Nils UŠAKOVS

Policy topics Nils UŠAKOVS is active on

What Nils UŠAKOVS has said (23)

• 2024-11-26 “E-002657/2024 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission 1. The main source of European funding for the Rail Baltica project in the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) period 2021-2027 is the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). The maximum co-funding rates and the costs eligible for funding are set out in the CEF Regulation 1 and under certain conditions it can be up to 85%. The funding that can be provided also depends on the budget available in the facility. The Rail Baltica project is the biggest recipient of CEF funding. The Commission encourages all beneficiaries, including the Latvian authorities, to make best use of the resources available and progress on the implementation of the projects as set up in the respective grant agreements within the legal limits set therein. Other sources of funding, including private capital and state funding, should be explored as well. 2. The Commission is aware of the political discussions in Latvia on financing of the project. The European Coordinator and the Commission have in their exchanges with the Latvian authorities underlined that the project needs to be planned and implemented in a way that is cost effective and sustainable for Latvia’s state budget while ensuring that Latvia meets its commitments to Estonia and Lithuania. The cost-benefit analyses of the project show a positive long-term socio-economic return for the three Baltic countries. 3. The Commission is committed to support the national authorities to complete the Rail Baltica project, which continues to have very high EU added value. The current geopolitical situation underlines the urgent need to connect the three Baltic states to the European rail network. A swift implementation is required. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014.”
  EU funding for transportation · EU transport infrastructure integration · EU support of rail transport
• “Thank you, chairman. First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of this event and to bring probably my own dimension since I represent another linguistic minority from Latvia. But I would like to bring a global dimension. In five years, when we meet in this room for another event. Probably there will be no interpreters in this room because it will be artificial intelligence used. We'll be using either glasses or iPhones or some special devices to be understood and to talk to each other. And the society will become effectively multi linguistic. And that means that you can speak in Irish and it will be translated to Chinese, you can speak Hungarian, it will be translated to Russian. And at the end of the day, um, when we look in the future and of the linguistic minorities, I would like to bring three conclusions. First of all, social dimension, the access to devices, access to technologies will be as important as now access to internet, and it will be extremely important to take for the European Union's a leading role in providing regulation and financing. So no one is left behind. And it's exactly EU level when the decision should be made. Second aspect is social and cultural because on one hand, technologies will definitely make it easier for linguistic and regional minorities to survive, but they also will bring another type of pressure, the pressure we usually see in global world. And finally, politically, you cannot use many languages in this room, not for technological or technical reasons, because there's not enough space for interpreters. It's a result of various and different political decisions made in the past. We will need political will to use technologies. Technologies are changing our world in the future and to open us up the European Parliament, the European Union and functioning to the New World. And again, it's a room for the European Union to get involved because I believe individual member states will not be capable to face this magnitude of challenges. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Chair. It's precisely two minutes.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Thank you chair. Dear colleagues, when the Covid crisis struck Europe, the response was often shaky, leading to decisions that proved controversial or simply wrong. But out of that chaos emerged something truly new that seemed to be even revolutionary. That was recovery and resilience. Facility. Europe abandoned its playbook on austerity. It chose to borrow money together to help its members to recover. It was a huge shift in approach, but red tape. Lack of administrative capacities. Peculiarities of domestic management of politics in various member states. Other reasons, and as a result, what we have, we have an implementation below 50% or around 50%. In many member states like Latvia, we have lots of questions about the effectiveness of this 50% being spent. We have the overall feeling that experiment flagship response program is gradually failing. The failure of RF would mean for us the failure of our new approach. That means support instead of austerity measures, and that cannot be accepted. The EU needs a relief type of instrument beyond the MFF to deal with future crises. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Mr. rapporteur Mr. president, dear colleagues, it is a privilege to present today the guidelines for the 2027 European Union budget, a document that both marks an end and a beginning. An end, because 2027 will be the final year of the current multiannual financial framework and the beginning, because the way we manage this final budget will determine the The credibility with which the union enters the next financial cycle at the beginning and the beginning of the next financial cycle is paralleled by two ongoing wars, oil and gas prices skyrocketing, and risks. The geopolitical and global economic situation will become significantly worse in the coming months. This places unprecedented responsibility on this House to be able to act in a united manner, putting controversial issues aside and concentrating on the numerous challenges ordinary Europeans will continue to face in the forthcoming future. The guidelines we have managed to draft call for a budget that, despite everything happening in the world, is citizen centred, efficient and investment oriented, one that supports prosperity, creates and protects quality jobs, strengthens territorial and social cohesion, reinforces Europe's competitiveness, and what is so important these days contributes to the security of our union. At the heart of these guidelines lies a simple idea. Especially in times of crisis, economic resilience and social cohesion must go hand in hand. The 2027 budget must support resilient healthcare systems across all regions and address the growing challenge of affordable housing. Recognizing that housing is a basic necessity for citizens, it must ensure that the European Pillar of Social Rights is backed by real funding, including through the European Social Fund Plus to combat poverty.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you. In general, our group is positive with respect to this project, but I still have three questions, if I may. The first one is about the flexibility of the lease and the way EBA can keep it flexible. Since we've got a lease that will be running until 2035. So this is question number one. The question number two is about the exit costs, which are estimated to be €1.29 million, that have to be taken into account when it will be a decision if this decision arrives to move or to stay. And the third question is about the space which is calculated per person. And we see an increase in this space of one person. And the question is that we are dealing right now with the 5400m². Do you have any forecast when this amount of square meters will be no longer enough to keep the team in a comfortable way? The current number of staff or when the staff number is growing. Thank you.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you. Monica. Thank you so much. Well, these are actually final transfer requests for this year regarding other sections that we will be voting today. I had some technical questions about the information needed was provided in the written form. So I believe that any further clarifications are not required. Since my rapporteurship for 2024 concludes with this vote, I would like to take this opportunity and to express my gratitude to the Secretariat, the political advisors, to all the relevant services, colleagues and staff members, especially to my team for the excellent collaboration for the budget 2024 and all the relevant files we had. Thank you.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak on behalf of my colleague, Victor Negrescu. So it's a draft amending budget number three to the general budget 2025. And there are certain questions I would like to ask. Inquire first of all about the link between the three and the global transfer. Dec 15, 2025. Some amounts that cannot be covered in the Dec are covered by an amending budget. Which criteria do you use to select which one of the lines falls in or out of the global transfer? Could you also explain why you still have decreases in example, for example in Ukraine as well as increases, for example in our eRDF, in the DOP? And should those have been incorporated and netted out in the Dec 15? Do we need to be worried about the lower amount of payments for Ukraine is linked to the lack of reforms and investment in Ukraine. The next question is about the situation with BMV. Could you provide additional insights? Why are there a low uptake in member states of the amounts available under the Common Customs Equipment Instrument? They seem difficult to understand at times when border control, trade and customs policies are such central issues in the public debate. Then, about the cohesion policy, could you please elaborate on the increased payment needs following the high uptake of Step? Do you have many strategic, high tech projects and investments in our Member states, and do you have any examples? Another question is about restoring the absorption rate.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Um thank you, chair. I would like first of all, to thank the rapporteur and his team for preparing this working document. And I can say that we are supportive of the findings and conclusions presented in it. We as S&D, disagree with various council reductions across the headings on ground of insufficient justification of the cuts and the lack of explanation on the impact, particularly in the challenging circumstances a union finds itself in. To add to this, we regret the lack of clarity in how far the lines concerned by top ups and redeployments of the MFF revision should be subject to changes in the annual procedure. We do agree with the Council's intention to reinforce some budget lines, for example humanitarian aid, but not by cutting other lines in order to do so. Furthermore, the Council is not respecting the provision in the Interinstitutional Agreement, which says that efforts to finance euro costs should aim at avoiding program cuts when identifying the sources. There are principle differences between the European Parliament and Council, in view of applying the euro cascade to financing new borrowing costs. Both the reduction in the amount on the line and the way of financing the overrun caused by reducing programmes to make more space and margins, are quite problematic for us. To conclude, the SMD will support the rapporteur in his intention to reverse the cuts by the Council as a matter of principle. There is one exception, however, concerning the budget of Frontex. Even when we factor in the council proposal to reduce the budget by 21 million, it still increases by 90 million when compared to the 2020 budget. We therefore believe that accepting the council proposal in this regard will not jeopardise the effective work of the agency and the Safe. 21 million could then be added to the very limited capabilities we have to work with. Thank you chairman.”
  Size of EU budget
• “(13:53:36 – 14:02:38): Commissioner, thank you for this presentation and for coming to our committee, so soon after your college meeting. This budget will serve as a bridge between the current and the next MFF and is an opportunity to build a robust foundation for the years to come. Therefore, the European Union needs to deliver on the promises we made to the European people. In the context of increased uncertainties and strategic challenges from inside and outside, we need a budget that will deliver prosperity for our citizens, create and protect high quality jobs while leaving no one behind, invest in the green and digital transitions, and what is really important, ensure security. This is what the parliament stated in its guidelines for the 2027 budget adopted with a large majority in the April clean recession. After having only a brief look at the statement of estimates for 2027, I have the following initial statements and also questions. The commission proposes a draft budget that increases the commitments appropriations by 3.5% compared to the budget 2026. It represents 0.99 less than 1 percentage points point of the GNI just a few days before council starts discussing the next MFF numbers. This is clearly not up to the needs. Inflation is growing up again. So in real terms, the EU budget will be stable or even decrease. That's not the message we want to pass to our citizens. The level of the margins is also extremely low, less than €500,000,000. Now we will have to cope to unforeseen events. So how we will be able to cope to unforeseen events or increased needs. And this is not a fictive scenario. We have just received a draft amending budget for 2026 for urgent needs. This is the last budget under the current MFF. We need to use all the possible availabilities in order to deliver. The interest payments are leaving virtually zero room of maneuver to use money to increase programs according to political priorities for cohesion, housing, health, SMEs, and this will clearly affect what can be achieved with the 2027 budget. The aim of the EU budget is not to cover for interest payments. We can see now that the URI repayment costs are estimated at €9,900,000,000 as against €4,980,000,000 in the financial programming, double as planned. The full heading 2b margin is at the moment €519,900,000. When we talk about flexibility instrument, it is €1,900,000,000. If we talk about the commitments made since 2029 under the euro instrument, we're talking about €2,000,000,459,800,000. In the context of EU, so the question is that in the context of euro, can you explain in detail your assumptions for the projected NGU disbursements for 2027? Still, on the yearly calculations, what is your assumption concerning the level of interest rates? Could you also give us an assumption on the liquidity management costs? They severely impact the amount available for other priorities. On which basis did the commission calculate the amount and what is the level of certitude do you have in this amount compared to the final needs? We will continue the unwavering commitment to continue providing financial support to Ukraine. However, the commission mentions that the debt service costs to cover the related borrowing operations are expected to amount €1,150,000,000 in 2027, which the commission proposes to finance entirely through budgetary availabilities. Can the commission explain this rationale? This amount is eating all the flexibilities. Why the commission didn't propose the use of the commitments? And by the way, since the flexibility instruments are completely exhausted and there is no margin in some headings, that means we cannot finance a PPPA under those headings. So then going further on heading by heading. Heading 1 is crucial to ensure EU future growth and competitiveness, but it's decreasing. This is not comprehensible. Heading 2b, Erasmus, is the most popular EU program. The commission has started planning to cut the program's budget since two years ago in order to free margins for Europe and as a program also benefited from internal recoveries. I want to remind everyone that parliament never gave its green light to this change to the financial programming. This is on the table for this year's negotiations. Heading 3, agriculture. We know that technical updates of the budget later can significantly impact budgeted appropriations. The commission says that the amount of assigned revenue for 2027 will be lower than in 2026. Why is that? How can you be so sure in this uncertainty at such an early stage? Heading 5 has €13,000,000 margin, which is not significantly different from zero. This means actually no margin. While security and defense is a priority of the European Union and new initiatives are financed from redeployments, in particular, the redeployment from EDI, which has barely been adopted on the 12/16/2025 with a sharply constrained envelope. Heading 7, external election is a key for Europe to be a global actor. The available margin seems very limited to react in case of any new developments. Ukraine, The Republic Of Moldova, we have all learned that we can only live in safety and stability within the borders of our union if in our immediate neighborhood we were surrounded by countries which are safe and stable. Heading 6 continues to be under unprecedented pressure with only a slight margin available. Needs around the globe in particular when we talk about southern neighborhood, The Middle East, and Africa are tremendous. So the question is, given the very limited sources of funding, how will the European Union live up with its commitments? Another question would be, could the commission clarify the amount of the commitments expected in 2027 meant to compensate the leaner cuts applied across heading 6 programs following the MFF revision? And also, given rising humanitarian needs around the globe, does the commission foresee a recourse to the emergency aid reverse, and if so, for which amount? On payment levels, the situation is more positive as the commission estimates that a substantial increase will be needed in the level of payments reflected a good level of implementation of the per new made year of the current MFF. This is very beneficial for our beneficiaries. So the question is on how the commission deals with the uncertainty of the pace of member states submitting program amendments and payment claims in these last two years of the MFF 2127 in order to avoid a payment crisis in '27. Apart from being the last budget of the current MFF with very limited margins, the budgetary landscape is evolving very quickly. Therefore, it's of the utmost importance that our committee will be informed in a timely, accurate, and comprehensive manner of any and all budgetary developments the commission anticipates compared to what is in the draft budget. In that respect, should we watch some particular program implementation? Do you expect any possible variations or reflows which should be monitored over the coming months and which could further affect the 2027 budget? To conclude, in the final year of the MFF, the objective is not to spend for the sake of spending, but supporting major and high impact projects that deliver real benefits for our citizens. It is also urgent to strengthen Europe's security and defense capability capabilities. Let me also emphasize the need for targeted and tangible support to member states bordering Russia, Belarus, or Ukraine as they face economic, social, and security pressure. As a rapporteur, I'm looking forward to working together with the shadow rapporteurs, with the specialized committees to deliver European Union budget for a stronger and more resilient European Union. And for the parliament, I want us to be united, to be strong in the negotiations with the council. In this challenging context, we'll have a constructive approach during the negotiations. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. Commissioner, please.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Reduce inequalities and support the most vulnerable. At the same time, we must continue investing in the green and digital transitions. Also, allow me to highlight three areas of particular importance. First, our border regions municipalities along the eastern borders in the Baltic States, Poland, Finland and elsewhere face economic and social pressure, demographic decline, the loss of essential services and increasing security pressures, these communities need targeted and tangible support. Solidarity must be territorial, not rhetorical. Second, the situation of farmers in frontline member states, farmers in countries bordering Ukraine, Russia and Belarus are facing disproportionate pressures. Ensuring a fair distribution of direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy is therefore not a request for privilege, it is a demand for equity. Thirdly, defence and security. The guidelines call for adequate financial support for member states with external EU borders, including resources to strengthen critical infrastructure and support. Necessary border protection measures were justified. Security without territorial resilience is fragile. Territorial resilience without budgetary backing is an empty promise. As I have already said, we are adopting guidelines in a very complicated geopolitical and economic situation. The escalation of conflict in the Middle East is deeply concerning. It can have serious economic, energy, security and humanitarian consequences for Europe and its citizens. For this reason, we call on the Commission to ensure that the 2027 Union budget is prepared to respond to current and future developments in this region.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Colleagues, a central question in this budgetary procedure in general will be the financial room for manoeuvre. What appears at first glance to be around 4.6 billion in available margins is significantly reduced once we account for the increased costs of energy and the deficit under heading seven. In reality, we are left with roughly 1.3 billion of genuine flexibility. This is a very limited space in which to address many legitimate priorities. This is why we call on the Commission to make full and timely use of the commitments and special instruments. Parliament cannot accept a situation in which programmes such as Horizon Europe, Erasmus+ or EU for health are weakened simply to cover interest costs. We also expect transparent and timely information throughout the procedure on all factors affecting budgetary availability. And in the final year of the MFF, we must remain guided by sound financial management. The objective is not spending for the sake of spending, but supporting major and high impact projects that deliver real benefits for our citizens. The EU budget is the most powerful tool this Parliament has to respond to citizens expectations in times of crisis. We must act in the most responsible way, keeping in mind only one priority the interests of Europeans and our union. Allow me to thank the shadow rapporteurs for the constructive spirit of cooperation throughout this process, and I look forward to vote. Final vote. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair. Regarding the transfers, they're non-controversial, so our political group will support them. Thank you.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Are we cruising at the correct speed and does the money reach the beneficiaries? When it comes to the offsetting of appropriations between agencies and operational lines, you are very consistent in both directions. But does it make sense? In every case, you need more staff and you have less money to implement. And when you don't have the stuff yet, you send the preparations back. As in the case of EA, but you have to spend more money with the same level of stuff. How is it possible? Wouldn't a case by case analysis be better, especially if there is some available margin in the respective heading? Could you also provide some additional information about MRF and can it absorb a short term increase? Now going for the revenue side, we now have a budget with surplus of traditional own resources. Can you say more about the background and causality? Causalities of international trade and tariff conflicts in this regard? And the final question on the list, do you have some details on the fines and penalty payments? How are they composed? That's it. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Dear colleagues, first let me sincerely thank our rapporteurs, Angeliki and my fellow shadow rapporteurs and their teams for the hard work that led to this agreement on the 2026 budget, which was finalised by 2:00 in the morning. I would also like to thank Commissioner Seraphin and the Danish presidency for the result. After tough negotiations, we secured a budget of almost 193 billion for 2026, and we reversed the cuts proposed by the council to programmes that citizens know and rely on. That means more support for research and innovation, more money for our use in Erasmus+, stronger EU for health, the European Social Fund plus Creative Europe. It also means more investment in basic infrastructure in our regions. We reinforced funding for workers organisations, civil society and key institutions that provide cybersecurity or protect the rule of law. For a student looking for a scholarship, for a worker who needs training to keep a job for a small town, waiting for a safer road or a modern school building. These are not abstract lines. These are real opportunities and real protection. This budget is never perfect. Any budget is never perfect. But this budget is more social, more future oriented, and more honest about the needs of our citizens in Europe. I would like to say that this deal is good and I invite you to support it. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “(13:53:36 – 14:02:38): Commissioner, thank you for this presentation and for coming to our committee, so soon after your college meeting. This budget will serve as a bridge between the current and the next MFF and is an opportunity to build a robust foundation for the years to come. Therefore, the European Union needs to deliver on the promises we made to the European people. In the context of increased uncertainties and strategic challenges from inside and outside, we need a budget that will deliver prosperity for our citizens, create and protect high quality jobs while leaving no one behind, invest in the green and digital transitions, and what is really important, ensure security. This is what the parliament stated in its guidelines for the 2027 budget adopted with a large majority in the April clean recession. After having only a brief look at the statement of estimates for 2027, I have the following initial statements and also questions. The commission proposes a draft budget that increases the commitments appropriations by 3.5% compared to the budget 2026. It represents 0.99 less than 1 percentage points point of the GNI just a few days before council starts discussing the next MFF numbers. This is clearly not up to the needs. Inflation is growing up again. So in real terms, the EU budget will be stable or even decrease. That's not the message we want to pass to our citizens. The level of the margins is also extremely low, less than €500,000,000. Now we will have to cope to unforeseen events. So how we will be able to cope to unforeseen events or increased needs. And this is not a fictive scenario. We have just received a draft amending budget for 2026 for urgent needs. This is the last budget under the current MFF. We need to use all the possible availabilities in order to deliver. The interest payments are leaving virtually zero room of maneuver to use money to increase programs according to political priorities for cohesion, housing, health, SMEs, and this will clearly affect what can be achieved with the 2027 budget. The aim of the EU budget is not to cover for interest payments. We can see now that the URI repayment costs are estimated at €9,900,000,000 as against €4,980,000,000 in the financial programming, double as planned. The full heading 2b margin is at the moment €519,900,000. When we talk about flexibility instrument, it is €1,900,000,000. If we talk about the commitments made since 2029 under the euro instrument, we're talking about €2,000,000,459,800,000. In the context of EU, so the question is that in the context of euro, can you explain in detail your assumptions for the projected NGU disbursements for 2027? Still, on the yearly calculations, what is your assumption concerning the level of interest rates? Could you also give us an assumption on the liquidity management costs? They severely impact the amount available for other priorities. On which basis did the commission calculate the amount and what is the level of certitude do you have in this amount compared to the final needs? We will continue the unwavering commitment to continue providing financial support to Ukraine. However, the commission mentions that the debt service costs to cover the related borrowing operations are expected to amount €1,150,000,000 in 2027, which the commission proposes to finance entirely through budgetary availabilities. Can the commission explain this rationale? This amount is eating all the flexibilities. Why the commission didn't propose the use of the commitments? And by the way, since the flexibility instruments are completely exhausted and there is no margin in some headings, that means we cannot finance a PPPA under those headings. So then going further on heading by heading. Heading 1 is crucial to ensure EU future growth and competitiveness, but it's decreasing. This is not comprehensible. Heading 2b, Erasmus, is the most popular EU program. The commission has started planning to cut the program's budget since two years ago in order to free margins for Europe and as a program also benefited from internal recoveries. I want to remind everyone that parliament never gave its green light to this change to the financial programming. This is on the table for this year's negotiations. Heading 3, agriculture. We know that technical updates of the budget later can significantly impact budgeted appropriations. The commission says that the amount of assigned revenue for 2027 will be lower than in 2026. Why is that? How can you be so sure in this uncertainty at such an early stage? Heading 5 has €13,000,000 margin, which is not significantly different from zero. This means actually no margin. While security and defense is a priority of the European Union and new initiatives are financed from redeployments, in particular, the redeployment from EDI, which has barely been adopted on the 12/16/2025 with a sharply constrained envelope. Heading 7, external election is a key for Europe to be a global actor. The available margin seems very limited to react in case of any new developments. Ukraine, The Republic Of Moldova, we have all learned that we can only live in safety and stability within the borders of our union if in our immediate neighborhood we were surrounded by countries which are safe and stable. Heading 6 continues to be under unprecedented pressure with only a slight margin available. Needs around the globe in particular when we talk about southern neighborhood, The Middle East, and Africa are tremendous. So the question is, given the very limited sources of funding, how will the European Union live up with its commitments? Another question would be, could the commission clarify the amount of the commitments expected in 2027 meant to compensate the leaner cuts applied across heading 6 programs following the MFF revision? And also, given rising humanitarian needs around the globe, does the commission foresee a recourse to the emergency aid reverse, and if so, for which amount? On payment levels, the situation is more positive as the commission estimates that a substantial increase will be needed in the level of payments reflected a good level of implementation of the per new made year of the current MFF. This is very beneficial for our beneficiaries. So the question is on how the commission deals with the uncertainty of the pace of member states submitting program amendments and payment claims in these last two years of the MFF 2127 in order to avoid a payment crisis in '27. Apart from being the last budget of the current MFF with very limited margins, the budgetary landscape is evolving very quickly. Therefore, it's of the utmost importance that our committee will be informed in a timely, accurate, and comprehensive manner of any and all budgetary developments the commission anticipates compared to what is in the draft budget. In that respect, should we watch some particular program implementation? Do you expect any possible variations or reflows which should be monitored over the coming months and which could further affect the 2027 budget? To conclude, in the final year of the MFF, the objective is not to spend for the sake of spending, but supporting major and high impact projects that deliver real benefits for our citizens. It is also urgent to strengthen Europe's security and defense capability capabilities. Let me also emphasize the need for targeted and tangible support to member states bordering Russia, Belarus, or Ukraine as they face economic, social, and security pressure. As a rapporteur, I'm looking forward to working together with the shadow rapporteurs, with the specialized committees to deliver European Union budget for a stronger and more resilient European Union. And for the parliament, I want us to be united, to be strong in the negotiations with the council. In this challenging context, we'll have a constructive approach during the negotiations. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you. Commissioner, please.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chairman. I would like to thank first of all, Committee of Regions for the clarifications provided on this transfer. The note is taken that the political discussions on the core bus initiatives were and are still ongoing after the submission of the transfer request. And while it's understood that the importance of strengthening outreach to local citizens and welcome initiative communication efforts is important, the fact that the project's scope and implementation arrangements are still being defined raises concerns from a budgetary and responsibility perspective. At this stage, it wouldn't be appropriate to approve this transfer and therefore further information is welcome. And once the details of the revised project are finalized, then we would like to invite the Committee of Regions to resubmit the request at that point. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “So Niels Usakov Nagiova. **Nils Ušakovs (Latvia, S&D): Thank you chairman especially for your patience. Cohesion and agriculture are being nourished in one fund you called it in a very nice diplomatic academic way a trade off. If we go down to municipalities and farmers to me it looks like we've got less money multiplied by new RRF style criteria multiplied by renationalization and to me it seems that quite a few municipalities of farmers will face a budgetary drama and we are hiding this future budgetary drama under the title of reforms and simplification. Could you please say is it good or bad when we're talking about merging cohesion and COP in one fund? And if I may the second question because I'm still on time you mentioned that COP should be reformed which is obviously a great idea. Do you believe that amongst the priorities should be elimination of discrimination of central and eastern European farmers which are still getting paid less and if everyone will be paid less and KAPMA will be smaller and keeping discrimination probably it looks like slightly against the spirit of united Europe. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. I will continue about the Common Agricultural Policy and farmers. We keep on discussing one of the most ambitious reform packages for the European finances in recent history. And among the various reforms being considered, including that of the Common Agricultural Policy. Should we not also prioritize the elimination of discrimination against Central and Eastern European farmers? As you know yourself very well, I presume farmers from the region from Poland, Romania, Hungary are obviously from Latvia face unacceptable differences in direct payments to farmers from the western part of the union. And this disparity becomes even more questionable when we consider the significant geopolitical, social and economic challenges that Central and Eastern Europe is currently facing. Thank you Commissioner.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you. In general, our group is positive with respect to this project, but I still have three questions, if I may. The first one is about the flexibility of the lease and the way EBA can keep it flexible. Since we've got a lease that will be running until 2035. So this is question number one. The question number two is about the exit costs, which are estimated to be €1.29 million, that have to be taken into account when it will be a decision if this decision arrives to move or to stay. And the third question is about the space which is calculated per person. And we see an increase in this space of one person. And the question is that we are dealing right now with the 5400m². Do you have any forecast when this amount of square meters will be no longer enough to keep the team in a comfortable way? The current number of staff or when the staff number is growing. Thank you.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you. Chairman, president. Commissioner. Colleagues, the impact of this file is very concrete in the EU. The EU main tool to help turn good ideas into real projects. A school that wants to renovate its building. A small company that needs a loan to expand. A town that wants to invest in new buses. I support strengthening the EU guarantee and adding €200 million on top of the EUR 1 billion proposed by the Commission. This means more projects can go ahead, including in social infrastructure, and more risk can be taken on innovative investments that banks alone would not finance. We also insist that support goes to real small and medium sized enterprises, not large firms pretending to be small, and that municipalities get practical help to protect to prepare projects for hunt for countries like Latvia. This can mean more renovated homes, more opportunities for young people, SMEs and local authorities. It is especially important that we cut red tape and give clear, stable rules so that smaller towns and social organisations are not left behind. Every euro we mobilise for invest, the EU should create visible change in people's daily lives. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “We would like to invite our colleagues to collectively reflect about how to allocate the flows to help us reach our targets, without increasing pressure on the 2026 and 2027 budgets. In addition, my amendment number 22 sets aside 200 million to reinforce the advisory hub, which plays a critical role in emerging and complex investment areas such as social housing and defence. Furthermore, I call for the establishment of a dedicated European housing facility within Investeu. Such a facility could mobilise capital where markets fail, work closely closely with EIB Group and local actors, and target investments in energy efficient affordable housing. This is about addressing social cohesion, meeting climate targets and responding to real needs on the ground. I would like to invite the other groups to think together about how this facility could work, and what resources would be needed to make it effective. Colleagues, I believe now is the time to defend a clear, evidence based vision for this highly successful programme, which we will definitely support. That's what my amendments aim to provide, and that's the line I intend to hold out for conviction to the investment. You must deliver real impact where it matters most. Thank you.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you for the presentations. Um, during many previous various meetings. Um, and correct me if I'm wrong, the commission is, um, underlying that we prefer to o buildings rather than rent, and the current proportion is 37 that is owned and 63 which is getting rented. Could you please elaborate what would be the target proportion if you had any? And if you have any target proportion? What kind of methodology, research or analysis was used to define this target and if or when this target is achieved, what would it mean for the Commission and the European budget first of all. And also if we use this target, if it is set as a reference point, could you evaluate on the basis of this reference, the current state of the portfolio and how cost effective is it? And if you set as one of the targets improving the quality of the real estate portfolio, is it mainly a financial target or is it target with respect to managerial or wellbeing or aspects of running the commission? And do you see any contradiction between financial targets and managerial wellbeing targets? And finally, one particular question. You mentioned wellbeing facilities. And is it possible to get some examples of recent improvement. How much did it cost and how many employees at the moment can enjoy these improvements. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, Madam President, Commissioner and colleagues. The 2026 EU budget marks key changes. It finally recognises the eastern flank for what it is a strategic necessity. This is not just a win for eastern border member states like my home country, Latvia. It is the only viable path for the stability and development of the entire union. Let us be clear a secure and prosperous eastern flank is a secure and prosperous Europe. This budget starts translating political solidarity into concrete financial decisions. It acknowledges the disproportionate burden carried by eastern border member states and reinforces our collective resilience. And I would like to thank the rapporteur, Angeliki, and my colleagues in the Budget Committee, and particularly those who visited the border region on a special mission this April. The resolution signals a paradigm shift. This House is finally accepting that EU funds can and must be spent on border and security, and we see enhanced support for asylum, migration and Integration Fund. This, in turn strengthens the migration pact, providing essential tools for the return procedures of irregular migrants. This is vital for regions like Latgale, which are confronting weaponised migration head on. We see critical increase in investment in military mobility, which, among other things, may help my home country to complete the Rail Baltica project. This is a strong start, but as we look toward the 2027 budget and the new MFF, we must go further. Both infrastructure is vital, yet we must equally support the ordinary Europeans, municipalities and businesses in the border regions who are absorbing the social and economic fallout of the war. And finally, we cannot preach collective resilience while maintaining a hypocritical discrimination against farmers in Central and Eastern Europe. The next MFF must guarantee equal support for all farmers across the Union. Dear colleagues, dear Rapporteurs André and Mathieu Nemetz, thank you for your work and thank you for the budget and let us have it voted tomorrow at the plenary. Thank you.”
  Asylum & border control