Julien SANCHEZ

Policy topics Julien SANCHEZ is active on

What Julien SANCHEZ has said (71)

• 2025-02-19 “E-000747/2025 Answer given by President von der Leyen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission, the European Court of Auditors, European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) carry out controls, audits, and investigations according to their competences to ensure the protection of the EU budget. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) includes strict controls to prevent serious irregularities, including fraud. The first line of protection of the financial interests of the EU is the national control systems. The Commission checks that Member States fulfil their obligations pursuant to the RRF Regulation 1 and Financing Agreement. The Commission has the right to reduce proportionately the support under the RRF and recover any amount due to the Union budget, in cases of serious irregularities, including fraud, affecting the financial interests of the EU that have not been corrected by the Member State. Commission decisions on reduction of support or recoveries are published with explanation of the facts. Since the start of the RRF, the Commission reported serious irregularities it became aware of to OLAF and, where applicable, the EPPO. By February 2025, 31 cases were reported to OLAF. The Commission was notified by OLAF of 36 cases and by the EPPO of 55 cases. The EPPO informs the Commission of its investigations when the Commission is the reporting entity or to allow it to take appropriate precautionary measures. The Commission provides Members of Parliament with updates on investigations and audits in its Annual Reports, including the Report on the protection of the EU’s financial interests 2 . When publishing information, the Commission balances the need for transparency with the obligation to protect personal data and the need to prevent interference with ongoing investigations. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility, OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17. 2 https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/about-us/reports/annual-reports-protection-eus-financial-interests-pif-report_en”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2025-02-19 “E-000746/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission On 1 January 2021, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) had 343 statutory posts, while on 1 January 2024, it had 313 statutory posts. For 2021, the authorised staff level for the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) amounted to 130 (95 statutory posts and 35 contract agents), while for 2024 it was 289 (232 statutory posts, 28 contract agents and 29 seconded national experts). OLAF’s investigative team on the expenditure side remain organised by geographical area and by management mode. OLAF does not have any employees allocated on a full-time basis to monitor Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) expenditure only. The Commission does not have information on the internal organisation of resources in EPPO. The RRF control framework includes strict mechanisms to protect the EU's financial interests, including preventing, detecting and correcting fraud, corruption, and conflict of interest. Member States are primarily responsible for protecting these interests and ensuring compliance with EU and national law. In cases of serious irregularities affecting EU’s financial interests that have not been adequately corrected by the Member State, the Commission can reduce proportionately the support under the RRF and recover any amount due to the EU budget. Close cooperation with OLAF and EPPO strengthens further the EU capacity to effectively control RRF expenditure.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2024-12-18 “E-003011/2024 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission As indicated in the Commission’s reply to ‘Recommendation 2 – Compile and publish information on the EU’s overall financial landscape’ 1 which was partially accepted by the Commission, the Commission provides comprehensive information, in accordance with the Financial Regulation 2 , on the implementation of the budget and instruments for which the Commission is accountable in a number of reports, such as: the EU consolidated Annual Accounts, the Annual Management and Performance Report (AMPR), working documents attached to the draft budget in accordance with Article 41 of the Financial Regulation and the report prepared based on Article 256 of the Financial Regulation on financial instruments, budgetary guarantees, financial assistance and contingent liabilities. In addition, the Commission compiles, in line with Article 16 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020 3 , an annual report, covering some instruments which are outside the Commission’s remit of reporting, and based on publicly available information 4 . Instruments which are outside the scope of the EU budget, or which do not enter in the accounts of the EU, or, for some, are outside the Treaties, or for which there is no publicly available document, do not fall within the remit of the Commission’s powers to implement the EU budget and are therefore of a very different nature. Due to the different logic of such instruments which are outside of the budget, the Commission has not carried out a simulation as referred to by the Honourable Member. 1 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAReplies/COM-Replies-SR-23-05/COM-Replies-SR-23-05_EN.pdf 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R1046 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020Q1222(01) 4 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2023-budgetary-transparency-report_en”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. On this amending budget number three, we note that there are major weaknesses in responsibility for budgetary management of the Commission. An increase of €2.5 Point €5 billion for payment appropriations. And this is not an improvement in the management. It's going to be costing a lot of money because of the poor anticipation of actual requirements. There's been late, uh, processing. There's been um, um, and, and the money that's been spent has had no impact on migratory flows. Now, there are these exceptional, uh, income, uh, the fines, of course, uh, which have been levied based on, um, irresponsible income. So when by when will the commission aim to have eliminated these ongoing, um, uh, poor budgeting skills? Then there's a live program. We have biodiversity and other requirements that haven't had been subject to proper scrutiny. The citizens are waiting for proper, uh, Analysis of for reasons of economic stability. So we have to get back to budgetary clarity and rigor. Each money, each euro spent has to be justifiable and in the service of Europe and not for bureaucracy. And we are, for that reason, opposed to the majority of the elements of this amending budget number three. Thank you very much.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “We're discussing the next MFF for 2028 to 2038. This MFF can't just be a repeat of the mistakes of the past. What we have here a budget that is not clear. Fragmented by unclear goals and ineffective control. We have €800 billion but can't be scrutinised by the parliament. This has been criticised by the Court of Auditors. A lack of transparency, lack of management and what have you. There are plenty of examples of this. The. Many of them aren't actually serious. Seriously checkable. There is fraud and scrutiny by the Parliament is at a minimum. There is no democratic control of some of these tools. The Commission is controlling how suggesting that this go further by the Commission. However, the report says itself, the current budget is poorly suited to face the challenges of the current age. And that's the reason is because of the majority here in this Parliament. We need to put citizens priorities at the heart of this budget. Now that's why we support. We want agriculture, which would guarantee food security and sovereignty and public health. Another major priority would be competitiveness for businesses. That means giving up the Green Deal, which our president, Mr. Bardella, has called for. The group has suggested that we do the same. The Green Deal is suffocating businesses, putting farmers in a difficult situation and making the cost of living higher. We also need to guarantee the security of our borders and stop mass illegal immigration, which are upending our lifestyles and creating a lifestyle that we're not interested in. Have a referendum, if you will. You'll see the result. People want a European Europe. We want Christian roots. We don't want fundamentalist Islam gaining ground in Europe. But that's what your policies are doing. We need to catch up on I in Europe as well. The MFF also has to respect member states democratic choices, stop conditionality. And in the MFF we would suggest a new own resource. We also need to do away with the error rate of 5.5%. The budget is not being managed properly. Let's not put new taxes on citizens. Why don't we create a European dodge and we'd be happy to do that for you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Mr. president thank you chair. I'd like to start by saying that I'm from the French Patriots group. And we are opposed to this agreement between the EU and Moldova and also opposes to it opposes the pact.”
  EU-Moldova relations
• “What happens? Does the member state get to keep the keep the extra funds. That has been the case in France. There was no revision of the amount paid out, despite the fact that the project came in under budget. So member states are receiving the funding and then they are responsible for the expenditure. And then another question. How is it that the MEPs and European citizens don't have access to the declared spending and the actual spending that should be available online? The danger is that digital transformation will just be a vague intention. So we're choosing struggling projects. There's not any really strategic decision making process. And then on the sampling by the court, you focused on 27 And measures. Do you really think that 27 measures is a significant sample? How many measures are there at the moment? Why not carry out a full and exhaustive sampling exercise? Was it very difficult for you to obtain the data? Did you have to do a lot of. Examinations in order to obtain the information you needed? I'm wondering how difficult it was and if you identified this many problems with 27 sample cases, then I suspect that there are going to be more issues that have been identified by the commission, which is supposed to be monitoring this, and I'm not sure that they have.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you very much. Also to our guest today. I would like to thank you for this interesting work, which I think really does pick up with the position of my group Patriots for for Europe. This is something that we have also noted on the RF. I'd like to thank you for the analysis that you've carried out, and I'd like to look at the conclusions of the report. It seems to us that the RF, which is meant to be the key to economic growth, doesn't actually have enough transparency or rigorous assessment or parliamentary control. It seems to be that the Rdfs, based on indicators at the outset and not really on the impact of financial reforms. How can you justify this €123 billion being spent without any indicators, any clear indicators to enable us to assess their effectiveness? The it's also we also feel it's it's been actually disappointing three years after it's been established. And several countries don't have an informal they have a formal information, information information structure to enable us to actually follow the the payments. How do we know that the funding actually does finance a structural structural investments? If it's not if there's no if there's no trace. The commission evaluates and gives out the funding without any parliamentary control. This, I think, leads to abuse by speculators, by speculators.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Will. Do you understand the basic principles of accounting? The EU does not and has taken on scandalously high levels of debt in recent years, now looking for new own resources to balance its budget. There are plenty of ideas floating around when it comes to taxing companies or citizens. We're talking today about an online gambling and betting tax to finance the European Union. We're familiar with this type of levy in France. We were supposed to receive 100 million in France in one year alone. Now, taxing online gambling is a member state competence. It is an attack on national sovereignty. Do not feed addictions. Try to cut down on duplication. Be more efficient in the way that you spend taxpayers money. You need to show sound financial principles and budgetary management. That's the approach you would expect of households or companies.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to everyone. We've been shown the MFF with the figures for 2025. We're looking at 0.14 percent increase compared to the MFF currently, but 149 million euros we know is already going to reinvestment of debt. What this means is that we've got a budgetary capacity increase of about 0.03 percent of GNI to finance the new priorities. The MFF here is looking at providing debt to future generations. Here, I think two compromises are being made. Firstly, on the CAP, we've gone from 70 percent to around 40 percent here, a 10 percent drop for the CAP. Our farmers are already seeing massive increasing costs and unfair competition and they already, they're losing out in this. In addition to this, we've also got the irresponsible behavior towards Ukraine which is again going to damage the agricultural sector. When we're looking at the NRRP's here, this has been copied from the RRF and these plans put conditions on the payments relating to reforms and rule of law. This is political blackmail. Tomorrow the Commission could immediately suspend the money and this is not a budget. This is measures which are being applied to certain states which the Commission deems to not be behaving properly. Then when we're looking at own resources here, again CBAM, electrical waste, again this is just the Commission disguising what it's trying to do, reducing democratic accountability. We also have to look at the Commission's priorities. We've got 176 million going in one direction, money going to Ukraine. What do we think citizens would think of that? It's also absolutely unacceptable for us to put the CAP and cohesion funds all in one pot when we're talking about money that's going to outermost regions. Here, measures have already been taken, promises were made, now it seems that we're going back on that. I think we have to be very careful what we're doing here. We are sacrificing the CAP and we're not going to be helping our farmers or protecting our citizens. I think this is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set. It's something that we shouldn't accept. We should be asking for greater budgetary control instead. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair colleagues member of the court. We're looking at the proposal for tracking. Uh the Objective is to simplify and standardize the rules, but by closely reading 1026 of the court, it looks like this simplification. Simplification may have an impact on rigor and a performance. Nearly 25% of fields don't have any result indicators. This is a significant proportion of the budget which could be executed without measuring the effects, and so we may not be able to follow what we've achieved and the efficiency of the financial policies. There's no impact indicator planned, but without this we are bound to be weakened in the future. And how can we prove that European funds produce lasting change if we don't have the tools to measure them? When it comes to climate, the court has alerted us to the overestimation of indicators. This is mentioned previous in the previous MFF. If it doesn't truly reflect the reality of expenditure, we may not have a real guarantee on the actual contribution. We've also heard about the absence of a clear framework for performance, data and responsibility. It's not. There's not enough. If there's not enough strictures, we risk losing our legitimacy and the credibility of the union. There's also the Fra, and there are increasing number of weaknesses that are still not being resolved. And so we need to work focus, focus on the results. And so first question why give up on these indicators. These impact indicators are essential to really measure the achievements that are made. How can we ensure the comparability of data in the absence of any clear accountability and control. And final question when we're coming to resilience and recovery, how can we avoid reproducing a model that only looks at implementation rather than actual efficiency? And this may lead to a weakening in our standards. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Well, if there's one area where the EU is constant, I must admit it's when it comes to the budget every year. Uh, you know, the budget 2026 is a scandal and an absolute disgrace. A disgrace because it's crazy. According to the Court of Auditors, we are borrowing has gone up 30% and could go up to €900 billion, which is ten times the 2020 budget before next generation EU was launched after Covid. It's not thought through. It will be a text book, a model of what not to do in schools one day. Now this is going to weigh on taxpayers until 2028. The budgetary manoeuvre for the EU is limited as well. It's a scandal because these irresponsible debt levels will also expect expenditure instead of cutting bad spending along ideological lines, which we suggest you're cutting. Support agriculture, border security, competitiveness of our companies. What is worse is that you're adding rules and standards to the Green Deal. You want new taxes, including on companies. He called them hypocritically own resources, and my group rejects them. The Court of Auditors has a tolerance of 3.6% in expenditure. That's 115 billion. Incredible. Now, the Patriots for Europe have tabled a quarter of the amendments in relation to budget 2026. And we want a clear vision, a budget that concentrates on the priorities of citizens. And we want to do away with useless expenditure. Now you'll vote on these amendments. Does the ECR, EPP and Patriots. That's an alternative majority. And if they're not voted through then you'll be putting forward a socialist budget and will vote against. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “The commission's not collecting information about the actual costs. That means it's impossible to actually assess it. The RR, um. Are not subject to the same rules when it comes to tendering and so on. So that means that it is open to Two problems here as well. So you have these investigations open by the Court of Auditors and Olaf and the EPPO. So what does it take then? How much longer is it going to take for the commission to stop closing its eyes to the way in which the taxpayers money is being used, because it's going to be the future generations. You're going to have to pay for this. And they're looking at this sovereign state and they've got these policies. And then there are lots of different problems. The problems exist, problems have been identified, and the final beneficiaries are all involved, not just a simple.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Yes. Thank you very much, commissioners. Now, if you look at the iRF, it looks like it's really just a failed improvisation if you want to focus on the actual implementation of the payments. But also if you look at the main beneficiaries, I don't think those really are even the biggest problems. I actually submitted a written question on this. And what specific additional measures have you put into place in order to ensure the controls on the use of these funds? Remember, we're talking about some €723 billion, and so the checks should be commensurate with the funds being disbursed. On the questions of fraud that have been identified now, we don't have a specific list. So excuse me, Mr. Sanchez, there seems to be a problem with the interpretation. There's no interpretation of Italian. So could you start over, please, Mr. Sanchez? Okay, so you'll put my timer at zero. So good evening, commissioners. Now we understand the aims of the RF, but really it is a question of failed improvisation. If you look at the accounting, you're looking mainly at implementation and the list of final beneficiaries. And that's all very good. But that's not the biggest problem. I actually submitted a question on this in writing about the specific, clear additional measures you put into place into checking the spending of these money. Remember, €723 billion is the amount that we're dispersing. And so the checks should be commensurate with the actual amounts disbursed. And that's not the case with respect to the fraud cases that have been identified. When are we going to be getting a list that will allow us to have proper controls of this and identify errors so that we don't repeat them? And thirdly, does the Commission have direct access to the difference to the invoicing of the projects that have been completed? Or do we simply trust the member states on receiving this information? Now they're of course, playing two roles because they're supposed to receive the funding from the EU, but also disperse that funding in their member states. So how can you avoid a conflict of interest? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “So this is a debate on the first 100 days of the commission. We voted against your nomination. So we are merely comforted by what we see here in the first 100 days. We've basically done nothing. Yes. You, um. Uh, it's perhaps it's because you've emptied the coffers because they are empty, perhaps because you're trying to find a new own resources by creating new taxes or asking for contributions from member states based on their GDP. The Patriots for Europe opposes this. We want to see an end to the irresponsible behavior, such as the money you are giving to Moldova. Most of it is not will not be reimbursed. Europe is behind in all areas when it comes to controlling Islamists, it's deindustrializing. Parliament shouldn't just be in the hands of the left and the environmentalists. We want to see more budgetary control. We want to improve our competitiveness by simplifying, rather than creating additional laws that are actually destroying our real economy and hindering our competitiveness.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you, Madam Chairman and Mr. Chairman. We've seen In many Court of Auditors reports. They bring up all sorts of commission and other scandals. This is about the strategic investments in the wake of the 2007 2008 financial crisis put in place 2015. So nearly ten years later. The 500 billion hasn't been spent. There's been all sorts of problems with, uh, spending. There's been fraud and gross, uh, uh, cooking of the books. And I think the Court of Auditors, when they say these things, we have a right to believe them. The conditionality hasn't been properly proven. We're not sure that the aims of the fund are being respected. We shouldn't be handing out all of this money. There needs to be proper democratic scrutiny. We're betraying the citizens. The commission should be called to account. And Parliament should play its role of guardian of the general interest.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “But rural areas in Europe are already fragile and therefore they risk economic and social desertification. So what would you do to avoid that type of catastrophe? And under the recommendations in your study, what kind of measures would you suggest to current farmers so that they can remain competitive and so that we can have a lively rural areas? Shouldn't we as a priority, have direct support to farmers rather than reconversion, which is what you seem to suggest. Food sovereignty is of essential importance to Europe, in particular for reasons of public health, and it's something we need to defend. So, you know, talking about competitiveness in this area, the way you do does a disservice to our farmers. And then on next generation that's financed through common debt on the market, that means that there is a colossal financial responsibility when it comes to both the principal and interest. How do you justify in this context, then, your proposal to create a specific permanent instrument, which will be a burden on net contributor countries, and it reduces the transparency and also imposes additional costs on European taxpayers.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Yes, Madam Chair. I'm very happy that we have a female chair for today's meeting. Thank you to the speakers for their study. Inflation is out of control, and that brings pressure to bear on the European agricultural sector. Now, inputs in particular fertiliser and fuel prices have gone up because of the volatility of energy prices. We also know that the EU is guilty, of course, in this business of energy prices. Hiking now 23% of Indian military costs are covered by the cap, and that's now gone down to 90% in 2022. And it's difficult for farmers to have security of supply. There's also the Eu-mercosur Association agreement. Do you see that as an additional threat for the agricultural economy in the EU? There are massive imports of low cost agricultural products. The environmental and social conditions that are in play in those countries are not the same as in the EU. It's alarming really. This is unfair competition and it will lead to downward pressure on prices. And it means that farmers will no longer be able to invest and innovate. When it comes to the recommendations, you say that a rural development plan looking at productive job creation could correspond to the needs of the people that are leaving the sector.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. Chair colleagues member of the court. We're looking at the proposal for tracking. Uh the Objective is to simplify and standardize the rules, but by closely reading 1026 of the court, it looks like this simplification. Simplification may have an impact on rigor and a performance. Nearly 25% of fields don't have any result indicators. This is a significant proportion of the budget which could be executed without measuring the effects, and so we may not be able to follow what we've achieved and the efficiency of the financial policies. There's no impact indicator planned, but without this we are bound to be weakened in the future. And how can we prove that European funds produce lasting change if we don't have the tools to measure them? When it comes to climate, the court has alerted us to the overestimation of indicators. This is mentioned previous in the previous MFF. If it doesn't truly reflect the reality of expenditure, we may not have a real guarantee on the actual contribution. We've also heard about the absence of a clear framework for performance, data and responsibility. It's not. There's not enough. If there's not enough strictures, we risk losing our legitimacy and the credibility of the union. There's also the Fra, and there are increasing number of weaknesses that are still not being resolved. And so we need to work focus, focus on the results. And so first question why give up on these indicators. These impact indicators are essential to really measure the achievements that are made. How can we ensure the comparability of data in the absence of any clear accountability and control. And final question when we're coming to resilience and recovery, how can we avoid reproducing a model that only looks at implementation rather than actual efficiency? And this may lead to a weakening in our standards. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “And so it's difficult to see whether this is being carried out correctly. I think it's important that we have a clear control, direct control over these funding, because there is a conflict of interest for member states who are managing these funds directly. So we need to have direct access to the the bills that are being presented after certain projects have been concluded that we need to see what the actual, uh, what the actual payments were, because otherwise we're relying on declarations from member states. How does the Commission intend to to limit this, uh, this, um, conflict of interest, given that the the member states are both giving receiving these European funds, and they're also meant to be checking the disbursement of these funds in their own country. It's amazing to see this type of this type of conflict of interest. So I think there are lots of things that we need to work on here. And my conclusion is that we shouldn't simply accept that the RF system can be should be duplicated, and could be as a method that can be used concerning other funds in the future. I believe that we need to make sure that the Parliament and this committee is able to control our expenditure, and I think we need to re-appropriate this system. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Chair. Thank you. Some of the elements in the amending letter raise concerns about the long term viability of our finances. And the union next gen is at €7.87 billion for 2026. And that shows that there is more and more common debt, as pointed out by Echa in its annual report for 2024. This means that we have long term budget vulnerability in the union. It's an alarming analysis. Eu debt could go above €900 billion by 2027, whereas servicing debt could be €30 billion for the 2021 2027 period, which is more than the double of expected. It could even get to €74 billion by 2028 2034. In the future, a lot of our budget will be absorbed by the repayment of this debt. So that means regions and agriculture will pay the price. So we can't deny this reality. We're living beyond our means in the union and this jeopardizes the very sustainability of the EU budget. However, we welcome what's happening with the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. Alas, we think that there is not enough spending on farming. Farming is of the utmost importance. It's about our food sovereignty, our rural territories, and about ensuring a decent living for our farmers. At the same time, debt is going up. While that happens, we must remember that the cap, the Common Agricultural Policy, is one of the EU's main policies, and we must continue to develop the cap, because if we lose our farming, we cannot bring it back. Thus, we must show wisdom. We must. We must have less debt. We must remember that those who work on our land are the ones who keep it alive.”
  Agricultural funding · Size of EU budget
• “The Socialist group thought it was important to have a debate on discrimination here today. I have not heard anybody thinking that this is a useful debate we all agree on. Quite the contrary. There are people who are claiming all kinds of things who are claiming that they are fighting discrimination, but they are actually perpetrating it. Many people talk about positive discrimination, wanting to give additional rights to people from minorities or certain areas. This is not positive either. I believe in meritocracy and that is not discrimination. I was a mayor for ten years in France, and I had to tackle the socialist leader for ten years through the courts in order to defend a case on discrimination brought against me. Eventually, the Court of Human Rights dismissed it. Here you are simply pursuing all kinds of taboos, dreaming up all kinds of rules so that the third biggest group emerging from the elections has no chairmanships of groups, and the left is discriminated in favour of despite its position on anti-Semitism. It is absolutely unacceptable that you continue to defend your firewall.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Colleagues, the DAB two for 2025, uh, shows quite a concerning trend. The commission is setting out as a simple technical update of expenditure and income, but actually it entails a significant increase of Contributions based on member state GDP. More than 4.3 billion in comparison with DAB one from 2025. At the same time, additional own resources uh, TVA sorry. Vat and unrecycled practice. Uh unrecycled. Practice plastic. Sorry are going down. And, um, this is going to impact on taxpayers who will have to make up the deficit that is symptomatic of what's happening in the EU. Uh, counting more and more on national contributions. Uh, DAB two also has additional contributions for the Economic and Monetary Union Union. Um, since Bulgaria will now be, um, acceding and measures to fight money laundering. This is not the budgetary discipline that we want to see, but additional, um, dependency on member states. We don't accept this way of thinking. The the EU can't continue to ask for more money from budget from member states and citizens. It's already places too much of a burden on the European taxpayer, and the European budget procedure lacks transparency and respect for sovereignty of member states. Finally, we're going to table a number of amendments for the 2020 budget. We hope there'll be adopted, and we hope that we'll have additional room for manoeuvre for the 2020 budget like we have currently on this Dab2 for 2025.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you very much. Thank you very much for presenting this study. I really want to understand the specifications that were given to you. If I were I don't want to criticize the study. I want to perhaps criticize the Technical specifications that you were given. You talk about the Drudge Report and the letter report and then the MF, but it would be interesting to take a critical approach to these reports. First of all, what is your opinion on the Drudge Report? What is your opinion on the letter report? Which one do you think is the most relevant? If one were to choose between the two? I'd be interested in knowing your opinion, because there's mention of a financial envelope and that's trying to be included. There are attempts to include that under the MF. Now. Before we become more ambitious in budgetary terms, let us monitor and control the money that is being spent nowadays in a better way. There are structural flaws and weaknesses when it comes to monitoring, to assessing performance, and we haven't sorted out these problems yet. So we're trying to boost expenditure, but we haven't solved the. Budget management issues. Now, you talked about these limited sectors that account for 50% of actions. And I think this shows that it's not just the level of investment that's important, but what our priorities are or should be.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Mr. president. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just picking up on what Mr. Deutsch said, my excellent colleague. Let me add a French voice. Farmers are really worried about this multiannual financial framework, as has been announced. And I'm going to be echoing those concerns also for the, uh, for the most regions. But I'm going to focus on, um, Josette, um, uh, rapporteur and particularly for own resources. We're particularly concerned because these new own resources we're against. That's the next topic on the agenda, says the chair. Own resources. All right. I'll finish then on the CFP, quite apart from agriculture and the Furthermost regions, the thing in the proposal that worries us is the centralising tendency. The centralising aspect of it is quite clear. We've noted it. And what you've put in for the CFP budget, it seems that there's a poor management of of the EU budget. What about the next generation? Well, we've got own resources, the next topic, but it seems to me does need to be talked about. And before we're talking about we need to talk about the receipts, the income side. Sorry. And that uh, quite apart separately from the budget.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Vice president, Commissioner. Dear colleagues. Now, this RF fund was launched five years ago. It was presented as something urgent for the economy to recover. The biggest instrument created by the union around, um, 640 billion. Now we see a a low, um, disbursement rate. The deadline, of course, is the 30th of September next year. I'm wondering why this message of urgency has not been communicated earlier, whereas, um, there have been difficulties achieving milestones, delays in payments. All these have been pointed out by the prosecutor's office, the Court of Auditors, by the commission itself. And then there's the issue of the protection of the financial interests of the union. The Commission says it has no legal basis allowing it to audit or verify the quality of data transmitted by member states for the common indicators. Now, in this context. How can you make sure that there is reliable monitoring when the data is based on national declarations almost exclusively? The states don't have to fill in the software program created for this purpose. And let me recall that on traceability, the prosecutor's office is dealing with 311 investigations at €2.8 billion related to the Arc. And I must say, it is vital that the dialogue gives us precise answers about controls, audits and data reliability. We're talking about €6.48 billion, and parliamentarians do need to have information on the final beneficiaries. We've only got information on the 100 biggest ones per state and that's not acceptable.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “That seems to me to be a fairly basic. We have to adapt our spending to the resources that we have. I would have thought that was elementary. So a number of questions arise on this point. Rather than creating new resources, which are then going to have an effect on household spending and business spending and on individuals as well, shouldn't we have a think about some of our spending and whether that's worthwhile? Here I'm talking about once outside the EU's competences providing aid for accession countries pre-accession schemes as well. These are things which we think are simply, well, pointless. And then there's the error rates in the spending as well. Here I'm talking about budgetary controls there. We've got 5.6% of our spending from the EU budget, which falls under the error rate. So there's a huge margins there. Of the European budget. But we can't use that because we can't carry we can't keep checks going on our budget properly now. So when it comes to spending, shouldn't we be thinking about the income first of all. And we shouldn't be spending money that we do not have. And we should also be thinking about better managing the money that we have. And we could set up a doge, perhaps the one like the one in the US. We could set one up in the European Union.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Is here. It's not. So thank you very much, chair. I won't go back over past fiascos of the European Commission in terms of buildings, but I just like to go on the base of the annual working document for 2025. First, the amounts indicator are very high. €141.7 million for building expenditure in 2025. That raises an essential question are these investments proportionate to the real needs of the service? Where are the cost benefit analysis which would justify such sums? So more than 100 refurbishment and or projects are on the agenda is on page 35. And this multiplication of projects. Gives a sense of budgetary overrun without a long term, clear and consolidated budget strategy. Having been presented, the Parliament, the Court of Auditors and our citizens want more US cost consciousness because these are expenses which are not very intelligible and defensible. And the persistent lack of interinstitutional coordination is concerning. Each institution has its own projects, and you have overlaps and duplication and a lack of strategic coherence. This fragmentation damages the credibility of the whole European system. So how can one justify this expenditure when the member States are being required to exercise budgetary discipline? So that's the commission. What are the performance indicators for its building policy? What return on investment is expected? According to what assessment method? And I'd like to reassure the European Commission that the European Parliament is not setting a great example, because it's going to spend €450 million on this back project, which is completely nuts financially, and which is by no means setting a good example. And I have the same question as Mr. Chazelle on the rental buildings, and I'd like to know what the strategy is. What is the benefit of all of this? And on the working conditions, the individual offices are still best for our offices for officials, and shared offices often cause difficulties at work and so less effective, less effectiveness in terms of work and less efficiency. And this this should be setting an example and showing a budget transparency that will we ask for the Patriots. Thank you.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “(10:14:15 – 10:17:40): Can be tracked via satellite. During routine monitoring in 2020, investigators at EJF noticed two vessels fishing for tuna in the Atlantic without the proper authorization. And when we dug deeper, we discovered behaviors that suggested the vessels and their wider network were attempting to avoid any oversight of their fishing operations. All fishing vessels are required to sail under the flag of a nation and, in theory, abide by the laws of that state. But for a period of time, the fleet went stateless, illegally sailing under no flag at all, a ghost fleet hiding in plain sight on the high seas. To peel back the fleet's cloak of anonymity, EJF located former crew members, interviewing them at their homes in Indonesia. While the fleet exploited vulnerable crew, fished illegally, and finned sharks, they were able to smuggle high value catch into some of the most lucrative markets in the world despite having no authorization and no real flag. As well as near nonexistent controls in many of the ports they visited, the opacity of the global fishing industry was also key to the vessel's success. While EJF attempted to raise the alarm, the owners re-registered the vessels under a new flag, switched ID codes mid voyage, and we also obtained photos clearly showing the bright white paint that had been used to rename the vessels. The fleet also employed illegal transfers of fish at sea to a complex network of collecting vessels, a classic method that illicit operators used to cover their tracks. But eventually, the net closed in on the fleets, and they could run no longer. Following EJF's alerts, the vessels are now blacklisted from operating in vast swathes of the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. Recently, investigators found these images of one of the vessels beached in Pakistan. We believe that now cut off from significant revenue streams, the owners have been forced to scrap the vessel and sell its parts. While this is success, it's one illegal vessel among thousands. It's not how we will stop illegal fishing worldwide. To stop these destructive fleets for good, we need a fishing sector built on transparency. Simple measures such as promoting data sharing between nations and making vessel license information, records of violations, and ownership details publicly accessible will help protect our ocean from these destructive fleets, preserving the critical ecosystems that sustain life on Earth.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you. Chair. Just concerning this CARE cohesion action for refugees in Europe is complete failure when it comes to transparency in budgetary terms. More than €17 billion were set aside for this. There's an unacceptable amount of overview here, and it really suggests the budget to all sorts of risks. To be frank, I'm fed up to see every time this fund a fund comes along, the commission acts and then starts thinking about it afterwards. This is public money and is quite serious to see this across the board and all the funds we're talking about here. Every time we see the same spectacle and every time we hear, oh yes, yes, but we'll make sure next time it'll be different. That's not what we're asking. We're asking you to think before you start these programs, and to look at the way that public money is being spent. We do note that the Commission cannot establish how this fund has been used. Exactly. They recognize that they do not have consolidated vision of the amounts financed, nor the the programs themselves. So we're talking about taxpayers money being spent without anybody being able to appraise its impact.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much on the modification of the establishment plan, were in favor because you're not increasing the number of staff members. However, we're against the budget amendment because it's only the beginning of May, and I'm surprised that expenditure that could have been forecast was not. You're talking about documents for 2026. Usually this is an amount that you're aware of. So why are you asking for this amount of money in May. And the same applies for the buildings shared by the Corps and the EEC. So 350 900 €0 at the beginning of May is a request just shows that the plans were not done properly. Thank you, Mrs. Keller.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “I'd like to start by stressing that the French delegation of the Patriots for Europe is strongly opposed to the accession of Moldova to the EU and to the enlargement to the Balkans and Ukraine, because they would not be net contributors to the EU budget. And this would be a disaster for the Cap and for European farming in particular. And it would also be an issue for public health, given the quality of the products from these countries where there is unfair competition, they would not be able to meet the criteria for joining and then there would not be using the EU resources efficiently. There in Moldova, you've got €1.6 billion for 2026 to 2027, and then they were getting a lot of subsidies that were not going to be repaid, and then it would be 1.5 billion, and then you have 35 billion for the credits. And that is a figure which would be a huge burden on the EU budget. It raises a lot of questions. There are issues about the waste of EU resources. Member states are fighting to fund their own priorities in terms of the society and the economy. So why would we be asking EU citizens to fund these Non-repayable loans? And this would be for countries which have a GDP of 29% of what you have in the EU, Moldova would not be in a position to repay its loans. It needs to do major reforms. They are far from meeting the climate objectives. There's a lack of control for those funds and that means there is a risk of mismanagement or abuse. There is the need for reform, but there has been no credible proof to suggest that they would achieve this in a transparent, effective May. And I will conclude by saying that Europe has too much money from what it would seem here, but that is not true. The French delegation in the Patriots would say that this is an irresponsible waste of public funds, and it means that it could actually increase the divide between the EU and its citizens. Thank you.”
  EU enlargement
• “You have one minute. Thank you very much, chairman. Thank you. I just wanted to come back to the renovation project that was approved in 2024. Actually, under the previous term. So we have over 300 million for the actual renovation work. But we are seeing in 2027 we'll see over 50 million for work. But these are not actually part of the 2027 budget. Operational. Operational work will be will be funded by loans. But there is a user contract for eight years covering a figure of 30 million. How can we justify €105 million for long term. A long term project of the Parliament when there is a call for budgetary discipline. And how can we ensure proper transparency on all of the costs which the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for?”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Mr. President. Thank you. Chair. Now, we've had a report from the court on the roof and it is rather alarming. So we have a large amount of money which has been allocated by the end of 2024. The RF is the largest facility ever created by the European Union. We're talking about 724 billion. And yet there are all sorts of questions. So the report of the Court of Auditors is looking at the digital transformation element. And that is at least 20% of national plans. Yes, that's true, but they haven't been strategically focused on the issues identified by member states. So there are member states which have allocated billions of euros in areas where they were already doing very well. So that is effectively wasted Spending. The results have not been as great as hoped, but all of the payments have been made without any adjustments being made or without any explanations being required. So we're paying billions out based on an administrative procedure, without any guarantees that the projects will actually be completed. The court also highlights the ineffectiveness of the indicators, which are too vague. They're not focused on European objectives, and sometimes they're not even consistent. So given all of that, I've got a number of questions for the commission. First of all, how do you justify making these massive payments without any ex post inspections or assessments of the actual costs? And then there's been let's take the case where there's been a project which has been declared as being 1 billion and it comes in well under budget.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Sorry to the interpreters. What about the corrective measures. And then the document talks about 9% of youth services being involved in co-location. This when we talk about, um, sharing this to most with member states and other EU institutions, what KPIs are applied to this kind of real estate policy? What measures have been taken to go into the proper use of public funds. European citizens have the right to expect institutions to be transparent and also to.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chairman. I would just like to express how shocked I am. Given the buildings policy from the eeaS. According to the 2025 Work Working document. We have 175 buildings, over 200, um, many, many, many square meters. €2 million. €16,000. For parents and employees. Just for the infrastructure of rented offices. Now, we really do require rigorous justification for this kind of expenditure. There are also 75 delegations that have um, um, have exceeded the threshold. And the situation shows that the efforts to streamline things have been insufficient. What strategy is there to reduce this overcapacity? What kind of corrective measures will be taken? Secondly, there's the co-location rate of only 9% of useful services.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you. For for 25 that transfer. We don't want to encourage bad management. Once again it shows the capacity of the European Parliament to anticipate and manage these expenditure. There are huge misinformations. 600,000. Twice. Twice over about 1.2 million, an increase of up to 80% in the justifications. There's a program for mobility to to help people in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg and offices in the member states to use public transport. There's a 90% contribution for subscriptions in Brussels. That's more than forecast in 24, you can't estimate to the tune of 600,000. What will be the response to a program? So there's a program just launched and there's a gap between 600,000 with what was forecasted and what emerged by May. And for the removal costs. 640,000 more by May. When it comes to these works on spec, up to a sum of 450 million, we're against that. And we reject these four transfers because it's all totally opaque and unrealistic.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you. Dear colleague Julian Sanchez, thank you president. Thank you to each speaker for your very clear Explanations here. It's not process of intention. I think we'll have time to speak about this in the coming and all these files in the coming weeks and months. I would like to draw your attention to certain points. Of course, the administration is not responsible. These are elected officials who a vote. It's a commission. Who decides? I would like to raise one concern on Parliament's budget, which is the waste of public money due to the works at spark. I'd like to draw your attention to this. I know it's been discussed by those in the previous mandate, but we're talking about over 4500 million. It's a lot for this budget, and I think that there are other solutions. We could have rationalized the different sites. We've got sites in Strasbourg, in Brussels, in Luxembourg. And I think bringing everything together in Strasbourg could have avoided these very costly works. And they're not something that we can defend to the taxpayers. The same for the Europa Experience centers, which are useless in the digital era we're in. Having these centers where we talk about Parliament's activity, it's just a small number of people living in cities visiting these centers is completely pointless. And it's a waste of spending in terms of personnel, security, buildings, or just one criticism on the portal. Since recently we haven't been able to attach documents. It hasn't been accessible. This hasn't been corrected. And finally, a personal opinion on general costs. I think we could all improve from having things a little bit more, a little bit stricter and having clearer ideas of permitted and forbidden spendings. Are there any rules on this? This is a personal opinion. I know that the administration shares this. Thank you. Thank you. Are there anybody else who would like to take the floor? I don't see anyone. And so I'll give the floor back to the director. I could have answered as a member of the bureau, but I won't take on this responsibility. Yes.”
  EP seat in Strasbourg
• “And this can is actually to the detriment of this program at European level. Now, this really is a matter of concern because the Commission is trying to generalize this system, this new system. And I think we need to refuse to go down that lane. I want to take things further than you did. I think that everything is being done by the European Commission to make things more opaque, to make sure that they are or are is actually is not transparent. And so that we cannot control what's being done, given the amounts of money that we're talking about. This is unacceptable to the tax holders, taxpayers. Now, I was a mayor for some time at home, and as a mayor we have constant control over our finances. And here with the RF, there is no control over this huge sum of money. I raised a number of questions to the commission about this very subject, because the Commission does always say that it's member states. It's up to the member states. So the member, the commission is actually doing nothing here because they are leaving the member state in a situation where they are in a clear conflict of Conflict of interest where they are, judge and, uh, where they are deciding on the funds and actually, uh, being, being being examined.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair colleagues member of the court. We're looking at the proposal for tracking. Uh the Objective is to simplify and standardize the rules, but by closely reading 1026 of the court, it looks like this simplification. Simplification may have an impact on rigor and a performance. Nearly 25% of fields don't have any result indicators. This is a significant proportion of the budget which could be executed without measuring the effects, and so we may not be able to follow what we've achieved and the efficiency of the financial policies. There's no impact indicator planned, but without this we are bound to be weakened in the future. And how can we prove that European funds produce lasting change if we don't have the tools to measure them? When it comes to climate, the court has alerted us to the overestimation of indicators. This is mentioned previous in the previous MFF. If it doesn't truly reflect the reality of expenditure, we may not have a real guarantee on the actual contribution. We've also heard about the absence of a clear framework for performance, data and responsibility. It's not. There's not enough. If there's not enough strictures, we risk losing our legitimacy and the credibility of the union. There's also the Fra, and there are increasing number of weaknesses that are still not being resolved. And so we need to work focus, focus on the results. And so first question why give up on these indicators. These impact indicators are essential to really measure the achievements that are made. How can we ensure the comparability of data in the absence of any clear accountability and control. And final question when we're coming to resilience and recovery, how can we avoid reproducing a model that only looks at implementation rather than actual efficiency? And this may lead to a weakening in our standards. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, chairman. Colleagues. Updating the financial programming for 2027 is in line with some perhaps questionable political choices. We have the budgetary margins that have been almost exhausted, and the SMEs and the agricultural sector aren't covered enough. The life, um, um, commitment obligations 845 million compared to 113 in 2026, so that is a net increase despite significant budgetary restrictions. Now, when it comes to heading three, the environment resources have gone down to 45.1 million in 2027. So very little reaction capacity. Farmers are being exposed to significant increases in production costs, and their incomes are being put under pressure. Yet their driver of the European economy and they need to be able to access stable, predictable funding and competitiveness and food security aren't covered enough in this. There's been successive revisions of life, and this shows that the programming has been unstable and unpredictable. Have a few questions we'd like to ask the Commissioner. How do you justify the continued increases of commitments? Of obligations for the. For life under heading three. What specific measures will allow us to see that the 845 million will give. Proportional benefits for European taxpayers. And finally, how do you justify the consolidation of funding for Moldova and. External action. Yet internal budgetary margins are almost zero. We get the impression that the budgetary priorities are far from what the economic reality of Europe is.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chairman. I'd like to thank the rep of the two Jews for being here. I was lucky enough to visit. I'm only a few kilometers away because I'm a representative of the Gard region. So thank you very much for your comments. We're here in the budgetary control committee, so I will be making comments linked to accounts. The Court of Auditors, first on the Jew for Iter, has said that the total cost of the contributions to the Iter project was €25.8 billion at 2024 prices. This new estimate is based on reference bases that have been revised proposed in July of 2024, but that have not yet fully been approved. Finally approved by the board, 45% of the cost of construction has been committed. Obviously, to that is added in additional inflation of €246 million linked to a disturbance in the geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions. Again, according to the court, I have several requests for clarifications. First of all, how can you ensure the reliability and mastery of these new cost estimates? Secondly, what specific mechanism is designed to reinforce the budget forecast ability in the to commit to the exact nature of the forecast. Secondly what sort of mechanism is there to ensure the critical supply chain in the supply chain? And then the high performance computing. If there's a supplier that's in difficulty with a potential exposure of €88.4 million. There's also an implementation rate of that's very low. The Digital Europe programme only 19% in 2024 due to the redeployment of resources to the artificial intelligence pillar, which is also an important issue. But what sort of guarantees can you give us in terms of securing the preliminary payments already made? And how can you ensure that they reach the higher contributions from private members, which have been identified as a structural risk by the court? Well, thank you for the work that has been achieved already by these two Jews. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Mr. president thank you chair. Well maybe just on C5 2025 transfer request, we can see it's linked to the Sparc renovation that's going to cost half a billion. Um, we're looking at works here that are called preparatory works for conference facilities. I was just looking at the installation of video conferences in the Spinelli Spinelli rooms for video conferencing in the salons. Maybe you could just give us some more information on that. Thank you.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• “Does that make sense? There are far more than 100 beneficiaries in total. If there is a conflict of interest, who is in charge of checking that? When the states have a great deal of funds that they can allocate, there could be a conflict of interest there. I was in Latvia with some of my colleagues Recently, we asked the Court of Auditors about the functioning of the RF and a number of specific questions in that area, and we didn't get any response to our questions. Are you surprised by this understanding that it is the national bodies which are supposed to be overseeing this expenditure? And my final question, we get the impression that the European Commission doesn't really want to combat fraud, because once again, I asked miss von der Leyen about the control of and the means that were given to Olaf with the RF. It was 800 billion that were placed into the RF and controlling all of that, checking all of that constantly or just a little bit of extra resources isn't a serious proposal. It's not consistent. In your opinion, how much staff really would have been necessary to really properly control and oversee and check all of that? It's 800 billion, after all. So that was my question I wanted to ask about digital, by the way, I just want to say that I agree with you that that is a way forward. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair colleagues. I thank the rapporteur for his work on this file. But this group, our group is against this, both in terms of content and in terms of the budget. This is support for asylum migration and integration. Some €12 billion from 2028 to 2030 for an increase in comparison to the previous period. Our public finances are under pressure, so it's difficult to justify such an increase, particularly as it's European taxpayers who will be footing the bill. For years, European migratory policies have led to growing tensions in our societies. There's pressure on public services, difficulties with integration, lack of safety in many places and our way of life has changed. But what is put forward here is to increase money for integration, asylum and migration. We think we should instead spend this money on EU priorities which are currently being neglected, such as strengthening our external borders, including with physical infrastructure, support for SMEs, farming research and investment, research and innovation. Excuse me. Our group is clear. We need to clamp down on migrant flows, and we shouldn't just spend more money without tangible outcomes. We want Europe to be European. That's why we will be tabling amendments and we will not support this current proposal. Thank you.”
  Asylum & border control
• “The annual Ombudsman's report for 2024 confirms a problem. We've been pointing out for years a lack of transparency within the European Commission. There are many examples enduring problems in selecting staff at by so Many candidates have complained about unequal treatment and lack of transparency. Management of some subsidies is not transparent. It's difficult to get clear information on the use of public money. There are the revolving doors when the commissioners go back into the private sector, which show clear cases of conflict of interests in the EU institutions. We've also seen sensitive issues, like access to documents, that some commission decisions required Ombudsman's action in order to make public information that should always have been public. And I won't even get into the issue of FISA gate. The situation is unacceptable in a number of issues. The Ombudsman had to say that the EU has to be as transparent as possible. The decisions are not just administrative decisions. When we have no transparency, then democratic control disappears and this Parliament is unable to exercise its scrutiny of the spending of public money. Eu Financial interests 2024. Transparency is not an administrative luxury. It's the first guarantee against abuse, irregularities and poor management of EU funds. I hope the number of recommendations in the report will protect the EU's financial interests. In the meantime, let me welcome your work, Madam Ombudswoman. It's very important, but we shouldn't need an investigation in order to get what should be the case already. A transparent commission. What citizens expect of the commission is simple, namely that their money be managed rigorously, transparently, and that we have access to the data without having to call on the ombudsperson. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Including to the interpreters who are able to interpret at such speed. Now we have.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “However, this document unfortunately depicts a costly bureaucracy. Citizens wonder whether all of this is useful. And what is the real financial situation of the E? S? And to conclude, I talked about suffering at work and wellbeing at work, and I've heard some people defending collaborative workspaces. I would like to know. How many people work in collaborative workspaces here? Because it's only just for other people. Then that's a problem.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Thank you. Chair. Again, as colleagues have said, I want to express my support to our friends in Valencia and those who have suffered in Mayotte and reunion. Those affected by the cyclone's shadow and the damage is significant. I don't want to repeat what's already been said. I just want to say that for Mayotte and Réunion, it's just 2.5% of the total of direct damage that's being covered by aid transferred by the European Union, 2.5%. Of course, it's not nothing, but it's very little compared with the EU budget. And particularly if you look at the amount paid out to other countries around the world and the neighbourhood funds. Just a couple of points to finish. We in the Patriots support, um, amendments made by our colleague Isabel Benjumea. Uh, these, uh, files are particularly important for our outermost regions. We regret the fact that we wanted to go to Mayotte. Act as a bridge mission, and that hasn't been accepted. I think they're going to Ukraine, where everyone's already been several times. It might be more useful to go to Mayotte to really understand how much more would have been needed. And another point, uh, when it comes to drinking water and sanitary facilities, it's very difficult. In outermost regions, particularly for France and Spain. We find money for people. The other side of the world, but not for people on our own territory.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• “Thank you chairwoman. Now what I'm about to say isn't going to target you personally because you weren't at the origin of the Next Generation EU it's the Commission that is at the origin of that and that is an example of what should not be done on a financial level. We have seen some significant backsliding going up to twenty fifty eight that's going to exacerbate the EU budget and so this once again is making us think about our own resources. This is something that nobody agrees on and no one can even reach an agreement on at least not now and probably not for the next few years. In any case debt will be there until twenty fifty eight. Now the European Court of Audits has warned us that the increase in interest rates has exposed us further to costs they're expecting eight billion euros by twenty twenty six four point three billion more than initial provisions and between five to six or seven billion euros extra by twenty twenty seven. So beyond the cost of the Next Generation there's a lot of financial opacity when it comes to the European Parliament citizens. This means that we don't know who the final beneficiaries are. This is a significant problem for us when it comes to transparency and there's also a lot of opaqueness when it comes to the system being chosen for the so called performance based model. This means that we are basing ourselves off of estimations so that is rather troublesome. Now when it comes to the question I want to ask you defended the cascade mechanism I was there in the negotiation meetings for the budget last year and I want to know what this cascade mechanism and its modification of that mechanism what is positive about that why was it a good thing to change that I'd like to hear your opinion on that it'd be important to have some clarifications there. And I also want to flag my concern everything that you presented seem to be based on facts of today but as you said other things might happen for example there's a defense but I don't think it's a good idea to have this improvisation carried out by the European Commission it doesn't really have a multi annual financial plan it doesn't have any it doesn't have a long term vision and so we've got this Next Generation plan of billions of euros and Dragi is saying that we need to look more and I think we need to look more into expenditure and that would be a good thing.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Yes. Thank you chair. Dear colleagues, this DAB three raises serious concerns in terms of coherence and budgetary responsibility. First of all, there's the transfer of €48 million in commitments and 45 million in payment from the agency for asylum to the asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. Officially, this has to do with supporting the implementation of the pact on migration and asylum. But in reality, this measure shows a budgetary interest towards a migratory model that is expensive, bureaucratic and doesn't come to a good result. The MFF has already applied an additional €2 billion for that pact for 2025 2027. It remains very limited and irregular arrivals continue to increase across Europe, and we're seeing that the union is increasingly relying on this and having fewer and fewer results. So how do we justify new financial transfers towards IMF when existing tools have failed to slow migratory pressure. What specific indicators are supposed to prove the efficacy of the pact on migration and in terms of budgets? This is irresponsible. European debt is increasing, flexibility is exhausted, and taxpayers are paying for policy that doesn't work. A second point on the forum life. This DAB is adding €6.4 million for action on zero pollution in particular, while the environmental effectiveness remains uncertain. Behind these ecological slogans, there's a reality which is much less virtuous than it seems. There are increasing expenses, which are often very ideological and not effective. Another question then why are we maintaining this financing of this life? While the results are debatable? Wouldn't it be wiser to assign this to real priorities like Agriculture Secretary, security or energy sovereignty or research? We do not need these expensive, ineffective programmes. We need to protect our borders, our borders, our finances and our citizens. Thank you.”
  Asylum & border control
• “Yes. Thank you very much, chairman. Madam chair, I just wanted to express some concerns about the report. This instrument mobilizes hundreds of millions of euros, which are loans that European taxpayers will have to pay back. There's been a mention of the oversight and the Court of Auditors whose comments have been unmet. There has been fraud, irregularities and conflicts of interest. How can you justify that? Over 200 inquiries are underway by Olaf showing failures when it comes to setting up prevention and oversight mechanisms that are effective. Then the issue of dual financing shows that there are some real lacunae. These reports were published too late, leaving member states in a fog which led to inconsistent national approaches and increased the risk of wasting public resources. This negligence is serious and requires serious responses. This report is not fit for purpose. We request a serious approach so that all the taxpayers money is spent properly.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, chairman. I'd like to say that I very much respect the work done by the other speakers we have had this morning. You asked them to speak on own resources. Perhaps I would ask them, perhaps, to consider some of the facts a bit more. When you're a member of the Parliament, we tend to use our critical analysis. We look at the how well-founded things are, what the ideas behind it might be. So we're saying, well, why should we have new own resources and what should we do with them? And if we're at this stage, at the moment, it's because, well, our moneys are not well managed. We've got the next generation EU programme where we have borrowed €806 billion. I am not going to talk about that in detail now because it's not the point. But that does create a lot of debt and repaying that debt. Debt is to start in 2028 and run over 30 years. So one might ask oneself, and this is a question I'd like to ask our guest speakers, is that aren't you somewhat surprised that a Parliament should ask you to come up with ideas for more income after we've actually decided to make to carry out spending? The point of managing public monies is to think about how you're going to get your income before you spend the money.”
  Own EU resources
• “You have one minute. Thank you very much, chairman. Thank you. I just wanted to come back to the renovation project that was approved in 2024. Actually, under the previous term. So we have over 300 million for the actual renovation work. But we are seeing in 2027 we'll see over 50 million for work. But these are not actually part of the 2027 budget. Operational. Operational work will be will be funded by loans. But there is a user contract for eight years covering a figure of 30 million. How can we justify €105 million for long term. A long term project of the Parliament when there is a call for budgetary discipline. And how can we ensure proper transparency on all of the costs which the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for?”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Well, it was a masquerade simply because the only control that we have is to ask member states, what are the 100 main end beneficiaries? I don't want to just have 100 names per state. I want to know who all of the beneficiaries are in each state, and I think that should be public. I think we should be able to see all of that. It's been concealed from us now. And when I put questions to the Court of Auditors, for example, about Latvia, I went with very specific questions about the use of funds, and I was told there was no answer. We can't give you an answer, I think, and I conclude from that, that Nothing is properly scrutinised or controlled and I don't want that for the future of Europe. I want funds which are controlled. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “That is, the competitiveness of our businesses. Regulatory pressure, food security, or the control of external borders on migration, for example, the text refers many times to existing funds, but it carefully avoids any remarks on the results obtained. The real effectiveness of expenditures or the need to change course when it comes to irregular migration and criminal networks on agriculture. Although it is strategic, it merely makes declarations, whereas European farmers, and we've seen them to express their views at the last plenary, are subjected to increasing administrative burden, unfair competition. Now, this report talks about conditionality in the rule of law as something neutral, whereas increasingly it is perceived as a political, a tool for political pressure on behalf of equality between member states. Clearly, citizens are paying more and more, whereas the European Union increases its budget, businesses are suffocating, bureaucracy is increasing, the European Union is becoming weaker and weaker. So our group will be making amendments to move this text towards budgetary sobriety, expenditure efficiency and focusing on what is truly essential in Europe and our responsibility towards our taxpayers. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “(12:11:19 – 12:12:41): Thank you very much, chair. Our group is very concerned by the general approach to this reform. Under the cover of simplification, the commission is proposing a centralization, a growing centralization of European policies by grouping under 1 instrument of cohesion, agricultural development, fisheries, prosperity, security. We believe that this approach actually reduces the visibility of these policies, and we feel there's going be a permanent competition between the various priorities, which should be given a a foreseeable and a strong fine ending. This this issue of conditionality as well. European funds should be there to support territories, farmers, citizens, and they should not become an instrument for putting political pressure by the commission on member states. Furthermore, there's particular concerns for France, is a, a net contributor. According to a study carried out by DG Burge, the French envelope will go, will be reduced to, €75,000,000,000. That's a reduction of a 12%. We're gonna lose more than €10,000,000,000. This is incompatible with the ambitions that we have in terms of a support for agriculture and rural development, and that we will be there's plenty of protests about this. We'll be supporting them outside the European parliament. As you look on the Ukraine, what he said about the, the risk of, Ukraine, enjoying the European Union, the risk post agriculture. And, mister Grapini, Grapini, and the guys, we need to look at traceability for the budget.”
  Cohesion and rural funding · Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Dear colleagues. Thank you, ma'am, for your presence here and for your presentation of this report, I know that some of my colleagues will be very interested because in the committee, I'm in charge of the report on the protection of the European Financial Interests for 2024. So this is a topic which certainly will be raised there. So thank you to Olaf for this exchange and for the information on this performance based model with my colleagues. Uh, we have been looking forward to learning about this model as it is applied to the RF, which has created a grey zone between budgetary responsibility and financial performance in 2024 report, the Court of Audit said that of some 24 reports presented, five had considerable errors. The Commission has. Does the Commission have too much leeway in terms of assessing some of these reports, and the court reminded that the final users are not covered by its audit opinion because that it doesn't cover the real cost assessment, but rather the indicators? So we're approving millions of euros without really knowing who is using them or how. So I have a number of questions. My first has to do with the blockages you may have encountered in terms of accessing information. We know that some countries don't provide the data on the software for this and the database for this. Do you think that's all right? Is that normal? Shouldn't it be required to provide this information? Shouldn't that is that a recommendation that you're going to make. Then you referred to transparency and access to data. I completely agree with you there. Do you think it is normal acceptable that we don't have access to the list of final beneficiaries and that we only have the list of and in the list of only 100 main beneficiaries are accessible are on the list.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Yes. We need to take on board the concerns of outermost regions here we see they're at a disadvantage. They should be aided more from the European budget. The European budget is money from taxpayers. First and foremost. We're seeing millions of workers behind this, people who are employed, independent people, but farmers who get up every day to work and feed Europe. Today, these companies are seeing their competitiveness undermined, increasing prices of energy. The standards being foisted on them by Brussels undermines their whole production and the products they've provided. We're seeing outside companies outside the EU producing and countries being benefited from better trade agreements, like in Mercosur from outside Europe. Maybe we should re-orientate our ideas for the budget. We can see huge levels of indebtedness as well, which is going to burden Europe for decades to come. We need to turn this around to bolster our competitiveness on this. The my group, the PFA, has tabled 36% of the amendments to this. We want to strengthen our product production, strengthen our workers. Let's move away from nice words and dogmatism. Let's talk. Let's act sensibly before it's too late.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• “And when it comes to the choices, we also deplore the fact that you continue to take money for Pre-Accession funds for the Asylum Fund, for accession, for integration, for the war, rather than for peace. Uh, you're putting other people before European Union citizens, and that's disappointing. Uh, from, uh, the European Parliament's point of view, we are against the work to be done in the polar ice pack building. That's going to cost 1.2 billion. I mean, we just want to see greater control over spending, better combating of fraud. The error rate of 5.6% for spending, which has been raised by the Court of Auditors, I think is very worrying. But you don't seem to be willing to attack those issues. You just want more own resources, more funding. We think you should be having a closer look at spending. And we also think it might be a good idea to set up the Doge that they had in the United States, here in the EU. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, this own resource based on plastic Non-recycled plastic packaging, which came into force in 2021, was supposed to usher in a new era in the financing of the European budget. But as we've seen from this special report, 16 2024, this has been proven to be a fiscal improvisation exercise which has been technically fragile and and very risky in budget terms. There was a divergence initially because there wasn't reliable data, and that was bridged by the R&B resource, which contravenes the objective of diversification of revenue. But there is statistical vagary. Um, the the definitions, the calculation methods, the lack of input controls at the point of recycling the recycling plant. Um, and then the 45% that we heard about, no member state reflects the requirement to, um, balance the two different approaches. So nobody's speaking the same language, but everyone's paying. And what are we paying? The European Union, which has global aspirations and it's financed by a tax on yoghurt pots and milk bottles thrown into the bin. We're only talking about 4% of revenue into the European budget. So this resource is will turn on itself if it were to work correctly. If less plastics were to be used by people in Europe, then it would undermine its own end. So it wouldn't be serious, and it certainly wouldn't be worthy of a budget which is supposed to support the strategic aims of the EU. So what the EU needs is a transparent debate on responsible use of public money. We saw that again beforehand. We voted €180 million for an 18 month use of contract for during spec renovation. What are we doing with public money? And beyond that, how can we better control its use? Controls right now are often this unsatisfactory if they exist at all. And management. Well, it's quite shocking. I was in. I was in Latvia last week. We asked some questions. We didn't get any answers either. But I think what we need to do first and foremost before we start looking for revenue, is to really take a serious look at how we're going about the expenditure. That's our priority. Thank you.”
  Own resources (plastics)
• “See ya. No, I just wanted to let my colleague speak first. Oh, right. Okay. Because that means I give Mrs. Goody more time. Because I had thought that you were not going to take the floor, but. Okay. Okay. To the point. Um, chair. Commissioners, the r r f and it was supposed to be set 120 billion, but it's presented as the key instrument of the next generation. It was supposed to be for recovery after the pandemic and several years on now it looks like perhaps there hasn't been enough transparency in performance then on performance. Well, it's taken a long time to implement projects. There is a general problem across the EU, China and the US. Um, are moving on. And you might ask why the EPPO has published 2024 report. In January this year and in 2024, there were 145 new investigations open for next generation and 90% were opened by National Police Services and they looked at the digital transition. The green transition, public infrastructure, health, infrastructure, education, so sectors that are supposed to be building the future of Europe. And in addition to that, you also have Olaf's report from 2024 as well. And there was a Portuguese project that was funded by the RR, and it apparently hasn't been working from the start. So what's clear is that the Court of Auditors in the EU said that the RF was on a very fragile basis, and then there have been questions about how it has been implemented.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for the work that he's done. We actually share many of his concerns, especially the need to bolster the accountability and transparency in the use of funds. We need more clearly defined budget lines. If there is to be democratic accountability and fund and proper management of funds, there has to be proper monitoring, evaluation and tracking of expenditure so that funds really achieve their goal and are used properly. It's a very important to help the outermost regions that face specific challenges, including access to basic services such as drinking water, which remains a worrying reality. All of this has to be included in the definition of investment priorities. We need to spend money more strictly. It isn't about mobilising more, but making sure that money isn't scattered and that they focus on specific needs on the ground. We will be tabling amendments to bolster accountability, accountability, transparency and oversight of this tool. Thank you.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• “How can we blindly go along with this? The amount set aside is seems to be fairly arbitrary. We saw Italy and Poland getting 60 and 60 billion. Other countries have got far fewer Refugees got the same or more amounts of money. Why is there an imbalance there on criteria? What are the criteria that are being used? And sometimes the use of money is scandalous. In Bulgaria, there were 23 point just over €23 billion that was meant to work in favor of the labor market. There only €6.9 million because the refugees didn't stay in the country. Fair enough. But the rest of the money then went elsewhere without any kind of transparency on the final use. That example just shows that there's a lack of overview. We need to put a stop to this abuse of funding. And how can the Parliament accept that this sort of program is put together without any kind of serious controls? We have to have an immediate reform of this. We need to reform CARE completely, and otherwise we'll see that this kind of opaque intransparent policy and budgets will continue.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, commissioners. Ladies and gentlemen, the commission proposal to set up a single fund covering cohesion. Agricultural and rural areas, fisheries security and other areas, uh, really worries us, especially for European farmers and also for overseas territories. What the commission is proposing is a recast of the cap and overhaul with these single plans that have drawn inspiration from the RF. And this calls into question the common part of the cap. And this is linked to the beginnings of the EU. We're talking about 44% of the MMF. That's what the new fund stands for. And yet we have shared management and agriculture. We're talking about 10% compared to the current cap. And this doesn't take into account inflation or the explosion of production costs, energy and others. So farmers will get less even though they have more constraints. And then part of the national envelopes will be constrained. And that means that they can choose between cohesion, agriculture and other national priorities. So how will we make sure that agriculture remains a European priority? How will we make sure of that? And then there's Posey. Mr. Krueger will talk about this later. How can the commission say that it's going to protect European farmers when in real terms, the Cap budget is stagnant? It's not including inflation. And the mechanisms there are have no legal safeguards. How will the Commission make sure that farmers, European farmers, do not compete with others with distortions in the market, given that there could be problems in the market? So how will the Commission justify getting rid of Posey when outermost regions have structural problems and have a certain status enshrined in the treaties. Now there will be a big farmers protest tomorrow. They are fighting for their lives, our sovereignty and our food security as well as our health.”
  Agricultural funding
• “11:42 – 10:14:05): President, ladies and gentlemen, MEPs, colleagues, my name is Julien Dodeau. I'm the main representative of the Environmental Justice Foundation in Brussels. Thank you for inviting me here today. EJF is an NGO which works to protect our environment. Our basic principle, basic tenet is that all fundamental rights are based on the right to a safe environment. Over the last two decades, we have shown over and over again that this convergence between illegal fisheries and other illegal activities. Apart from anything else, illegal fisheries is a fascinating phenomenon because it goes on in isolation, and there's a complexity to the operations, which always implies a number of different jurisdictions. These two aspects make it a fertile terrain for other illegal activities. And what's even more fascinating is that it's not rare that illegal fisheries, when we document it, goes hand in hand with other illegal activities. We see forged documents. We see corruption in certain ports, which means that illegal catches can exceed to international markets. So we have fiscal fraud catches, which declared in a country are undervalued in order to get around the taxes. And something which I want to stress, which is very tragic indeed, is the vicious circle you get between illegal fisheries and forced labor. Our investigations show that there are fishing fleets where one goes hand in hand and the other. Like the crew, it was an adjustment factor to make sure that fishing fleets remain economically viable. I just want to show you a brief film which will show this reality better than I can. Thank you. We're just waiting for the film to appear.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Thank you. Chairman. Three minutes, isn't it? Chairman. Commissioner. We are talking about the new proposal on own resources presented in July. We've had some conversations already. If we're here today because there's bad management of the union's finances, we have to be back next generation until 58. And that will take up quite a big chunk of the next budget. And the MFF and the majority of Parliament are worried about that mismanagement. So we're totally against our own new own resources because we think we shouldn't defer the tax companies and citizens in the EU in particular core, which would be incredible. We think that most of these own resources are the derisory or illusory or provisional. So a number of questions. First of all, what about the progressive nature of climate, racism, climate related resources? Can you say that the introduction of Core won't be a sort of disguised European text, which would be against a tax competition between states? You talk about this as being a fee, not a tax. So what is the exact legal nature of that? Will be the what will be the service on where that will be based? Will there be the NI based contribution increase the contributions from Member States? And what would that mean in terms of VAT fraud and all the other things that are going on at the moment? Thank you very much, chairman. Commissioner. I'd like to thank the commissioner for his package, which is very balanced.”
  Own EU resources
• “Merci, Monsieur president. Thank you. Chair. Dear colleagues, Unlike the Budget Control Committee, the Budget Committee is highly political, so I will be political in my remarks, even though we're not in the same group. I would like to thank the rapporteur, for whom I have a great deal of respect for the work carried out and the presentation of this report on the budget 2027. However, on behalf of Patriots for Europe, I must very clearly say that this text does not respond. And this should be no surprise to you, to the budgetary priorities of our group or the legitimate expectations of European citizens. The report takes a paradoxical stance. It recognises that the 2027 budget is derived from the current financial framework. It is a decisive text regarding European financial management and it must serve as a bridge towards the next MFF, but it refuses to draw budgetary conclusions. That is the need for sobriety and spending and the strict hierarchization of priorities and accumulates objectives climate, biodiversity, equality, values, migration, foreign policy, enlargement. But it never asks the fundamental question about whether the European Union has the financial wherewithal to finance everything or even properly spend. We talk about everything but make no choices. The report says at length on ideological and cross-cutting issues, while remaining vague on the essential issues to our citizens.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Mr. president. Colleagues, first of all, I'd like to thank the, um, budget team for having prepared. We did nine half hours by bus over the period, but it was still very interesting. I never expected to be at the Russian border with my Socialist Party colleague. I thank Mr. Sousa-silva, who chaired the delegation. Nevertheless, I don't share the political objectives or agree with the content. I participate in the whole mission except the conference and press for that region. Unfortunately, my questions are not in this report that I asked at each meeting. I think it would be good for transparency and clarity, especially my question to the Court of Auditors. I got this meeting added to our agenda at my request. I asked a large number of questions to the Court of Auditors. So asking on the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which is really a major question on the efficiency of the governance system for dealing with the Latvian plan for um, the RF, um, avoiding conflicts of interest. I talked about if there were specific, uh, mechanisms in place for fraud, corruption or bad management of EU funds. And I also asked if the Latvian Court of Auditors had, uh, the technical and human resources necessary to deal with the uh, 120 odd objectives in the plan. I got no responses. Zero. Uh. It was a very odd it was almost like a shadow court of auditors. Uh, absolutely no communication. I said this to the finance minister, who didn't seem so surprised. And then on defense, my question was on the Europe of defense. I think it's very important to ensure that we have strengthened sovereignty by having both national and European production. We are at the moment dependent on industries at times that are not European. So we think a joint approach could help to consolidate, uh, our European industry, increase our autonomy. The Dissuasive effect. So those were some of the points I wanted to add to the report. But thank you once again to the head of delegation who ran this. Very well. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chairman. Madam Executive Vice President Mr. Commissioner, just a few comments in response to my colleague at the outset who expressed concern about the media in Hungary, I would just recall that in France, the public audiovisual services is of the left. I would also recall that in France, a very popular television channel was closed a few months ago, C8. And yesterday the president criticized C news on the official Elysée channel. We'll see whether that's of interest to the Greens and the state of law and rule of law in France. And I talked about the control for NGOs. There have been several colleagues who boycotted this working group. They don't want us to talk about a few things, but I think being happy with the commission's response when they say that there's no problem with life. I would just recall that the commission is not capable of controlling funds. They're not even capable of providing the transparency on the final beneficiary beneficiaries of the different funds in Europe. So to believe people who tell us things like that and to believe that they can control the lobbying done in individual offices. I think we are making fun of ourselves somewhat. To come back to the subject at hand, the climate policies of the EU are are based on embellished figures, and there's a follow up system which hides more than it reveals concerns about expenditure remains fragile. Coefficients are heterogeneous between programmes, and we have an underestimate of systemic financing, and the 40% figure is too vague and reveals and refers to too broad of scope.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “And I'd like to hear what your opinion is on priorities. The report says that the EU budget falls short of of what we need to cover the bridge to bridge the investment gap. It would only cover 10 to 30%. So we are being more ambitious, but we haven't put our money where our mouth is. We know full well that the budget isn't financed by just a vague and abstract mechanisms. It's the European taxpayer that pays for every decision taken here. We hear a lot being said about own resources, new taxes, levies and I think the taxpayer deserves more rigor and transparency. But we also have to make sure that each and every euro is spent properly and usefully. So thank you very much for the work that you've done in the different areas that you were asked to look at. But I would have preferred a report that was a little bit more critical. It depends on the specifications you were given. You just take you're just taking for granted the fact that these reports are wonderful. But I would have preferred you to be a bit more critical.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you very much, chair. Well, just looking at this request to pay commission staff in Luxembourg to the tune of 3.8 million from administrative reserve. I understand the request. Because of the cost of living in Luxembourg. It's a very humane approach. But once again, it shows the difference between the priorities of the EU and those of the citizens. Ceo, I think, would reason very differently and maybe think about centralising the institutions in the same city where the cost of housing maybe wouldn't be as high there. So looking at paying this form of payment, because the institutions are based in that particular location, it may raise the question of why those institutions are found there and why they haven't been centralized. Why not in Strasbourg? Rather than carrying out all this work on the Sparc building, carry on to spend spending 3.8 million on housing allowances. So I think it would be better to rationalise the way we have spent public spending. Well, yeah. Let's start with Strasbourg. Why not?”
  EP seat in Strasbourg