Dragoş BENEA

What Dragoş BENEA has said (22)

• “Sorry. This was because it's adopted. To we're going to amendment 326 was in favor. Against abstention. Rejected 327 was in favor. Against. Abstention. Adopted. Compromise 14 was in favor against abstention. Adopted. Amendment 385.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “We will now continue our meeting with the presentation by the commission of a proposal. Related to the next MFF concerning the European Social Fund. We are hosting Miss Ruth Herrmann from DG ample, who will present the proposal on behalf of the Commission. Miss Bazerman, you have the floor for ten minutes, followed by an exchange of views with the members of our committee.”
  EU expenditure on social policy
• “(11:48:32 – 11:48:50): we cut you off, please. We change that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Miss Yenhill Bosdorf is not here. Also, mister Arno Bausamer. So, I will now invite my co chair, mister Hetman, to take over the conduct of this meeting.”
  EP seat in Strasbourg
• “In addition, I am of the opinion that all categories of regions should have a ring fenced envelope and that each fund under cohesion policy should have specific allocations. We also defend a higher allocation for Interreg and the continuation of the additional allocation for outermost regions, concerning the amount reserved for the mid-term review. We are critical of the way, of the way. The commission is trying to influence the codecision process via non-papers or letters. Both the format and the content of these letters are quite problematic from the point of view of Reggie. Regarding the the the the the commitments, the Commission proposes an N plus n plus ten month rule for the commitments within the as part of its efforts to accelerate implementation. We consider that this new rule will put increased pressure on managing authorities, particularly in the first years of the next programming period, which which will overlap with the closure of the current one. We propose to maintain the N plus three rule for the next programming period. The opinion stressed the design of the national and regional. Regional plans must be conducted from the bottom up at the appropriate governance level, ensuring ownership to local and regional authorities. Lastly, lastly, I support the proposal of the budget Co-rapporteurs to create a true European Union Solidarity instrument over and above the MFF. A total of 462 amendments have been tabled. The members will now have the opportunity to discuss the issues they have raised in their amendments. But first, I will give the floor to Mr. Tavares and the shadow rapporteur for opinion. So, Mr. Tavares, the floor is yours.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “We continue with Miss Hilbersdorf, Reggie and shadow rapporteur. **Irmhild BOẞDORF : I'll be speaking. **Irmhild BOẞDORF : German. Thank you very much indeed. To the Court of Auditors. Very interesting presentation. The question now is, how did we find ourselves in this situation? I think that we could answer that ourselves. I can remember a meeting of the committee where we were looking at how funds were allocated. And we're looking at defense particularly. And some people from the right said that well, actually, we agree more with the than with anyone else. And I think that the Court of Auditors have said this would be more complicated, more expensive, more bureaucratic. This is not going to be easier for member states. The goals are not clearly formulated. And I think that what the least thing we need in Europe, well, we need less bureaucracy in Germany. And two new administrative jobs are created every year. So my question is how can we solve this? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “And last but not least, a word on the Unity SafetyNet. This is essential in insurance to intervene in case of market disturbance. The current experience shows that ample use is made of it. Thank you very much.”
  Regulation of vehicles insurance
• “Thank you, Mrs. Bossdorf. **Irmhild BOẞDORF: Thank you very much, miss for your report. I've got a couple of questions. Firstly, you mentioned that Germany has got a lot of problems at national level. And that that is clear from the data. But could it perhaps be possible that Germany simply has too much bureaucracy and that when it comes to EU bureaucracy, that in fact is what's causing the problem, and that maybe there would be fewer errors if there was less bureaucracy, less red tape? And then I missed a little bit. When you were talking about the specific examples in the last Regi meeting, I asked Miss Ferreira, um, about the expenditure for cohesion funds, and I was told that I couldn't have data about the exact. Spending and what was being spent on in terms of the fight against populism. I was wondering whether you do have any data and whether cohesion funds are being used for the fight against populism on the right, because I believe that is not the right way to be spending EU money. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “(12:25:56 – 12:26:10): Thank you very much. I will now, invite the representative of the European Commission in number of 3. And first of all, we have, miss Christiane Canenblade, director DGA budget, 3 3 minutes, maximum.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you. Dear colleagues, allow me to conclude, to conclude by briefly explaining the next steps in the early non-objection Procedure. First, the Commission sent us a formal letter requesting the early non-objection and justifying why Parliament should shorten the scrutiny period. Second, the coordinators will consider the request and decide whether to recommend the early non-objection to the plenary. After the PCC, the Conference of Committee chairs will be informed about the decision to recommend the early non-objection, so we will keep you informed about the coordinators decision. Thank you so much, Mr. De Michelis. We're going to direct you to point number four. If we have in in our meeting. Mrs.. Nevada del Campo or or somebody to to was in Corfu. On 15 and 17th September is here. Thank you. No matter who was in Corfu. Mr. Gonsalves, please replace Mr. Marcus or Nevada del Campo. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “The cohesion policy should remain the long term investment instrument and not a reform instrument. We need to tackle territorial disparities, promote convergence in terms of economy and society, and whatever level of authority must have the necessary resources in order to contribute to the collective progress of Europe. Of course, there are other problems that are to be analysed with the shadow rapporteurs in the coming weeks in order to have a consistent proposal that will protect the cohesion policy in the future. Mff. I now give the floor to the political groups. Regarding these elements and the other matters pertaining to the future MFF. First I have the floor is Mr. Daniel Bouda EPP.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Hello once again. We started with the consideration of the amendments tabled on the radio. Opinion on the budget interim report on the proposal for the MFF framework 2028 2034, for which I am the rapporteur for opinion responsible is Miss Carla Tavares, who is our meeting, and Mr. Siegfried Muresan. Mr.. Thank you for your availability to participate in our discussion. Let me recall that the interim report of the Budget Committee aims to influence the consent procedure procedure on the next MFF. The amounts negotiated as part of the interim report will be taken over in the Parliament's position on the sectoral proposals, I would like to highlight a few of the key aspects that are included in the draft opinion. First, I continue to be critical of the one plan per member state approach and of the significant reduction in funding in heading one. Cohesion policy needs to maintain its own distinct budget heading with resources separate from other policies, not just for reasons of visibility, but also of predictability. As the Commission proposal stands today, it is not possible to determine to determine the level, the level of resources that will be available for cohesion policy. I call for a higher share of cohesion spending with a budget of at least 13 of the 30 of the total MBF as in the current current period. To justify this, we have argued that based on the sectoral proposals, cohesion funding will have to fulfil not only its traditional objectives but also the new ones. In particular, the new objectives contained in the Commission proposal are. Crisis and conflict preparedness. Defence and security. Water management and housing.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “(11:22:20 – 11:22:42): Okay. We continue our debate, and give the floor to miss Lubitsa Karvasova, who will join us remotely. First, on behalf of miss Lucy Ayar as budget renew shadow rapporteur, and then in her capacity as Reggie renew shadow rapporteur. Miss Carvasova, please.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “We continue with Miss Hilbersdorf, Reggie and shadow rapporteur. **Irmhild BOẞDORF : I'll be speaking. **Irmhild BOẞDORF : German. Thank you very much indeed. To the Court of Auditors. Very interesting presentation. The question now is, how did we find ourselves in this situation? I think that we could answer that ourselves. I can remember a meeting of the committee where we were looking at how funds were allocated. And we're looking at defense particularly. And some people from the right said that well, actually, we agree more with the than with anyone else. And I think that the Court of Auditors have said this would be more complicated, more expensive, more bureaucratic. This is not going to be easier for member states. The goals are not clearly formulated. And I think that what the least thing we need in Europe, well, we need less bureaucracy in Germany. And two new administrative jobs are created every year. So my question is how can we solve this? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. I would also like to thank you for all your contributions and commitment to fulfill our role of colleges later with, full responsibility. I'm looking forward to the continuation of the legislative process, and I'm confident in the construct of political exchanges and extensive technical work in front of us. Mister Hedman?”
  EU political integration
• “We will now continue our exchange of views with Miss Lucia, your budget shadow rapporteur. If it's here, if not, we continue with Mr. Kieran Mulloy, also shadow rapporteur.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Therefore, cohesion policy should remain a fundamental pillar of the growth model, and the central policy of long term investments should be decentralised, open to all regions with significant real financial allocation higher than what's proposed right now. We are concerned by the fact that the new proposals regarding the MFF transfer, the decision making powers to national capitals and the commission. At the same time, regional and national authorities, as well as the Parliament, are losing their influence when it comes to deciding where and when the funds will be spent. We believe that the proposals presented by the Commission in the latest documents are not sufficient. The committee acknowledges the simplification ambitions of the committee, but it's still to be determined if the proposal will go in this direction, especially for the beneficiaries. Nonetheless, this simplification might not must not lead to excessive centralisation of EU funding in the national capitals, thus marginalising the local and regional actors. Five. We welcome the fact that the amount for solidarity allocated to the crisis response mechanism has been tripled. However, I am concerned by the proposal of the European Commission to leave up to 25% of the resources unallocated in order to increase the capacity of Member states to respond to crises and emergencies. This might be a plus in terms of flexibility, but it won't long over the long term. Then the Commission has proposed the N plus one, the commitment rule, which may put managing authorities under increased pressure, especially in the first years of the period.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “First of all, allow me to inform you about the timeline. Uh, Budget Committee intends to submit it for the final vote in the May plenary so that Parliament can influence the first proposal for negotiations regarding the future MFF to be presented by the Cyprus Presidency in June. The figures adopted by the EPP as part of the interim report should be taken over in the mandate of the respective committees will adopt on the relevant sectoral proposals in order to abide by the timeline proposed by the Budget Committee. I intend to have the first draft by December 11th. The fine will be open for amendments between nine and 16th of January, after it is translated in all European languages. Later on, the draft and the amendments will be discussed at the meeting of January 28th, and a vote on the final text will come. On the 25th and the 26th of February in the committee. A few words about the content. Now the draft report is available in English. During the meeting that we had last week with Co-rapporteurs, Muresan and Tavares. Our committees sent a message to Reggie regarding our priorities one We are concerned by the fact that the committee has proposed to merge the two chapters into a new one, Cohesion and Common Agricultural Union. We fear that policies like cohesion policy and agricultural policy merged into a single fund, will create serious competition between farmers and the region. The committee will continue to militate for a separate cohesion policy, a distinct chapter separate from other policies. A second issue has to do with the reduction of the global budget dedicated to cohesion policy.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Mr. president, Commissioner colleagues, the cohesion policy is our main investment policy and long term for the EU and the basis of a more resilient and more competitive Europe. It worries me to see that the regional development policy is under pressure, more and more under pressure. And as president, the chair of the committee, I would like to have, um, enough funding, um, proportionate with the 30% of the MFF cut in funding, would increase disparities between regions and would slow down economic growth in the European Union. The 530 operational programmes cannot be reduced to 27 national programmes programmes, because each region has specific needs and the local and regional authorities need to be involved on all across the programmes, and we need a shared and multi-level governance. The next MFF, MFF needs to support a modernised and simplified policy open to all regions and especially the least favoured regions like rural areas. The east eastern border affected by the war in Ukraine. The regions that deal with natural catastrophes and also the autumn.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Okay. I want to remind you that the radio opinion will be adopted in our meeting of 2520 6th February. Now we continue the afternoon with a presentation from the European Court of Auditors. This special report reflects on the EU Budget Flexibility framework and analyzes its existing tools. The audit focused on the design and mobilisation of the thematic and non-thematic special instruments above the MFF ceiling, and the use of margins below the MFF ceiling in the ongoing MFF covering 2021 2024. We have the pleasure of welcoming the ECA member who lead the audit team and who will share their insights with us today. Mr. Christian Petrovic has been a member of the European Court from 2022. We were previously rich an extensive career as a member of the Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. Mr. Petrovic, you have the floor for ten minutes.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Dear members of the Court of Auditors, dear Representatives of the European Commission, dear colleagues. I would also like to welcome you to this second meeting of the Joint Budget Committee, working on the proposal for a regulation establishing the future RPP plans. As already mentioned by my co-chairs, the opinions of the Court of Auditors represent valuable and reliable support for the co-legislators as they provide for observations and suggestions. As regards the architecture of the proposals, where governance, financial implementation and the need to address potential risks for the Committee, the Court of Auditors is always a reliable partner as we are sharing the same goal goal of improving the governance, accountability, transparency and sound financial management of cohesion policy and thus enhance the its European added value and ultimately citizens trust in the European project. As we all know, the proposal we are discussing today is significantly changing. Changing the way in which a large share of the European Union budget is planned, allocated, managed and controlled. As co-legislators, we are extremely interested in your assessments and the potential needs for improvement you might have identified. Now, I would like to invite our distinguished guests from the European Court of Auditors to present the court opinion on the NRP fund proposal. I will first give the floor to Mr. member and Dean of the Court of Auditors. Mr. Talboom, you have the floor for five minutes.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Dear members of the Court of Auditors, dear Representatives of the European Commission, dear colleagues. I would also like to welcome you to this second meeting of the Joint Budget Committee, working on the proposal for a regulation establishing the future RPP plans. As already mentioned by my co-chairs, the opinions of the Court of Auditors represent valuable and reliable support for the co-legislators as they provide for observations and suggestions. As regards the architecture of the proposals, where governance, financial implementation and the need to address potential risks for the Committee, the Court of Auditors is always a reliable partner as we are sharing the same goal goal of improving the governance, accountability, transparency and sound financial management of cohesion policy and thus enhance the its European added value and ultimately citizens trust in the European project. As we all know, the proposal we are discussing today is significantly changing. Changing the way in which a large share of the European Union budget is planned, allocated, managed and controlled. As co-legislators, we are extremely interested in your assessments and the potential needs for improvement you might have identified. Now, I would like to invite our distinguished guests from the European Court of Auditors to present the court opinion on the NRP fund proposal. I will first give the floor to Mr. member and Dean of the Court of Auditors. Mr. Talboom, you have the floor for five minutes.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Are there any objections? If not, the agenda is deemed approved. Point two the meeting is open for remote participation. Mrs. Christina Gwada. Adoption of the minutes. The draft minutes of the meeting of 9th of September are available online. Are there any objections? If not, these are deemed approved. So let's get down to the nitty gritty. The presentation of the ECA review zero three. Per 2024. An overview of the assurance framework and key factors contributing to errors, and so on. The review gives us a more general overview of Echa's audit results, and its assessment of the legality and regularity of cohesion spending during the 2014 2020 period. Cohesion policy accounts for more than one third of the EU budget for this period, and the aim of the Cohesion Policy Assurance Framework is to ensure that for each programme, the expenditure declared by the Member States and verified by the Commission is free of material error. The Assurance Framework for cohesion has helped to reduce the overall level of error since 2007. Today's review shows that it has not brought it below the materiality threshold. This morning we have the pleasure of welcoming Mrs. Helga Berger, member of the European Court of Auditors, who will present us the Review's findings and conclusions regarding this important issue for ten minutes. Then we will have an exchange of views with our members. And I will give the floor to the coordinators for 2.5 minutes. Then Mr.. Mrs. Berger will give us an answer for five minutes. Then we will open a second round of speakers. The people who have already said that they want to take the floor, they will have 1.5 minutes. And then, uh, Mrs. Herbert from the European Commission and Mrs. Berger will have the floor for five minutes. Mrs. Berger, you have the floor for ten minutes.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget