this kind of cooperation is something that is really mutually beneficial and that in the future we will have to focus more on the details and the concrete financial contributions and rules of the game. So once again, also thank you to all the colleagues who participated in the mission, to all the advisors and thank you to the secretariat for the really excellent preparation of the mission.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, thanks a lot to all the members of this mission. And now I see that Nils Ušakovs is here, so we can start with 19. The fact that we are earlier, thank you very much for being here. General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2027, all sections, the consideration of working document. One month ago, Commissioner Serafin presented the draft budget for 2027.
Tomorrow a budget trilogue will take place where the Council will present its upcoming reading.
And now, Nils, you have the floor for the presentation of the working document.
Nils Ušakovs
Thank you, Monica. As you would imagine yourself, what is not a surprise to anyone in this room, that the budgetary procedure promises to be especially complicated. 2027 will be the last year of the MFF, and the budget has to face two heavy constraints. One is the EURI repayment costs, and the second one is the Ukraine support loan debt service costs. Together, they amount to 11.5 billion euro, and out of this, 6 billion were not foreseen when we negotiated the MFF.
And in order to cover this 6 billion, the Commission proposes to literally exhaust all remaining margins of maneuver in the budget. In the draft budget, there are no margins in heading 2b and heading 7. The margin in heading 2a is very close to zero. In other headings, the margins are around 100 million euro each, and the total margins is less than 500 million. Moreover, the special instruments that we have used in the previous years to top up programs in headings where there were no margins are also completely exhausted.
To finance a part of the overrun costs, the Commission is actually reducing and redeploying several program allocations in order to create fiscal space. The 50-50 benchmark split between available flexibilities in the budget and the EURI special instrument is seemingly maintained. However, the Commission has introduced reductions to programs in order to create these said available flexibilities in the draft budget. This is not the spirit of the cascade mechanism, which should use already available flexibilities and not those created for this purpose, especially when the EURI instrument shows major unused amounts which could easily cover the full overruns of the EURI line. Let me insist that this is not serious, nor is it prudent budgeting.
The flexibility instrument and the single margin instrument compartment A amount to zero in the draft budget.
In the last year of the MFF, with more than 5 billion euro decommitments available, how can Commission claim it prudent to put programs into strain, use available margins, exhaust special instruments, rather than calling on the decommitments?
How can the Commission leave no margin in heading 2b, where we find, for example, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, a key EU added value program in the forest fire season? The Ukraine support loan is presented as over the annual ceilings, but uses special instruments from the ceilings to finance this. And this is inconsistent with the financial regulation and the MFF regulation both. How does the Commission explain this? Let me also remind everyone that when we amended the MFF in 2024 to establish the Ukraine support loan, we agreed that, and I quote the beginning of the quote, "The Ukraine support instrument may be mobilized by the European Parliament and the Council in the framework of the annual budget procedure after a thorough assessment of availabilities, taking into account the needs for legal and other obligations, as well as," and this is the part it seems they have forgotten, "priorities, sound financial management, which require a particular appropriate margins for unforeseen expenditure."
How is the draft budget respecting priorities and sound financial management?
Finally, as the Commission's draft budget does not sufficiently reflect the exceptional security, economic and social challenges faced by the Union's regions bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, I would like to stress that these regions deserve special attention in the 2025 Union budget. They continue to bear a disproportionate burden as a result of Russia's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. Repeated military drone incursions and other hybrid threats are placing increasing pressure on municipalities, businesses and citizens, with significant socio-economic consequences. In this context, targeted support should be provided through relevant Union programs and funds, including the possibility of emergency financial assistance in the event of acute crisis. I would now like to ask for your comments, for your expectations as shadows and as the Budget Committee, and I believe that we will work well together and will be strong and united during the negotiations.
I also expect from the European Commission a good cooperation, updated information all the way, and I trust that we will find common argument in the fall. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much, Nils, for this very good presentation. For EPP, Karlo is replacing Isabel Benjumea.
Thank you.
Karlo Ressler
Exactly, I'm speaking on behalf of the group and on behalf of our shadow, Isabel, and let me thank by thanking, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for his work, as well as for the constructive cooperation and commitment really from the day one with the shared objective of trying to deliver a strong annual budget. And we see the April resolution, the guidelines, which received broad support across the Parliament, still as the essential political compass for this budget. And for this reason, I would like to recall the priorities that our group believes should guide our work and that enjoys also broad support within the Parliament. Strengthening the competitiveness of our businesses and small and medium enterprises through simplification, less bureaucracy, and more efficient implementation. Strong support for key EU programs such as the Common Agricultural Policy, Cohesion Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, and Erasmus+.
Placing families at the heart of the European Union's social pillar. Increasing investment in defense while strengthening the security of our external borders by combating illegal migration, human trafficking, and organized crime.
Then, maintaining unwavering support for Ukraine and also upholding the rule of law and the conditionality mechanism, but also strengthening the monitoring and evaluation of EU funding provided to third countries, combating terrorism and ensuring full respect for European values. Lastly, also defending and protecting religious communities, particularly persecuted Christians around the world. There is no doubt that meeting all these challenges requires adequate financial resources. However, both the Commission's proposal and the Council's position leave an extremely limited level of budgetary flexibility, six times lower than last year, and in our view, this is simply not sufficient. Firstly, because of the growing interest costs on the debt issued to finance the Next Generation EU recovery instrument, where these costs continue to rise every year, and they amount now to almost 10 billion euros in 2027, 5 billion more than originally forecasted by the Commission and almost 25% higher than last year.
Covering these costs places enormous pressure on the EU budget and inevitably limits funding for core Union programs, and this is something that we are dealing with also in the negotiations on the MFF.
On top of that, the budget must also cover the interest and debt servicing costs of the Ukraine support loan, amounting to 1.15 billion euros. And we want to be quite clear here: we strongly support continued assistance to Ukraine, and our concern is not in this itself, but with ensuring that it is financed in a sustainable and in a fair way. The budget can no longer absorb additional costs without exhausting our flexibility instruments and severely limiting our capacity to respond to emergencies and unforeseen needs during 2027. For these reasons, we need to find balanced budgetary solutions for both the growing EURI costs and the Ukraine support loan, ensuring that the EU remains able to finance its priorities while preserving sufficient flexibility to respond to future challenges. So once again, I would like to thank to the rapporteur as well as to all the political groups for their work and constructive cooperation through this procedure.
We are now entering into an even more sensitive phase, and I hope that this spirit of cooperation will continue in the months ahead, because only with a unified position of the Parliament we will be able to deliver on our shared priorities. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
So thank you very much.
Further comments on the commission by shadow rapporteurs? I don't see it. I would have, no, I would have one comment from Mr. Marino, please.
Ignazio Roberto Marino
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for this working document as it helps us all in better framing our work in the annual budgetary procedure and understand fully the option and the consequences of each of them. We find it highly concerning that the available margin stands at only 477 million under the ceiling, with both the flexibility instrument and the single margin instruments are fully exhausted, and the current draft assumes that no further mobilization of the SMI will be needed this year. I think we all agree that the current uncertainties, geopolitical developments, but also climate-related events will lead to significant unprogrammed needs, both this year and next, and we need to take this into account. I would like to recall that during the revision of the MFF, the European Parliament strongly insisted on the need for flexibility.
Clearly, this is not reflected in the current draft, especially when the European Commission leaves 2.8 billion in decommitments unused. This is an issue we will need to address closely as we move forward to ensure that the budget can really fulfill its role. Finally, I would like to stress that our group priorities remain LIFE program, health, and humanitarian aid. I really look forward to working with the rapporteur towards a budget that truly delivers for people and our planet. Planet, sorry.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, thanks a lot. No further comment. I would have one comment on the interest what Carlo mentioned. Ich sage es kurz auf Deutsch. Als wir 2020 die MFF-Verhandlungen hatten, haben wir die Kommission damals gebeten, die Zinsen höher anzusetzen.
Die Kommission war auf der Seite der Mitgliedstaaten, um es so trocken zu sagen, und hat sie nicht höher angesetzt, weil wir schon befürchtet hatten, dass da mal ein Zinsanstieg stattfinden kann. Dann haben wir die Kommission gebeten, dass sie die Kredite bitte aufnehmen möge, als wir noch 0 % hatten.
Die Kommission hat das als Bad Financial Management abgelehnt. Ich würde jetzt sagen, sie hätte es besser andersrum gemacht, denn das, was wir jetzt gemacht haben, war ein Bad Financial Management. Jetzt zahlen wir ziemlich viele Zinsen und haben zu dem Zeitpunkt, an dem es die wenigen Zinsen gab, den Zeitpunkt versäumt. Dann hätten wir jetzt übrigens auch ein paar Margen noch übrig. Also das ist etwas, wo ich ernsthaft der Kommission sagen möchte, das war ein schlechtes Management.
Und hinzu kommt dann noch, dass man auch noch Kredite ausgegeben hat, für die man gar nicht wusste, dass sie überhaupt nicht verwendet werden. Das ist was ganz Neues, das wir mit der Kommission begonnen haben, die jetzt zum Teil 60-Milliarden-mäßig zurückgegeben werden. Und drum muss ich ganz offen sagen, Sound Financial Management im Bereich des Kreditwesens sieht ganz anders aus. Wenn man Kredite ausgibt, dann muss man generell dafür Sorge tragen, dass sie nur dann ausgegeben werden, wenn sie tatsächlich benötigt werden. Und nicht dann, dass man sie dann jahreweise wieder zurückbekommt, aber wir zahlen jetzt trotzdem die Zinsen für den Zeitraum davor.
Und das ist ernsthaft, das Geld wird nicht mal verwendet. Und insofern muss ich ganz ernsthaft sagen, da wird die Kommission dringendst dran arbeiten müssen, ihre Arbeit zu verbessern, weil das ernsthaft schädigend für den Haushalt ist. Ich möchte es nur sehr sorgfältig sagen, wir werden darüber noch mal diskutieren.
Wir haben hier eine Diskussion dazu beschlossen, aber so geht man mit Geld offen gestanden nicht um. Also das ist einfach eine Art und Weise, die geht gar nicht. Sorry für den harten Kommentar, aber irgendwie wir stehen hier vor einer Situation, in der hier wir um 100 Millionenweise versuchen, ich hab gesagt, ich hätte am liebsten jetzt gerade eben gesagt, bitte keine Hitzewelle, bitte keine Naturkatastrophen, bitte keine Fluten, bitte keine Brände, Pandemien dürfen gar nicht entstehen und Kriege brauchen wir auch nicht mehr, weil wir haben unser Budget nicht unbedingt so sorgfältig. Das ist ein Vorwurf an die Mitgliedstaaten, dass sie uns zu wenig Margen gegeben haben gegenüber dem, was wir in der tatsächlichen Situation gebraucht hätten, um die verschiedenen Herausforderungen tatsächlich bewältigen zu können, neben der Kritik, die ich da an der Handhabung von Krediten habe. Jetzt darf ich aber übergehen zu Herrn Jungbluth.
Alexander Jungbluth
Vielleicht vielleicht ein kurzer Kommentar zu dem von Ihnen Gesagten. Ich bin stehe mit Sicherheit nicht im Verdacht, die Bundesregierung oder Landesregierungen zu verteidigen, aber Sie haben mit dieser Aussage vollkommen recht.
Und ich weiß aus deutscher Perspektive, dass man dort in einem großen Maße sich über Optionen auch gegen Zinsschwankungen abgesichert hat. Insofern wäre das vielleicht auch eine Idee, um einen konstanten Zins zu kalkulieren über einen längeren Zeitraum, dass man so etwas stärker in Betracht zieht.
Monika Hohlmeier
Ja, das war unser damaliger Vorschlag. Das Europäische Parlament, entgegen der Annahmen von vielen AfD-Politikern, ist manchmal eine sehr vernünftige Vereinigung und hat damals diesen Vorschlag schon unterbreitet. Er wurde aber von den Mitgliedstaaten nicht angenommen. Ab und zu ist die europäische Ebene schlauer als die der Mitgliedstaaten. Wir als Haushaltsausschuss haben das hartnäckigst über Monate hinweg eingebracht und die Mitgliedstaaten haben dem nicht zugestimmt.
So, das ist die knallharte Realität. Das heißt, da war Europa schlauer als alle Mitgliedstaaten miteinander, die das nicht wollten. Das möchte ich als sehr klaren Kommentar an alle, die glauben, dass die Mitgliedstaaten einzeln immer schlauer sind als die europäische Ebene. Nein, das waren sie leider nicht. So, Mihalis Hatzipantela für die Section III, for other sections, you have the floor.
Michalis Hadjipantela
Dear colleagues, as rapporteur for the 2027 budget concerning the estimates of the European Parliament and the other sections, I would like to provide a brief update on the current state of play. As you know, the Commission's draft budget for 2027 presented last month fully incorporates the European Parliament's estimates. At the same time, however, the Commission has reduced the overall request of the other institutions by more than 41 million. In particular, it has not accepted any of the 17 additional posts requested by the institutions and capped non-statutory expenditure increases at 2% for all institutions. Now regarding the Council's positions, it remains stable.
It emphasizes the need for restraint in administrative expenditure and didn't cut the budget for the other sections or the European Parliament budget. The Council underlined that by applying the cuts, the Commission had fulfilled the Council's expectations. Over the past month, we had held exchanges with all the institutions.
These discussions highlighted the specific challenges they are facing, including the lasting effects of inflation, rising rental and IT-related costs, and increasing workload resulting from new responsibilities. While the institutions' estimates exceed the Commission's guidelines on stable staffing and/or the 2% ceiling for non-statutory expenditure, I note that the Commission itself recognizes these exceptional pressures. Nevertheless, it applied reductions in a largely automatic manner across the board. As I prepare my proposal, I will assess the situation of each institution individually. My objective will be to determine on a case-by-case basis which budget lines should be restored and where staffing requests are justified, taking into account the cumulative impact of reductions over recent years and each institution's capacity to absorb the Commission's cuts.
Following the summer break, I intend to engage with the shadow rapporteurs at an early stage to discuss my approach, hear your views and work closely together in preparing our position. I look forward to our cooperation in the months ahead and I'm confident that through constructive dialogue we can reach agreement on a responsible and balanced budget that enables each institution to fulfill its responsibilities effectively. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much, Michalis. Are there any further... Yes, Sandra, you have the floor.
Sandra Gómez López
Thank you, Chair. Yo quiero en la misma línea que el ponente, vamos a estar a la espera de la lectura del Consejo, pero sí hacer dos consideraciones o dos apuntes. Es cierto que algunas partidas se han recortado o no han respetado el aumento del 2% y tenemos que preguntarle a la Comisión por qué, porque hay un acuerdo de que todas las líneas puedan incrementarse un 2% con motivo de la inflación. Y relacionado con esto último, tenemos que tener también una mirada un poco más generosa con aquellas instituciones que están localizadas fuera de la Unión Europea, porque puede que la inflación haya sido superior.
Y lo digo porque precisamente en ese estudio individual que tenemos que hacer justamente el servicio de acción exterior que ha tenido reuniones con varios de nosotros nos ha hecho una reflexión importante y es que hay en algunos países en el que la inflación supera con creces ese 2% y por lo tanto tenemos que tenerlo en cuenta si queremos mantener una acción exterior fuerte localizada con locales profesionales dignos y que realmente representen la fortaleza de la unión creo que ese tipo de consideraciones las tenemos que tener en cuenta. Gracias.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Okay, thank you, thank you chair. Firstly, I want to thank the rapporteur Nils Ušakovs for his assessment of Commission proposal and for preparing the work document. It's a very well prepared. As pointed out by the rapporteur in the draft 27 budget, Commission proposes major deviations from the 26 financial programming. One of these deviations concerns EU flagship programs.
I'm speaking about Erasmus+ where Commission is proposing to reduce voted appropriations by 62 millions by the reuse of recoveries.
We must be clear, this is a direct cut to Erasmus+ funding. Since the 25 budget, Commission has consistently proposed veiled cuts to Erasmus+ financial programming with the reuse of recoveries. In the CULT Committee, we have decided to make an important political statement this year because it's not acceptable from our point of view. We approved the budgetary amendment requesting a top-up of 407 million to Erasmus+ and the justification is simple: 357 millions to restore the cuts made in 25 and 26 budgets respectively, 169 million and 126 million, and the proposed cut for this year, 62 million in 27 budget, linked with the reintroduction of the recoveries.
These funds belong to the Erasmus+ and they should not be deviated by technical adjustments to create budgetary margins to accommodate these rising debt service costs. In this regard, I would like to recall the principles agreed in the interinstitutional agreements on budgetary discipline of the current MFF. The debt-related costs should not lead to an undue reduction in program expenditure or investment instruments under the MFF. I hope that this political statement can also be supported by the Committee on Budgets because it's an unfair and unacceptable situation for the Erasmus+. And I'm sure the Erasmus+ is a flagship program for the different political groups and we need to fight for.
Thank you so much, dear chair and the dear colleagues, and especially the rapporteur, because we need to take care about Erasmus+.
Monika Hohlmeier
So thanks a lot. I think Ms. Filipková is absolutely happy about this budgetary procedure. So you have the floor.
Lenka Filipkova
Many thanks, Madam Chair, and indeed I am always happy and I know that we will have a fantastic work together and we will try to support you as much as possible, even if understandably you don't always love everything that we propose. The Council doesn't love it either, the other way though. So maybe just to address some of the elements.
First of all, I also want to congratulate the rapporteur for the preparation of the very clear, very factual working document that summarizes the proposal. On the few elements that you, many of you mentioned, on the use of the special instrument and covering the additional cost. Indeed, Madam Chair, if we had a crystal ball in 2020 and we knew that not only we are addressing the impact of the economy of the COVID crisis, but that we have to prepare for a war in Europe, we would have probably proposed a very different framework. But we didn't know then, so we also couldn't just borrow at the time everything that we needed because at the time we have actually been paying for the cash that was sitting on our accounts. So unfortunately, as a result of the Russian aggression and the impact on the inflation and the cost, we are now basically we need double of what we then believed was a very conservative assessment of the needs.
But what we are trying to do in the draft budget is to respect fully the previous agreements. So there was an agreement between the Parliament and the Council that the 50% benchmark should be targeted annually. So this is what we have done. So we also do that.
I'd also like to say that with regard to to Erasmus and InvestEU, we are actually we are trying to respect very very clearly the the letter of the interinstitutional agreement, so we are not cutting the programs. What we are cutting is is the fresh appropriations because we can finance more than we planned from the recoveries. The recoveries for Erasmus were way above, I think in some years 400 million, so what we have proposed to cut in the successive years was only what we believe was above the exceptional, so we're still keeping more than 200 million of the of the assigned revenue and we have proposed to only cut. So Erasmus as a program is fully fully financed, actually more than was planned in the financial programming, so we believe this is not done at the at the cost of the program which is still still increasing. On the Ukraine support loan, indeed we were it is a new element, there is a new agreement which also allows us and it says that the budgetary authority may mobilize the the new instrument, but it also says that we have to go through through all the other elements, so existence of the existing existing instruments, margins, also reflows, so the EFSD reflows that allows us again to finance the provisioning planned for EFSD+, so we do not need additional additional appropriations, so we can free the fresh appropriations.
So this is what we have done. So after we have, and then we are using the margins from 2026, which we believe will not be needed to offset the mobilization of the special instrument last resort. And we were very careful not to actually touch the remaining margins in the headings where there were still margins and where we could do that. So as a result, at the moment of the draft budget, we didn't believe we needed to propose the mobilization of the special instrument. But we will come in the amending letter when we have all the other information again on the Euriline, on the disbursements by the end of September, also on the actual disbursement of the Ukraine support loan.
We will also have a look at the final inflation index for the remuneration and pensions to see what is the impact for heading seven and then provide you with all the information and updates. And then we'll see also whether there are additional needs because at the time we will also propose the last amending budget of the year. And at that moment we can also reassess the whole combination and we'll see what will be remaining for the last year of the MFF. So we have really tried to protect the 477 million of the margins that we have in 2027 for the budgetary procedure or for something that might happen. If there are big emergencies, forest fires and so on, we still have the emergency aid reserve for humanitarian aid and we have the European Solidarity Fund that is fully available for 2027.
But it is true that in the last year of the MFF we have reached the limits basically. So we are trying to use the availabilities in the best possible way. So maybe also to address the cuts on the other institutions, also EEAS. Unfortunately, the ceilings of heading seven were established on the assumptions of stable staffing and the 2% inflation for non-salary expenditure. So we apply it very strictly to all institutions.
And even with that, as you have seen and mentioned in the working document, we still need to mobilize 700 million over and above the ceilings with special instrument. If that was not the case, again with the impact of the direct impact of the inflation, it would be available for other purposes. So therefore we are trying to be strict with everyone, including EEAS. In the past years you have succeeded to increase a little bit the budget of EEAS for the security in the delegations. So again we will see how the procedure goes, but as a starting point we are treating all institutions in the same and fair way.
And with that, I hope I have addressed all the elements. But again, looking forward to working with you during the budgetary procedure. Thank you very much.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thanks a lot, dear Ms. Filipkova. And I would give back the floor to Nils if he would wish to say something.
Nils Ušakovs
No, I probably have only one follow-up question if I may. The participation of third countries like UK in the Ukraine support loan, what kind of effect can it have on our next year budgetary procedure, if I may? Thank you.
Lenka Filipkova
Indeed. So as you mentioned and Mr. Hessler also mentioned, there seems to be a very positive developments. The UK should be participating in the Ukraine support loan as such. So there's still some legislative steps to be done and they will then contribute to the cost of the borrowing, which will be calculated, I think, on the basis of the part of their participation in the defense projects. So once we understand how much it is, and we don't know yet when, because then indeed it will actually relieve some pressure on the voted budget because as a third country contribution, it will cover part of the cost.
So it might relieve the pressure. We just don't know how much and when we will have this information.
But as soon as we know obviously we will inform you.
Monika Hohlmeier
So thank you very much dear colleagues. We finalize now this point under the agenda. We have to suspend the meeting till 11:00 because the agencies have to arrive and our colleague Sousa Silva is still in voting in SEDE so we have to suspend it because the timetable foresaw 11:05. So we restart at 11:00. Thanks a lot.
As it is already very calm and quiet in this room, we are shortly before the summer break, but we still have two points on the agenda. So the first is a very nice one, the annual meeting with the EU agencies.
We have our exchange of views, our annual exchange of views. We have the pleasure of welcoming three representatives of the EU agencies network: Mr. Cosmin Boiangiu, European Labour Authority, then Mr. Juhan Lepassaar from ENISA, and Ms. Sharon McGuinness, Executive Director of ECHA and incoming EUAN chair. We are very pleased to have you with us. This year's discussion would naturally focus on the implications of the MFF proposals for the agencies and possible synergies between them. But I leave it to my colleague Helder Sousa Silva, our standing rapporteur of the BUDG committee for agencies, to outline the scope of today's meeting.
You have the floor, Helder.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Thank you, Chair.
Dear, dear speakers, again, Mr. Cosmin Boiangiu, the Executive Director of ELA, Mr. Juhan Lepassaar, the Executive Director of ENISA, and dear Sharon McGuinness, the Executive Director of ECHA, and the dear representatives of the European Commission and the dear colleagues. I want to begin my intervention by thanking, thanking the three executive directors for their availability to participate in this meeting and to debate the impact of the next MFF on the agencies and possible synergies. Designing the next MFF is the moment to address cross-cutting aspects to shape a modern, fit-for-purpose and resilient European public administration, to enhance synergies and to ensure the agencies have adequate resources to fulfill their mandates, and it is a key issue for us, contributing to deliver EU political priorities. I recall the MFF in-house report where the European Parliament requests that Commission provides additional information on the funding and staff of EU agencies.
European Parliament considers that the proposal of a stable funding and staffing will continue to undermine some agencies' ability to fulfill their mandates. Parliament also acknowledges the need to assess and avoid potential overlaps and duplications between agencies and identify opportunities for synergies and cooperation to ensure the resources are allocated efficiently. In this sense, I point out that sustainable funding models are essential for long-term effectiveness. This goes beyond annual budget negotiations. We must certify that agencies have financing models adjustable to the evolving needs and priorities.
Giving the example of cybersecurity, and cybersecurity has become a strategic operational necessity. Agencies are facing significant and recurring costs related to cybersecurity and IT. This impacts on how agencies deliver their mandates, protect sensitivity information, and comply with increasingly demanding regulatory requirements. Supporting agencies in fulfilling cybersecurity obligation is a prerequisite for proper functioning.
Agencies managing critical infrastructure require particular attention. They ensure the resilience and security of critical European infrastructure and information systems. The increasing exposure of these agencies to cyber threats stresses the urgency to build up their capabilities. This is a mandatory component of protecting the functioning of key European sectors and guaranteeing the continuity of services in case of a crisis. I want to conclude with two questions I would like to address in this first intervention, two questions to the executive directors for the three agencies and the questions is the following.
Agencies have been establishing shared services, creating synergies and developing common procurement procedures to introduce efficient gains. Have you considered other areas where additional synergies could be created, for instance, for example, in IT, in the cybersecurity or in human resources management?
The second one is, in your perspective, what are the main challenges, obstacles and existing bottlenecks that constraint a broader use of shared services, synergies and common procurement procedures? Thank you so much, Chair, again, and thank you so much for the three directors.
Monika Hohlmeier
So thank you very much for these questions. Perhaps first the answers of the agencies and if then Angeline, she's the one left here in the room, would have a question, but first we would give the floor. Yes, we would ask first the agencies, then I would have a further question.
Cosmin Boiangiu
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, dear Mr. Sousa Silva, honorable members of the Parliament, thank you for the invitation and as chair of the EU Agencies Network, I would like to express my appreciation on behalf of the network for this opportunity to address you in the framework of our regular dialogue on matters of budgetary relevance.
The European Parliament has always been a strong supporter of the work of EU agencies and a steadfast advocate of ensuring that agencies have the resources needed to deliver on their mandates. Now, the growing number of EU agencies and joint undertakings underlines the valuable contribution that agencies and joint undertakings make in supporting and delivering the Union's political priorities. And to deliver on their responsibilities, agencies continue to pursue shared services, synergies, and efficiency gains wherever possible. The commitment is reflected in the network's strategic ambition to be a role model in administrative excellence and a valued institutional partner. However, many of us are now reaching the limits of what we can do through internal efficiencies and reprioritization alone.
Across the network, operational budgets are increasingly being absorbed by fixed costs, leaving less room for program delivery, studies, inspections, digital investments, and other core activities. Should we do more, and this is also in response to the question, we will need more enabling conditions and flexibility. And this is something that we're constantly advocating, covering the agile way on how to use our resources, but also how to fully exploit shared services model, harmonized approach towards Commission services, and that's very important, or creation of public procurement database. So these are the areas with the highest potential for efficiency.
And we've been in contact, in close contact with the Commission. They are now pursuing this large-scale review exercise. And in this framework, but not only with that, we are working together to see where is the potential for higher synergy and also for more efficiency. I mentioned procurement. This is one big area where economies of scale would be very important, but also the adoption of digital tools, technology, AI, it's another area where big scale matters.
And this is where we work with the Commission closely to make sure that not only we pursue more shared services, but also fill this potential for efficiencies wherever we can. Also, I would like to emphasize that agencies are separate legal entities operating in very different policy environments. So that's why resource allocation decisions should continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific mandate, workload, and operational reality of each agency, rather than applying a uniform approach. Some agencies are coping with rapidly expanding workloads linked to new legislative mandates, others face increasing operational demand, while many are also managing the impact of inflation and rising administrative costs.
And I will stop here. You mentioned some of these issues, increased demands on cybersecurity, for example, and that will continue to increase. And many others that we hope to address also with, as I mentioned, together with the European Commission and with other EU bodies and with the support of the European Parliament. Thank you very much for this.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, thank you very much. It's Mr. Lepassaar, I think, the second one. Somebody wants to, because you're looking not so... You have the floor.
Juhan Lepassaar
Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Cosmin, also. Maybe I'll just try to answer the questions that the right honorable member raised regarding the shared services to complement what Cosmin already has outlined.
For us, ENISA has been part of one of the pilots of shared services where we look at helping other agencies to deal with their cybersecurity challenges. So we offer cybersecurity expertise. We put one full-time expert within this pilot. Other participating agencies have put either a procurement expert or an HR expert, so in return we get a bit more support from them. Now, what has been the challenge of this pilot is, of course, that the value of the investment is in the future.
So everybody understands that theoretically you will create synergies and thus efficiencies, but it comes long-term, whereas the cost of the investment you need to bear now. And most of the agencies, as Cosmin already outlined, do not have sufficient excess capacity to make this investment at the first place. And this is the biggest obstacle. It's not about willingness.
It's not about willingness, it's not about not understanding the value of it, but the fact that most agencies do not have this cost. And even though their management board theoretically support it, when it comes to then taking this resource, and oftentimes this resource is coming then from the overall pot of the agency that is dedicated to its operational mandate, providing services to the citizens, the value proposition then for the member states is small. So the boards also are not really pushing the agencies to explore these opportunities. And that is mainly for the mid and small-sized agencies. The big agencies are not really looking at partnering up with other agencies to put joint service centers in place because they don't need it.
However, they are open to provide services when they can to other agencies. So they can contribute in other ways. So that's how I see it. It's a very personal picture, so I apologize for this. I haven't coordinated that with my colleagues.
But from the experience of the pilot that ENISA participates, these would be my biggest, let's say, areas which I see as potential obstacles. So there should be some sort of a mechanism to allow the agencies to make these initial costs, which will not be penalized, let's say. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
Those, thank you very much. Now, the last one, I shouldn't say the best one.
Sharon McGuinness
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, MEP Sousa Silva, and honorable committee members. Thank you very much, as the other colleagues have said, for being allowed to contribute to this morning's discussion and exchange. And may I start on a personal note by expressing my thanks to the European Parliament, the Council, and Commission for the political agreement recently reached on the European Chemicals Agency's revised regulation. I understand that a report from the institutional agreement or on the institutional agreement and negotiations will be next on the agenda. So thank you again for your work.
And probably just in the type of discussion we're having today, in the broader context of your work, perhaps a reform of one agency's governance framework may appear very technical. But I can assure you that for the citizens, businesses, and public authorities that rely on our work every day, these improvements matter.
And for ECHA, the new regulation will help us work more efficiently, use resources more effectively, and focus on our core mission, which is protecting human health and the environment while supporting the functioning of the internal market. And the reform for the agency comes at a very important moment, at a time where we're taking up lots of new roles on implementing legislation that the legislators like yourselves have put in place. And if I can say in the broader context, delivering and implementing for Europe is what all our agencies and joint undertakings focus on day to day. And to do this, we have to look continually for ways to improve, simplify, and modernize. And we have to make the best use of resources that we are received to do the work.
And in that regard, digitalization, cooperation between the agencies, shared services, and simplified administration are all important elements we need to consider to do this work. And the citizens rightly demand and expect public administration to be efficient, responsive, accountable, and modern, if we are an agencies are committed to meeting this expectation.
And if I can say, maybe the experience we've found from the ECHA regulation negotiations shows that the institutions are ready to work together to find swift and smart and effective solutions to improve the way agencies such as ECHA can work and allow us to deliver more broadly for the people and businesses in Europe. And as the incoming chair of the EU Agencies Network from March 2027, I look forward to continuing our constructive dialogue with the Parliament in this spirit. And as I said, we thank you again for the continued engagement and support, and we look forward to your further questions and comments. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, thanks a lot, Ms. McGuinness. So, does somebody have further questions here in the room? Helder, do you have further questions?
Hélder Sousa Silva
Okay. Going back to the last intervention coming from the Executive Director of the European Chemical Agency, and maybe this question I would like to address to the other two Executive Directors. Right now, we are doing a lot of revision in the regulation of the agencies.
And we are, I mean, introducing a lot of new articles and the new missions, the new objectives, and also new resources and, I mean, financial resources and human resources. And what is the view related with the last revisions coming from this agencies network, if our work in the Parliament is, I mean, fulfilling your expectations or in your point of view, we need to do more and we need to do different, in a different way. Thank you so much. Supporting in the last, for example, for me, it's the ECHA, it's a good example. And of course, we heard the ECHA executive director, I mean, satisfied.
But I would like to ask you if this satisfaction is spreaded or it is received, well received from the different executive directors related with the Parliament's work. Thank you so much.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much. I would have two questions.
The first one is related to a common legal service because I have the impression that the cost for different cases in the agencies in the area of legal service is not very well organized, to be frank. We had cases now where we had to pay a lot of money just because there was no adequate legal advice. And without naming the cases, the second issue is going into a direction that we have asked several, asked already several times. How many tasks do you fulfill inside the mandate and how many tasks are outside the mandate? Because I hear from several agencies that quite a lot of tasks are just asked by member states, but at the same time the same member states are not paying for it, but they are asking for this type of service.
And sometimes as Budg Committee, I would like to say we should prohibit this. We should clearly say if member states ask for a service of an agency that is not foreseen in the mandate, then pay for it, pay the staff, pay the service and then do it.
And Commission would have to propose this in the mandates because we have to prohibit that everybody is asked to do everything, but we don't have enough staff for it. So this is for me a question that is after years a clear single approach. I never saw that you can go to a supermarket and say I would like to have a surplus outside of the cash that you're paying or outside of paying an amount of this. So perhaps for these two questions, I would be very happy to get some answers. I would like to give first perhaps to Mr. Boiangiu.
Cosmin Boiangiu
Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for these questions. They are also related to what Mr. Sousa Silva also asked the other question. I think it's also on a case-by-case basis, to be judged on a case-by-case basis related to the mandate of each agency. And usually these issues related to mandates and tasks and resources allocated usually come up front when we discuss revisions of mandates.
So that's why, of course, we advocate that the mandates are clear, that they allow for sufficient, for good implementation and resources allocated to those tasks and those increased competence, if needed, are proper. That's not always the case. And you know how the political discussions when negotiating a regulation goes on. And there are many times compromises that result in less precise mandates. And that's where situations like the one that you described come into play.
And of course, we try to stick, and we have to stick to our mandates. And the problem is that these issues, that some issues that are sometimes at the fringe of our mandates, that require increasing resources also for some colleagues demand creativity in implementing these mandates. But I agree with you that mandates should be clear, should be properly executed and properly allocated with resources. And revisions of mandates is the one where you can have best to address these situations. And to come to also to answer to your question, we are thankful for how the Parliament acts in this regard.
No, not to be polite. No, not to be polite. We, as I said it in the beginning, Parliament is always a big advocate of proper tasking agencies and proper allocating resources to the agencies. And we see it with the occasion of discussion on revisions of mandates. So, and also we hope to see it when the future MFF will be discussed, because that's also important to look at the proper tasking and the division of work inside the Union for the Union's political priorities and then how these are implemented efficiently by agencies.
And this is what we truly believe in, that we have a very efficient act in implementing the Union tasks.
And thank you, Johan. Thank you for the questions. I think to add to what was just said, I think very much the clarity of a mandate is very important. But I also think in terms of running an agency, what you can write on the paper and what you need to do is to implement.
Sharon McGuinness
So the difference between what you might think you need on paper and how you might implement is quite a big gap. And therefore, as we are all implementing the legislation that you decide, I think the key here is that you have clarity, but not overly prescriptive. And that's always a fine balance and a fine discussion. And I have to say our experience with the basic regulation was very positive because we got an opportunity to explain and talk to the Parliament directly, and here in this committee, but also in the Environment Committee, to sort of help an understanding of what we were doing and how this might impact. So that was a very good and we were listened to, which was equally important.
I also think the value we've had is in two years' time we get a chance to look at it. Did it work the way you intended? Because I think that's also a point of like good continuous improvement in any organization is important. So it's almost like continuous improvement in legislation, is it working how we need to do it? So these kind of maybe measures or so, as I said, clarity and being clear on the mandate, being not too prescriptive in maybe some of the detail.
Clarity on governance, I think, is always necessary. But also giving us opportunities to look back later on to say, well, did it need, was that what you, you know, you gave us maybe 10 FTEs, have we used 10 FTEs or did we need more or is it less than a burden than we thought?
So that kind of work I think is very important. I think maybe coming back to some of the chair's questions, I think on legal services, we certainly in the network we have a lot of engagement across all of our different legal services. And there's probably yes, perhaps opportunities to look at, you know, maybe there's a certain horizontal areas we could work closer together in legal. But if you have a very technical issue like we have, your own legal service is probably the one that needs to focus on that. So you know as I said there's always we are always looking for these types of things and a little bit of, you know, we do framework contracts, we share, we engage.
So there is that em- maybe not enough, I I see your your response, but you know in a sense I I maybe we can talk about a bit more. The other thing about institutions is, you know, the the work doesn't always come to us. We are also here as advisors for the broader context of Europe I think is important because we have a lot of expertise, we're often the people that work directly with business, with citizens, with stakeholders. So we have a very good on the ground view of what's happening.
And I think that's a value that perhaps you probably get it here in the Parliament, that, you know, across the the decision making is is important and we can obviously support that. So as I said, we we we believe that, you know, the the work we've I've seen and we've seen in ECHA in recent time with the basic regulation has been positive. And as I said, the clarity that you've given is important, but the opportunity, as I said, not to to remember implementation sometimes takes steps and maybe this is a little bit about the question of tasks that are in a mandate or or clearly outlined in a mandate, but tasks that aren't. There's many tasks in any job you do that are never clearly outlined. So discussing with people is rarely unless you say you have a particular group.
But the way you do that could be very big or very small, but you have to do it. So how you quantify or cost that is very difficult, but the importance of that is essential if we want the implementation and the legislation to deliver as it is. So, you know, I would be I suppose we would be careful about going too far to cost everything because you might lose the value of some things that are less than, you know, specific. And usually it is the engagement with stakeholders, the engagement with Member States and others. And some of it is about building up capacity in Member States so that they can take on the work as well.
So I suppose there's always a kind of consideration and a balance in the ultimate where you ultimately decide to be more descriptive or prescriptive in the mandates. But Johan.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, Helder, first of all, the legal service, I think you have to rethink it a little bit in my experience. Maybe Mr. Lepassaar, you want to add something?
Juhan Lepassaar
First, I just wanted to add my voice to the choir of admirers of the Parliament when it comes to being the body who also scrutinizes whether the agencies have sufficient resources to actually deliver their mandate. I think that that is a very important role and we've seen that this role has helped a lot in terms of ensuring that there are sufficient capabilities for the agencies to fulfill the services that they are asked to deliver. I would like to just comment what Sharon said as well.
I think the the trick there of course is not to put agencies in a straightjacket because especially in the field that I know best in cybersecurity the threat landscape is constantly changing and you don't you might not know today what you need tomorrow. And the question now comes how do you then address the delta between your future needs and the and the and the certain legitimate expectation also from the from the public that the you know the agencies also should not be a free-rolling machinery doing everything. We have a very positive experience in the recent years where the new needs have been covered by the Commission via specialized contribution agreements so that could be one way of addressing it. I think it's super important also to remember that most of the agencies they deal in internal markets so they ensure the functioning of the internal market. And I think that's also something that could be explored further how the beneficiaries of the work of the of the agencies our businesses entities etc. who actually benefit from the from the trust that the the work of the agency will bring to the internal market they contribute to the resourcing of the agencies also.
That's quite an important link because oftentimes the the private sector is at the forefront of development. So if they also contribute they can also through these contributions steer a bit the work of the agencies in in to to be a more future-proof.
And that definitely is an element also which is within the new mandate or proposed mandates of of my agency and I would like to see it retained there because I do believe this link with the with the beneficiaries is is very very important there. And it helps also to ensure that we will have appropriate resourcing to do actually the work that we do. When it comes to legal service, I would say that we are bound by the same implementing rules in HR, finances, procurement. So it would make from my personal perspective a lot of sense that we have one body of legal expertise around this as well. I think the Commission has taken good steps in the recent past.
So I know again from my agency's point of view, some of the appeals and the complaints that that are addressed to the management board of of my agency, it's the Commission who reviews them and offers the legal advice to the board, also to ensure the independence of the advice. And I think that is the way forward. And I would be very happy to see Commission extending these types of services to the agencies even more. Now that said, the caveat is always what is the price? And of course if you have a monopoly of the services, then you also have a monopoly of dictating the price of it.
And there I would also invite the Parliament to scrutinize whether the baseline of this is always the right. That's it. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
But everything has a price, explicitly in the budget. Helder, you have the floor.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Yeah, thank you, thank you, Chair. I would like also to to share with with you that since the beginning of the mandate, when I took this this responsibility to to assume the as a rapporteur, a standing rapporteur for the agencies, I tried to count the number of the agencies that they the Commission proposed the revision. And I would like to remind you the Europol, we we finalized EUCA, the European Union Customs Agency, ECHA, we are working on ESMA, the security markets.
It's a partial, I mean, revision in EMA, the medicines. We are working on EU-OSHA, ENISA, eu-LISA, and Eurojust. It's only to, I mean, to give the example that the Commission, it's, I mean, it's a positive, I mean, approach and positive remarks from our side, from the side of the Parliament, that you are really active and you are taking care about the new mandates and the adjustment of mandates for the agencies. It's a good sign. It's a good sign and I need also to emphasize that.
Related with, I mean, when I visit the agencies, of course, I'm taking note about the administrative burden and the reporting requirements imposed on the EU agencies by the Commission and the impact of the workload in the agencies. Because all the, I mean, all the time, all the years, this burden looks like to increase and the number of reports per month, per year, and I mean, I cannot say per day, it's a provocative way, but I would like also, Monica, if we have more one minute, I mean, to listen to our executive directors related with this point.
If my feeling is true, is my question, or if maybe the Commission need to, I mean, to adjust this kind of requirement. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
I give the floor back to the executive directors. If Ms. Philippe-Koppa wants to intervene, then you tell it to me.
Cosmin Boiangiu
Thank you. Well, we do hope that the Commission will also work on that, on reporting and the requirements for reporting. And I know that they are working on that because they are doing this exercise on large-scale review now. It's quite a comprehensive and extensive exercise and we've contributed to that. And one of the points was exactly this: simplifications of reporting, simplification of the procedures for the programming document, for the single programming document and all that.
And I'm sure from the reactions and the discussions that we had that this will be taken into account. And of course, Director Filipkova can reply more on this. Talking about revisions of mandates, just want to flag that also the ELA mandate will come soon for a revision. And this is just to mention, and I will take what Johan has said earlier. The context where we act actually changes very quickly.
And this is what we see also with ELA, just to speak about my agency. Issues that were not foreseen 10 years ago when the ELA regulation was put forward now are very important, like the issue of third-country nationals, for example, and the big influx of third-country nationals on the internal market, in the labor market. So these are issues that we have to look at our mandates and interpret in a way that we can address it. Not always is possible, and that's why we need these revisions, but also proper allocation of resources.
And that's why the work for the revision is important, because it can address shortcomings, can address things that were overlooked initially and things like that. So yeah, we're counting on the work of this committee and the Parliament in addressing these issues. And to the larger extent, the flexibilities that are needed and we're constantly advocating that can be addressed through instruments like bigger instruments like the MFF or the financial regulation. Thank you.
Lenka Filipkova
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks a lot to the rapporteur, also the three directors, I think, for the very interesting discussion. These elements on synergies, efficiencies, how to improve and simplify, we indeed discuss with the agencies, with the parent DGs regularly, because it applies to everyone, all institutions, all agencies. So we indeed are in active contact with the network, with the agencies, and trying to help. If I start maybe from the end on the reporting, I think that's one thing that we are trying to address. It's not something we can stop doing because it's actually a legal obligation.
However, what we are trying to do is to make it more straightforward. So if you have the same information provided for two purposes, at least let's provide it in the same format and use it twice so that you do the work once. Because we can't just stop providing the annual activity reports or the single programming documents, but there are information that comes twice. So we're really looking also on, you know, things that can be done technically faster. And we are working with the agencies and we really appreciate their input because they know exactly what is the best way or where they can see efficiencies.
Also on the synergies, we really encourage those, especially for small agencies, but also for the bigger ones, especially if they are geographically closer. They actually do share some services. They look for, I don't know, building management if they are in the same building, security, procurement absolutely. I think many agencies already use some of our framework agreements to purchase IT equipment and so on.
So I think there is already a lot done and we are very happy to continue working with the agencies and see how to improve and find synergies because not only it brings savings in expenditure but also as regards resources that then the agencies can use as they are limited to the operational work to be done. Also on the legal advice or the confidential counselor we are also trying to help but the legal advice up to a point because there is a liability and as I think it was mentioned the agencies are their own have their own legal personality so eventually their decision has to be theirs but we are again very happy to support them and help. What I would also like to say that and agree that the mandates revisions are extremely important because that it is really and the revisions so that you indeed as Madame McGuinness said that you look at what was approved what was proposed approved and then implemented and maybe come back and say we forgot things or the policy has moved in the cybersecurity for ENISA I think there are big changes happening. So it is important that we revisit and look carefully into it. If in the meantime and we know that some agencies or that it's done more and more I we are not aware that member states do it but we know that some DGs do sign contribution agreements with the agencies to do additional tasks that are not so specific in the mandate which in principle is okay but what we always mention it should be for a task for a temporary period and then with the first update of the mandate it should be included because then instead of having very temporary staff to deliver on that simple task you can actually include it and have it as structure if if it is within the mandate of the agency then it makes sense that it is in the mandate and it is correctly done and there is administration linked to those contribution agreements so it is also preferable to avoid that and make sure that the agency
Because then, instead of having very temporary staff to deliver on that simple task, you can actually include it and have it as structured. If it is within the mandate of the agency, then it makes sense that it is in the mandate and it is correctly done. And there is administrative link to those contribution agreements, so it is also preferable to avoid that and make sure that the agency has a very clear mandate and the clear resources. Also with the resources, with all the mandates revisions or adoption, it is important that we agree, and as we always agree, and then we have a trilogue tomorrow where we also agree on the statement of the agencies, so that it is important that we then say whatever was agreed in the mandate will be financed from the budget and we can afford it. But then for us, the agreed LFS is the starting point, and this is what we do.
We can't then, all agencies come and say, oh, we forgot, and this is happening, and this is happening. But we can't, you know, it is really important that the legislative financial statement is correct, that we know. And if we see that it was incorrect, then we really need to go back to the mandates, because we can't case by case always increase this and increase that. It would not be sustainable, and we have the long agreements, and mandates revisions are there for a purpose. And again, if it's not right, then we have time to update it and revise it if it's justified.
So for us, indeed, the revised mandate is extremely important work to cover what the agencies are supposed to do, and then if they are supposed to do it, they also get resources for it, as we always agree.
Because the agencies are the only body in currently that is not limited by stable staffing. So if there is a mandate agreement, there is additional staffing, so they receive it, unlike for other institutions. So indeed, we are very happy to engage with the agencies. We do so. We are very happy to hear from the agencies where we can help and support.
And we are again very, very happy to help with these synergies, efficiencies, mandates revisions and so on, and the also discussion and cooperation with European Parliament in the budgetary procedure as well as the legislative procedure. Thank you very much.
Monika Hohlmeier
Okay, so thank you very much. But as we have a lot of agencies, if we are there with the executive directors, a little bit of flexibility is necessary because if we always have to change the mandates, good luck to the Parliament and to the Commission. In the NRPP, you are much more flexible. To be frank. There you believe that a huge flexibility is necessary.
A little bit contradictory. So, to be frank, dear Helder.
Madam Chair, it is in the end a decision of the budgetary authority.
Speaker 41
Oh, we propose a lot of changes, Miss Filipkova, that's clear. But the proposal of the Commission is very, very flexible to this. Okay, Helder.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Thank you, Chair, again. I'm really, I mean, satisfied and glad due to the fact that we, I realize and with the different interventions that we have room to improve, room to improve in the different areas. You, Monika, already raised the legal services and I fully agree, but also directors spoke about AI area, digital tools and technologies, procurement and okay. We have, I mean, a huge potential also and we need to work on that in the future. I want to highlight that we need a stronger, more independent and more competitive Europe.
A modernized EU public administration is essential and a powerful tool to achieve this goal.
The next MFF must provide an adequate framework and sufficient resources enabling agencies to adapt to the new challenges and to modernize. And I mean, I emphasize and I underline that this huge effort, I mean, in the revision of the mandates, it's a crucial point. Furthermore, I stress that all EU public administration needs to be less bureaucratic, more efficient, more effective and more focused on delivering EU political priorities. We must continue the efforts on simplification to improve transparency and accountability, protecting the financial interests of the EU budget and the EU taxpayers. In conclusion, I'm looking forward to continuing the work on these topics with the agencies during this process and finding solutions for key issues, ensuring agencies' ability to fulfill their mandates as was intended by the legislator.
By the way, and the last, the last sentence, I also would like to underline the importance of the agencies' network. And here today we have the three directors, the present chair, the outgoing chair and the incoming chair.
And this network works. And I mean, the result is, I mean, it's a good output. It's my feeling during my two years of mandate, and I would like also, I mean, to congratulate the work of the agencies' network. You can always count on me during this, I mean, special process related with the revision of mandates, because the Budget Committee have the, I mean, it's allowed by law that we can produce in the all the time the budgetary assessment in these different revisions. And my presence in the trilogues and during all the time of the negotiations, I'm suspicious to say that, but it was crucial in the past because we need to take care about the funds, the LFDS, and Madame Filipkova spoke about that.
And the majority of our colleagues, they don't have, I mean, they are not aware of the importance of the agencies for the EU organization. And really the, I mean, the support from the budget in this trilogue negotiations, it's, it's crucial again. I'm suspicious to say that, but I will continue to, to fight for the agencies due to the importance of the agencies for the, the accomplishment of the mission of the EU. Dear chair and dear directors and okay, dear colleagues, thank you so much.
Monika Hohlmeier
So thanks a lot. So we can finalize our agenda point 20. And thanks a lot to the agencies and their executive directors. We come to 21 and that's again...
Hélder Sousa Silva
May I invite on behalf of, of the chair, the three directors to stay more five minutes to listen the, the last point because it's connected with ECHA.
Monika Hohlmeier
Sure, because I think they didn't want to go at once. So I hope that they stay explicitly that ECHA stay because this is the major point. Report on the outcome of ongoing interinstitutional negotiations, European Chemicals Agency and amending regulation.
I don't sum up all numbers that I can read here. We will now receive a short feedback on the outcome of these negotiations for which BUDG provided a budgetary assessment to ENVI. We do so in the presence of Sharon McGuinness, not only in the presence, so if you would like to comment everything fine, but Helder again is our rapporteur. You have the floor.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Thank you. Thank you chair and only to I mean to share with you some I mean crucial points that I intend to to raise in this in this in this point. Going back to the interinstitutional negotiations on the proposal for a regulation on the European Chemical Agency occurred during the month of May and June and the trilogue meeting was held in the 29th of June. I'm pleased to report that the outcome of the trilogue reflects again the budget perspective and mandate.
We table nine amendments, not too much but I think very direct to the to the point, which were all accepted with only minor modification. In my opinion, and again I'm suspicious, this is a real success for the budget committee, highlighting the relevance of the budgetary assessment to ensure a proper balance between the substantive and the budgetary aspects of all the legislative proposals. This achievement is the result of the in-depth technical work that our budget team carried out while drafting the budgetary assessment. The technical quality, and I'm speaking about our team, the technical quality of budget amendment was recognized by the Commission and the Council. And from a content perspective, in line with ECHA budgetary assessment, we agreed to establish an exceptional budgetary reserve for an agency operating under the universal budgeting model, while setting clear conditions to ensure its sound implementation and linking the reserve exclusively with the fee funding of ECHA.
Moreover, we introduced the transparency requirement for the costs related to fee-based activities, safeguarding one of the fundamental principles of the EU budget. During the process, we ensured that the budget shadow rapporteurs were kept fully informed and involved. I thank the shadows for the constructive cooperation during the negotiations. In conclusion, I thank the European Commission and European Parliament's legal services for their expertise, constructive engagement, availability in addressing and clarifying our questions. One final word of appreciation to the budget secretariat, which assisted me and my team in this file for their valuable contribution and active cooperation through this legislative procedure.
It was for me and for us a very good experience and of course I'm again, we get and we support the, I mean the ENVI committee, but in a global way the European Parliament and also the Commission and the Council we get a very good result on this file. Thank you very much.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much Helder for your really dedicated work that you deliver here in an excellent way.
Does anybody like to make any comment on it or... Yes, Ms McGuinness if you wish.
Sharon McGuinness
Thank you very much and as I mentioned earlier, again thank you to yourself MEP Sousa Silva and all of the people involved for as you said what was seemed to be an excellent level of engagement and discussion to to reach the conclusion. And as I said this agreement that has been reached puts in place a much more coherent framework of budgetary framework for the agency and this reserve fund mechanism will allow us to better manage fluctuations in fee income and reduce our overall administrative complexity. But of course at the same time we have to remain and will remain fully accountable for every euro that we have and spend on the work whether it comes from fees or indeed from the EU budget. And also we're very pleased because obviously we've always put a lot of of emphasis over the years and we welcome the also the emphasis placed by the Parliament on transparency, sound financial management and clear reporting on costs.
And as I said, as we open up and we're about to start implementing, we're preparing for a lot of new tasks from new legislation. We actually have 23 different pieces of legislation now to manage in the agency. And with this basic regulation, we believe we have a sound basis for administering and being able to implement what the EU legislators require of us. So thank you very much.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, thanks a lot. Thanks again to Helga. And now it's only to wish you that's the rest a nice summer break. I hope that some recreation is possible for everybody. Wish you the best, see us in September.
And thanks a lot to the secretariat for the dedicated work on MFF and on a lot of files and budgetary assessments and files where we are responsible, including the annual budgetary procedure. I hope that you can recreate either and best regards of Johan Van Overtveldt. So, see you soon. Thanks a lot. Next meeting will be on the 3rd of September.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.