President Metsola addresses the EU regions on the Cohesion Policy post 2027
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.
OTHER European Parliament
Isabel BENJUMEA
Y la tercera garantía, una verdadera dimensión regional del semestre europeo. Las recomendaciones europeas deben mirar también a las regiones porque los desafíos no son iguales en todas partes de Europa ni siquiera dentro de un mismo estado. Y por eso desde la región de Murcia defendemos una Europa que simplifique, que sea más flexible y que esté más orientada a resultados sí, pero una Europa no una Europa más centralizada. Muchas gracias.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup, André Francaro Rodríguez, coordinateur pour la commission Pêche.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
Thank you. We are in this room because we agree. Now it's time to move beyond agreement and push for action, especially from our member states and from the Council. Most of us agree that MFF proposal will not deliver for our regions. It will not deliver for our citizens and it will not deliver on the ambition the EU claims for itself.
This is no time to settle for the lowest common denominator. The overall level of funding is still far too low for what we want to achieve. And under the Commission proposal structure, cohesion and the regions have the most to lose.
And if that happens, European democracy loses too. When citizens stop seeing the EU as source of a solution and start seeing it as source of problem and mistrust, make no mistake, when we arrive there, we will be in serious trouble. That is why we must push all member states to be more ambitious, to look for new sources of funding and to build an MFF that delivers for the regions as much as for competitiveness and defense. As many of you know, I come from the Azores. The Commission has just published its new strategy for the outermost regions.
It is a positive step and I welcome its vision, especially the recognition of these regions' geopolitical position and assets. But here is the issue. In Parliament, we are still fighting to make sure the final MFF resources in agriculture, fisheries, cohesion and competitiveness match the ambition of this strategy.
So colleagues, in conclusion, this meeting shows the strength of the alliance between local, regional, and the European Parliament, but our challenge now is to take our citizen voices outside of this room and convince the capitals to move and to move fast. Thank you.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup cher collègue. Pour la région Occitanie, Nadia Pellefigue, vice-présidente.
Nadia PELLEFIGUE
Merci beaucoup président. I will speak in French. Dans ma région, il y a le siège mondial d'Airbus qui est un vrai succès européen. Il y a quelques jours, j'étais au sein d'une start-up qui s'appelle Positive Aviation qu'a été fondée par six ingénieurs d'Airbus. Leur idée, c'est de prendre un avion qui existe déjà, un ATR 72 qui est assemblé à Toulouse, et de le transformer en bombardier d'eau amphibie.
Il écope 8 000 litres en une douzaine de secondes sur un lac ou sur la mer. Cet été, il y a eu des incendies qui ont frappé toute l'Europe et on a besoin de trouver près de 400 bombardiers d'eau pour pouvoir répondre à la demande. Concevoir un appareil, ça prend des années. Convertir un avion déjà éprouvé, c'est bien, c'est plus rapide, c'est moins cher, c'est vertueux sur le plan environnemental et c'est fabriqué en Europe. Cette innovation, elle n'est pas née hors-sol.
La région, ma région l'a soutenue avec en mettant 1 million d'euros de budget et en mobilisant 1,5 million d'euros de FEDER. Voilà concrètement, chers collègues, ce que permet la politique de cohésion. Alors n'opposons pas cohésion et compétitivité.
On ne finance pas de nouvelles ambitions pour l'Europe en fragilisant ses fondations. Et la cohésion est une fondation. Nous avons besoin de davantage de passerelles entre la cohésion et les instruments de compétitivité, pas de les mettre en concurrence. Finalement, couper la cohésion pour financer la défense, c'est un peu comme si on démontait la maison pour payer l'alarme. Ça marche pas.
Et la raison pour laquelle on est là aujourd'hui, c'est parce qu'on a besoin de garanties. Alors je ne veux pas redire avec d'autres mots ce qui est très bien dit dans le position paper, mais je voudrais vous dire que les régions, on n'est pas des simples bénéficiaires. On est des lieux où naît l'innovation, donc on veut aussi tenir le stylo. Nous sommes 143 régions, l'Occitanie en fait partie, le Parlement européen est à nos côtés et merci. Donc à la Commission et au Conseil de nous entendre.
Merci.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup. Je vais donner la parole à nos invités qui viennent des régions. Je donne la parole à Raffaele Cattaneo, sous-secrétaire de Lombardie.
Raffaele Cattaneo
Buongiorno, grazie a tutti.
Io mi domando e vi domando: che cosa deve accadere di più che un budget europeo che taglia coesione e PAC dal 65% del totale, come è sempre stato, al 40% del totale del budget? Che centralizza tutte le decisioni sulla dimensione europea e nazionale? Che trasforma regioni e territori da policy designer e programmatori a meri beneficiari per renderci conto che, ignorando i trattati, il principio di sussidiarietà, a Bruxelles sta avvenendo una rivoluzione copernicana? Una rivoluzione che impone un modello imperiale dell'Unione Europea, tutta gestita dall'alto, e che vuol farci credere anche che la competitività è un processo top-down, che la competitività si fa con le risorse e le decisioni calate da Bruxelles e dagli Stati nazionali. Ma la mia regione, la Lombardia, se fosse uno Stato dell'Unione Europea, sarebbe il decimo Stato dell'Unione Europea per prodotto interno.
E qualche cosa sulla competitività abbiamo da dire anche noi. E siamo convinti che la competitività si fa dal basso e i fondi della coesione li usiamo per costruire la competitività nei nostri territori. Allora io voglio fare due richieste concrete.
Speaker 8
La prima: siamo 143 regioni in EU Regions for Cohesion. Siamo pronti a fare emendamenti comuni, oltre che policy paper. Emendamenti comuni ai regolamenti per difendere realmente le posizioni delle regioni e dei territori. Seconda richiesta: il Parlamento Europeo ci sosterrà se faremo questi emendamenti? E se alla fine la proposta dell'MFF non dovesse cambiare, se l'impianto dovesse rimanere questo, per la prima volta nella storia delle istituzioni europee, il Parlamento Europeo avrà il coraggio di rigettare questa proposta o alla fine si accomoderà con un accordo al ribasso?
Su questo ci giocheremo il futuro dell'Europa.
Younous Omarjee
Ce sont de très bonnes questions, des questions très importantes. Ce que j'en retiens, c'est qu'Andrey Novakov, pour en tout cas ce qui est actuellement notre travail, à savoir le travail des amendements sur le NRRP, a dit qu'il fallait presque mettre en place une centrale d'appel et qu'il est à l'écoute de l'ensemble des régions pour porter les positions. Et c'est le sens de notre union, porter les positions des régions dans la négociation.
Et nous espérons que la négociation nous permettra d'approuver le budget puisque l'Europe a besoin dans ce moment d'un budget et nous l'espérons d'un grand budget. Je donne maintenant la parole pour une minute trente à Manuela Rinaldi, ministre de la région Lazio.
Manuela Rinaldi
Grazie, signor Presidente, l'opportunità della regione per intervenire in questa in questa commissione. Credo che quando discutiamo del futuro della politica di coesione nel nuovo quadro finanziario pluriennale 2028-34 dobbiamo essere molto chiari. Molto chiari su un punto essenziale: non basta che i nuovi piani siano definiti nazionali o regionali, devono esserlo realmente nella governance, nella responsabilità e nelle risorse. Riteniamo fondamentale che nel nuovo quadro ogni regione disponga di un capitolo territoriale chiaramente identificato, costruito sulla base dei bisogni e delle potenzialità specifiche del proprio territorio e accompagnato da una dotazione finanziaria dedicata e chiaramente definita. Non è sufficiente avere un capitolo regionale sulla carta, però.
La regione deve avere una responsabilità effettiva nella programmazione, nella definizione delle priorità di investimento e nella selezione degli interventi e nella loro attuazione. Inoltre serve una garanzia ulteriore: le priorità e le risorse destinate a un territorio non possono essere modificate o trasferite unilateralmente a livello nazionale. Ogni modifica sostanziale deve prevedere il coinvolgimento e il consenso della regione interessata. Crediamo che allo stesso tempo è necessario rafforzare la possibilità per le regioni di dialogare direttamente con la Commissione europea sui propri capitoli territoriali e di poterli adattare quando necessario senza dover necessariamente riaprire l'intero piano nazionale. Questo significa dare concretezza al principio della governance multilivello.
Quindi noi non chiediamo maggiore complessità, chiediamo responsabilità chiare, risorse trasparenti e una reale partecipazione delle regioni alle decisioni. Il Lazio, come molte altre regioni europee, è pronto ad assumersi questa responsabilità e a rispondere poi dei risultati.
Perché la politica di coesione deve continuare a essere una politica europea costruita e attuata insieme ai territori, valorizzando le specificità regionali e garantendo che le decisioni siano prese il più vicino possibile ai cittadini. Grazie.
Guillermo Peláez Álvarez
Gracias, vicepresidente. Buenas tardes y muchas gracias al Parlamento Europeo por este encuentro. Añadir una reflexión, si se me permite, más política y que creo que debe estar en el centro del debate sobre...
Younous Omarjee
Si vous pouvez changer de micro. Utilisez le micro de votre voisin. Yes, if you can change of micro, perhaps this micro. We have a problem with this micro. Alors, un autre.
Guillermo Peláez Álvarez
Ahora? Bueno, muchas gracias, vicepresidente. Buenas tardes a todos y a todas y muchísimas gracias al Parlamento Europeo por la organización de este encuentro.
Yo creo que ya se ha dicho prácticamente todo esta tarde por los compañeros y compañeras que me han precedido. Yo quisiera añadir una reflexión si se me permite más política que creo debe estar en el centro del debate sobre el futuro de la Unión Europea. El proyecto europeo tiene enemigos externos pero tiene también enemigos internos por lo que tenemos la obligación de seguir reforzando la legitimación frente a nuestros ciudadanos del proyecto europeo si cabe ahora con más intensidad que nunca. Y la mejor forma de reforzar el proyecto europeo es demostrar que la Unión Europea es capaz de hacer política útil, política que se traduzca en mejores condiciones materiales de vida, vivienda, empleo, servicios públicos, inversión. Y ahí es precisamente donde las regiones como hemos demostrado todos estos años debemos seguir teniendo un papel fundamental.
Somos las administraciones que estamos más cerca de los ciudadanos y ciudadanas. Conocemos mejor sus necesidades, las necesidades de nuestros territorios y sobre todo respondemos directamente ante la ciudadanía por los resultados de esas políticas. Si las regiones respondemos por los resultados, debemos participar también en la definición de las prioridades. Por eso si Europa quiere que sus políticas sean verdaderamente efectivas tiene que contar con quienes estamos sobre el terreno. Y la política de cohesión es precisamente el mejor ejemplo.
No debemos entender la cohesión como una política del pasado ni contraponerla a las nuevas prioridades. Cohesión y competitividad van de la mano. Yo creo que lo explicó muy bien el señor Lewandowski en su exposición.
Y Europa es diversa, no todas las regiones tienen las mismas prioridades. Asturias es un buen ejemplo de ello, somos una región industrial que está afrontando simultáneamente una transformación energética, tecnológica y económica, por ello es preciso que se mantengan también fondos específicos para atender las necesidades específicas de nuestros territorios. En definitiva, quiero aprovechar este foro para pedir al Parlamento Europeo, como representantes de la ciudadanía europea, ambición en esta negociación, mantener el peso y la importancia de los fondos de cohesión, fondos preasignados que garanticen recursos estables y simplificación, una política de cohesión basada en el rendimiento, en hitos y objetivos y menos carga administrativa. En definitiva, se trata de hacer más fuerte a Europa a través de la participación plena de las regiones en la construcción de sus políticas. Muchas gracias.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup. Nous arrivons vers les dernières prises de parole. Je donne maintenant la parole pour une minute trente à Vasile Asandei, directeur des fonds européens pour l'agence de développement régional du Nord-Est de la Roumanie. Vous avez la parole.
Vasile Asandei
Mulțumesc, domnule președinte, și regiunile din România sprijină politica exprimată astăzi aici.
Aș vrea doar să atrag atenția asupra unui aspect care ar putea să ne ajute, respectiv sinergiile între politica de coeziune, fondurile adresate politicii de coeziune și fondul de competitivitate. Și vă propun ca în documentul de poziție să fie sprijinită nu numai continuarea strategiilor de specializare inteligentă, ci alocarea unor resurse speciale pentru finanțarea proiectelor care operaționalizează strategiile de specializare inteligentă ale regiunilor, pentru că niște regiuni puternice au nevoie să fie și competitive. În acest fel vom putea pune în operă un drept enunțat de Comisia Europeană și anume dreptul de a rămâne. Deci cred că trebuie să ne extindem puțin aria de interes către aceste domenii de competitivitate pe care regiunile și le doresc. Vă mulțumesc.
Younous Omarjee
Merci beaucoup pour votre intervention. Nous arrivons au terme de cette réunion. La présidente du Parlement européen, Madame Roberta Metsola, nous rejoindra dans quelques minutes. Mais permettez-moi de faire quelques remarques conclusives. D'abord vous dire, je pense que vous l'avez ressenti, le Parlement européen est à vos côtés.
Il est aux côtés des des régions. Il est aux côtés des régions, il est dans dans le travail que nous faisons dans les commissions sectorielles concernées, commission REGI, commission du budget, commission de de l'agriculture. Et nous défendrons jusqu'au bout ce qui fait la politique de cohésion. Et je l'ai dit, c'est son caractère régional. La politique de cohésion est une politique régionale.
Notre commission au Parlement européen s'appelle la commission du développement régional. Et le commissaire à la politique de cohésion est le commissaire au développement régional.
Donc cette dimension territoriale, elle doit être sauvegardée puisque c'est dans les territoires et nous le savons aujourd'hui que se réalisent au mieux aussi les principaux objectifs posés par l'Union européenne. Et nous ne devons pas sacrifier cette mise en cohérence des politiques européennes à l'échelle des territoires. Je veux vous dire également avant de laisser la parole à la présidente Roberta Metsola que le Parlement européen est engagé pour un budget ambitieux. Et cela a été rappelé par les membres de la commission du budget. Le maintien de grandes politiques européennes suppose une grande ambition budgétaire européenne.
Et cette ambition budgétaire, elle est portée évidemment par le Parlement européen à travers un certain nombre de propositions, y compris les ressources propres. Et nous voulons échapper absolument à la concurrence entre les politiques et à la concurrence entre les priorités. La solidarité et le maintien de la solidarité, c'est important. La compétitivité, c'est important.
La sécurité et la défense de l'Europe, c'est important. Toutes ces dimensions sont prioritaires et on ne doit pas aujourd'hui faire le choix entre ces priorités pour le Parlement européen. Et ça sera, je crois, c'est la ligne d'action du Parlement européen exprimée dans la résolution que nous avons adoptée en plénière du Parlement européen. Vous avez pu remarquer, mesdames et messieurs les représentants des régions, que nous sommes ici globalement très unis pour la défense de la politique régionale et la défense de la politique agricole, tout groupe politique confondu. Cela nous donne de la force, de la force dans la discussion, de la force dans la négociation.
Et ne désespérez pas de l'acharnement des députés européens, cher monsieur, à bien négocier dans les trilogues.
Nous l'avons fait par le passé et nous allons continuer à le faire. Et je connais Andrej Novakov pour la partie du NRPP qui sera accompagnée d'autres co-rapporteurs. Nous défendrons le mandat, évidemment, qui nous aura été donné par la plénière jusqu'au bout. Et c'est une garantie, évidemment, que nous prenons devant vous ce soir. Notre réunion était une réunion qui enfin envoie un signal, un signal en direction du Conseil européen, en direction des chefs d'État, en direction de la Commission européenne.
Ils savent que les régions d'Europe et le Parlement européen sont unis, unis dans cette bataille, dans cette bataille qui commence et qui, dans cette bataille qui, j'en suis certain, sera couronnée à la fin de succès.
Nous n'avons jamais connu de de négociations budgétaires qui soient faciles. La dernière fois nous avons commencé les négociations budgétaires avec la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l'Union européenne, je parle sous le contrôle de du vice-président de la commission des budgets, avec une perte au budget de près de 50 milliards d'euros à minima. Peut-être même jusqu'à 70 milliards. Nous avons été confrontés à des crises historiques, en particulier la crise concernant la pandémie du COVID-19. Et d'une crise nous en avons fait une opportunité budgétaire considérable puisque non seulement les chefs d'État ont fait preuve d'innovation au Conseil européen, mais plus encore nous avons mis pendant la programmation sur la table de nouveaux règlements qui ont permis considérablement, Monsieur le Président Rousset, de compenser ici et là des pertes.
Je pense à REACT-EU par exemple, 50 milliards d'euros qui ont été utilisés dans toutes les régions d'Europe. Je pense à la réserve d'ajustement concernant le Brexit qui n'était pas prévue. Je pense au fonds de transition juste qui est arrivé également en cours de programmation.
Voilà, merci encore pour votre participation et nous sommes heureux à présent d'accueillir la présidente du Parlement européen, Madame Roberta Metsola. Madame la présidente, je disais que votre présence parmi nous honore notre réunion et dit combien notre Parlement européen est aux côtés des régions d'Europe. Je veux vous dire l'attente mais aussi la confiance très forte qu'il y a dans notre Parlement européen auprès des différents présidents de région qui se sont exprimés. Merci bien encore d'être parmi nous.
Roberta Metsola
Comme vous voulez. Tu peux parler en français. As you want. Moi je fais la traduction à la minute, ok. Alors, sorry.
Good afternoon everyone. Very happy to be here. Dear presidents of regions, mayors, councillors and regional representatives, members and friends, dear colleagues in the Bureau, former Vice-President Younous Omarjee, Fabienne Keller, Janusz Lewandowski and Andrey Novakov, very happy to be sharing this podium with you.
I understand that we have more than 150 regions with us today. So I'd like to thank also our other Vice-Presidents Javi López and Antonella Sberna who were involved in bringing us together. And to the regions of Nouvelle-Aquitaine and Emilia-Romagna for co-organising this event. With two regions I would say so famous for their food, I think the bar is set quite high for the reception that follows. A special thanks to all of you as I see in the rows in front of us, members for being here.
Because this, dear colleagues, is testament to how much our House values our regions. Because cohesion is at its most basic about fairness. Where you are born should not decide how far you can go. And that's what you work for every single day. Our regions are, as we like to call them, Europe's in a way shop windows.
It is in your, they are in your towns and your countryside, in the food we grow, in the languages and the dialects that we speak, that people see us and Europe at its best. Our members that are elected in all your regions and work alongside you, and this really shows that in tandem how well we can do. I've had the privilege of meeting many of you on regional visits. I have taken it upon myself also not to only visit the capital cities when I go to a member state. So just picking two examples, you know, from Łódź to Calabria, and every time I come away inspired by what you're building on the ground.
So as I'm sure all my colleagues have told you, we hear you and what you've told us today we carry into everything that we do. Now, we're asked this a lot: what is this Parliament fighting for in the next long-term budget? This will dominate our discussions in the next months, to put it mildly. And our answer is very clear: a budget that delivers on what people have voted for, that make their lives a little bit easier, a little bit fairer, a little bit safer, wherever they live. And that's why in our report on the MFF proposal, we asked for cohesion to stay a distinct, ring-fenced policy with its own robust budget.
Now, that policy also needs the funds to match it, because Europe cannot meet greater challenges with a weaker common budget. So with the cost of living and energy bills going up, and so many of your regions that have just gone through such a hard summer of droughts and wildfires, cutting further would send the wrong messages at the wrong moment. New priorities or crises, and this we come together across all the Parliament, cannot become an excuse for less funding, because cohesion is a long-term investment, and you need to know that what's committed to you actually will still be there. So that is why we're also calling for new own resources so that the bill isn't then passed on to the next generation. Now, I said in my opening statement that this will dominate our work, because there is no long-term budget without this Parliament.
We have to vote, and any vote requires at least 361 votes to pass, which is a higher majority than would be found with just splitting the Parliament in two.
So we will hold firm on our position and I really want to thank our co-rapporteurs Siegfried Mureșan from Romania and Carla Tavares from Portugal who have carried this file with a lot of determination and clarity of message. The next question is who decides? We've read the position paper that you published yesterday and your message is clear that cohesion has to stay a European policy built with the regions, not handed down to them. And this you can be totally reassured by our commitment. The EU works best when those closest to the people help decide how the money is spent.
And that is why we understand and we completely agree that you must be fully involved in these funds. And there is a wider risk too. If we end up with 27 national budgets wearing a European label, we lose what cohesion was always meant to do. What it means to us: bring people and places together because leaving no one behind has to mean leaving no region behind too. So protecting cohesion also means making it work better.
And this is where we ask for your help in pushing for more simple rules, for faster payments and less red tape.
This is hard, this is difficult, but this is what we are also trying to do in this Parliament so that results can reach people sooner. And ultimately, this is about people's right to stay, in a way, to be able, should they wish, to build a future where they were born. And that we have programs that are so dear to all our hearts. For example, Erasmus+ lets our young people study, train and work across Europe, but also if they want to come home, real opportunities have to be waiting. So let's keep this work-working coalition, in a way, together.
Keep talking to your members who are in this house. Be tough with them. We are accountable. They are your voice too, and when you look, you will find this Parliament a solid ally and a strong hand at the table. I grew up in local politics.
I worked my way through into becoming a member of this Parliament, and there's one thing that I take with me every night. I say, have I represented my electorate correctly?
And those three requests that our citizens asked from us across the European Union when they elected us in 2024, to make their lives fairer, easier, and safer, is something that I think we should really collectively do so that we can say that we have delivered on what they wanted most from us. So thank you very much and keep up the good work.
Younous Omarjee
Mesdames et messieurs, nous allons faire une photo de famille, mais je veux une fois encore vous remercier pour votre participation à cette réunion. Je crois que nous avons vécu un moment qui est historique dans l'histoire entre les régions et le Parlement européen, et nous allons continuer ensemble à nous battre. Maintenant, nous allons faire une photo de famille. Le protocole va donner les indications pour celles et ceux qui sont sur la photo. Madame, vous...
Speaker 13
Please enter the video ID followed by the pound or hash key. Please enter the video ID followed by the pound or hash key. You have not entered a valid number. I will now disconnect the call. Please enter the video ID followed by the pound or hash key.
Speaker 14
We must also ensure that cohesion policy continues to support our common goals, such as the green and digital transitions, while also addressing the unique challenges faced by different regions. I look forward to our continued cooperation in building a more cohesive and prosperous Europe for all. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Please enter the video ID followed by the pound or hash key. Please enter the video ID followed by the pound or hash key. You have not entered a valid number. I will now disconnect the call.
1 2 3, okay.
Martis Gobinch
So, welcome everyone. I apologize for the delay. Thank you for coming. My name is Martis Gobinch. I'm here for the EPPD and maybe, yeah, I'll just do a quick tour de table.
We have Joanna McAlmont of the EPPD. We have Katerina Balasso of Telent. We have Anne Moreau, Corinne Borassé and Anna Firea, who are representing the EPPD as well. Thank you for coming again. I apologize for the technical issues also to the people who are connected online.
We are still trying to resolve them.
You may receive a link to a new Teams meeting shortly, hopefully, if the thing that we're trying now works out. If not, then apologies again, but you will have to just make do with the poor sound and poor video that we have, unfortunately. Okay, okay, okay. Yes, microphone. I've now switched on my microphone for the Teams, so welcome everyone again.
Apologies for the technical issues that we're experiencing. We are still trying to resolve them. For the time being, we've started the meeting with this poor video and poor sound. Apologies, we'll try to resolve it and let's see, maybe a little later we will succeed. So, yes, let's get to the subject matter.
What we want to present here this evening is the hub's technical setup and our working environment in the hub.
And we have someone here in the person of Katarina Balasso who is now busy trying to set up the... Sorry, sound still unmuted, okay. Apologies once again. Can you hear me now, the people who are connected online? They can.
Sorry again for the technical issues. We have poor sound and poor video for the moment. We're working on it, we're trying to resolve it, but for the time being it is as it is. So, yes, we will have a presentation of the hub's technical setup and our working environment there and questions and answers on that. We have a very competent guest here, Katarina Balasso of the technical working group.
She's also a representative of Delint, the staff interpreters' delegation.
So if you have prepared questions or if after Caterina's presentation you will have questions on the technical setup, then we'll take those questions right after Caterina's intervention. After that, we will go to the content of the of the amended working conditions and we will do a quick run-through of the main changes there. That will be presented by my colleague Anne Moreau. And and then we will attempt a quick summary and and questions and answers again on that part. So yes, we had planned to start with the technical issues, but since Caterina is still busy trying to resolve resolve our issues here in this room, then maybe maybe we can change the order around a little bit and start with Anne.
Then I would have to ask you to come up here and then you can do the presentation so that the people online can also follow us. Hopefully this works if I click here. Yes. Right.
Speaker 19
I'll try to not make it too long and mostly give a summary because the texts are all available to you if you want to read any of the details. So our working conditions for interpreters, they are a decision by the Secretary-General and are composed of one article and five annexes. And the provisions relating to distance interpreting are will be published as annex number four. And this is what we negotiated over the past year, this new annex number four on distance interpreting. But we also had some adjustments to the main part of the working conditions and there were some requests by the staff delegations.
Speaker 19
Back to the start. So our working conditions are published as a decision by the Secretary-General with one article and five annexes.
And in our negotiation, we negotiated annex number four, which is provisions relating to distance interpreting. And there were other parts to the negotiation as well, and some adjustments to the main part of the working conditions, and some things that are applicable mostly to our staff colleagues. So we'll mostly be talking about annex four. And the most important part of that is the safeguards and compensation for distance interpreting. So, one of the most important things is that we have decided that distance interpreting has to be fairly distributed and equally distributed among all colleagues, and that includes the different booths, so the different languages, and individual interpreters.
So that means that there won't be any distinction made between staff interpreters and ACI colleagues. And a team leader will be assigned at the location of the meeting, unless interpretation is only provided by distance interpreting, so from the hub, and then the team leader will be in the hub as well.
And we have negotiated a number of caps and limitations to distance interpreting, which means that colleagues will not be given assignments that exceed four hours on any given day. So that means in practice that you will only, if you have, for example, during a committee week, you only work either the morning or the afternoon from the hub, and then the rest of the meeting, the booths would be switched around. And if you are working in distance interpreting and you have another assignment that day that is not distance interpreting, then you will not be assigned to more than seven and a half hours on that day. And for distance interpreting assignments, you cannot be given more than seven and a half hours in any given week. So that means in practice that you could spend two half days working from the hub.
But this cap can be exceeded for unavoidable operational reasons, and in that case, then the excess time, so any time over that weekly cap in distance interpreting, will give twice the amount of compensation time.
So say that you work 30 minutes more, that means that you get one hour that counts towards the compensation. And each assignment in distance interpreting will have a coefficient of two when it comes to calculating the weekly interpreting assignments. So that means that if you work a morning in the hub, say three and a half hours, that for your total counter of how many hours you've worked that week, it would represent seven hours. And if your assignments include distance interpreting, that means that if you work more than 24 hours in a given week, you will automatically be granted two hours of compensation. So that means that if you do distance interpreting assignments, your weekly cap of the number of hours that you can work in any given week automatically goes down, and you are granted compensation if you go over those 24 hours.
And those two forms of compensation, so either going over the cap of seven and a half hours per week, which is compensated, you get twice the amount of time in compensation, and going over the 24 hours per week, that time is all added up. And if you reach four hours of accumulated compensation, you will be given half the amount of the daily fee as a flat rate compensation. And then to visualize it a bit more, oops, we have some practical examples here of what it would look like in practice.
Speaker 19
Right. So if you have a committee week and you have one hub assignment, so say, I'll try to say what it says on our screen, you work the Monday afternoon, three and a half hours, a regular meeting, not from the hub. Tuesday morning, regular morning, not from the hub, three and a half hours. And then in the afternoon, you work three and a half hours from the hub. Those three and a half hours will then count as seven hours towards your weekly interpreting hours.
And then the rest of the week, Wednesday morning, Wednesday afternoon, and Thursday morning, you have a regular meeting, which is also three and a half hours.
And that means that the actual hours that you work in that week are 21, but due to the coefficient, you get three and a half hours extra towards your weekly counter. So that makes for a total of 24 and a half. And that means you've gone over the 24 hours max per week with distance interpreting assignments. And then you automatically get two hours extra time in compensation, so that gets added to your counter. And this also means that you will not be able to be assigned on the Thursday afternoon, for example, because you've already reached your max hours per week.
Then there's another...
Go on.
No, no, go on, go on.
Speaker 19
Another example is where you have the same situation, but on the Tuesday instead of three and a half hours in the hub, you do four hours in the hub. Then that means that those four hours actually count as eight hours. And that means that instead of your actual weekly hours, which would be 21 and a half, now it goes up to 25 and a half because of the hub hours counting double. And then your total hours with the coefficient is 25 and a half. You go over the 24 hours, so you are granted two hours in extra time.
So in both those scenarios, you get two extra hours towards the counter. So one difference with the weekly cap in distance interpreting is that if you go over the seven and a half hours per week, every minute that you go over that matters because you get that twice as much back in compensation. But for the 24-hour limit, you just get two hours automatically and there is no difference. Then we have other examples of mixed weeks where the workload is a bit lighter and those hub hours, of course, count double. But in a few examples we have, in some cases, you stay under those 24 hours, so you do not get compensation.
And then what you can expect concretely from working in the hub.
Hub work will be possible in 2027 during 26 weeks. And we want to stress that there will not be any hub work during Strasbourg weeks, because the hub will be in Brussels, and when we go to Strasbourg, there's no renovations happening in Strasbourg, we have enough space there. And during green weeks, there won't be any hub work either. And the heaviest months would be January, April, and November. And then one article that we as the EPPD found especially important is that the follow-up group on working conditions, and we always have an EPPD member who is an observer in that working group, they receive monthly statistics on how much people have worked.
And there it will be monitored that the distance interpreting time and the compensations are granted in accordance with the new rules, and that there is a fair distribution of distance interpreting assignments amongst interpreters. So as we said, between languages and between individual colleagues, and we managed to include in that specific article 5.1 that it includes between staff interpreters and ACI colleagues.
So we have a guarantee on paper that it is not that the ACI colleagues will be sent to the booth for example, there will be a fair distribution. And we have had our three-monthly FUG meeting yesterday where we were told that they are still working out how to do this in practice because of course it is all very new and the colleagues in the different services need to adapt to these new rules. And probably the first few weeks they are still figuring it out so don't expect it to be 100% perfect and fairly balanced between colleagues the very first month. But as colleagues are gaining more experience and know what it will look like in practice because for the moment it is not even clear how much the hub will be used in practice. So all of that is still remains to be seen but the follow-up group will keep an eye on it and flag any possible imbalances between colleagues.
Martis Gobinch
Yes. Okay. Maybe we should open the floor for questions to Anne now? We could open the floor for questions on Anne's presentation now.
I think it was a lot of information for sure. We apologize again that the PowerPoint did not work. With that, it would have been perhaps easier to digest all these numbers about the soft caps, hard caps, compensations. It's quite intricate. Does anyone have any questions here or online?
We can also try to take questions online. Sorry again for the technical issues.
Speaker 22
Thanks. Sorry, I missed a bit of the presentation, but my actual question is the monitoring of the caps and their enforcement. Is there going to be some sort of IT tool, or is it going to be done by human beings? Is it something... no, I think it's... I think it's quite important because, like you said, it's a very intricate system. And should we also be keeping track of our own hub hours to flag any... any overshooting in our own workload?
I mean, what I want to understand, sorry, my question's not very clear, is to what extent do you think this system will work successfully and what degree of vigilance do you need from our end to provide you with information that could help in that assessment?
Speaker 19
I'll just quickly repeat what you said because I don't think the colleagues online can hear it. But the question was whether there will be an IT tool to follow up on a distribution between the fair distribution of hub work between colleagues, or whether it is humans doing it, and whether ACI colleagues should keep an eye on their assignments to make sure that the distribution is fair. Currently, the colleagues in the different services already use multiple IT tools to keep track of where people are working and in what kind of meetings they are working.
If they have, for example, any online interventions from during meetings, there's also a counter for that. So the expectation is that similar tools will be developed for that. But as is currently the case, there is still a lot of human follow-up. And that is why we have these monthly statistics that we get with the follow-up group as well, that sometimes there are some people who have overshot their limits. And there's always, of course, room for human error.
So we would definitely encourage colleagues to keep an eye on how much they're working in the hub to see if they think the distribution is fair. And of course, we as EPPD, we are here to represent you. So if there are any issues or anything you would like to flag, we would be very happy for you to reach out to us. But as we were told yesterday during the meeting, we do not expect it to be perfect within the first few months. So, yeah, they have asked for some patience and I think we should grant them that because they're still figuring everything out.
Do I click on something?
Speaker 27
No, no, no, I think they will just activate their microphone as soon as you give them the floor. Let's try.
Speaker 19
Then I would like to ask Anne-Marie Bonnot to tell us what she would like to ask, and hopefully it'll work.
Anne-Marie Bonnot
Hi everybody. I hope you're hearing me well and there's not too much noise because I'm in the street.
We can hear you.
Speaker 28
Oh, okay, great. So it's going to be short. Have they planned anything about partially sighted people or blind interpreters using the hub?
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.