Speeches

Mr President, dear Commissioner, the Minister, who already had to leave, said status quo is not an option. And that is true, we all agree: more of the same is not the answer, we do agree. But we should not make the same mistakes that we already made, and during the RRF we made a lot of mistakes and we witnessed a lot of mistakes. I know that you are eager to say that the MFF is not the RRF 2.0. That might be true, but on the other hand, we replicate a lot of principles from the RRF. That is, the 'financing not linked to costs' principle, that is the 'milestones and targets' principle, and that leads to less traceability, to less Parliamentary scrutiny. We know that, not because it's our own opinion – during the discharge process we took a very close look at it – but we also hear it from the European Court of Auditors, we hear it from EPPO, we hear it from OLAF. So we are very sure we should not make the same mistakes again. So, yes, status quo is not an option, but this status quo from the RRF is also not an option for us as a Parliament, and we will follow that very closely.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am, of course, particularly pleased – and warmly welcome him – about Tony Murphy, but also about Jan Gregor and everyone else from the European Court of Auditors, because we have worked excellently together over the past months. I would like to thank you very much for that. I think you have provided a good template for our work with the 2024 annual report. A heartfelt thank you for that, too. Of course, we're talking about the error rate. The error rate is not everything, but it is of course an important indicator. I am pleased, Commissioner, that you have also described the need for action here. We urgently need reforms to further reduce the error rate. There are too many errors in EU spending and the Court warns that persistent errors and growing debt obligations could jeopardise the financial sustainability of the Union in the long term. In the annual report, the Court of Auditors confirms that, although the overall level of errors – as you have already heard – has decreased in expenditure, it remains above acceptable limits. And it is also true – as the President of the Court of Auditors has pointed out – that these are all errors that should have already been discovered. If we also continue to think about the reliability of the national audit systems for the next MFF and the ideas that exist there, then we are concerned. There is an ongoing discussion on the calculation method – which we always have – and, of course, we as Parliament hope that there will soon be uniform calculation methods – I would like to say this for completeness here – on the RRF. Of course, we need improvements, we need more flexibility in the design of future performance-based instruments. However, in 2024, the Court also notes that the Commission made payments despite the fact that Targets and Milestones were insufficiently met. These funds should not have been disbursed. In addition, the implementation of the RRF has problems with budgetary commitment and, most severely, a lack of transparency. I say very clearly: Of course, these problems must not arise in the future multiannual financial framework. Traceability – traceability – the RRF budget has also been mentioned. That worries us a lot. And a central reminder from the Court of Auditors reads: Such instruments should only be used if funding is directly linked to measurable results and can be traced back to actual costs in a comprehensible manner. This is what we hope for in the next Multiannual Financial Framework.

You have basically already given the answer yourself: because it is about people and because we have standards that should apply to everyone; this applies to the audit area, this applies to the audit. And if we have the rules for everyone, then this is not only fair, but it also serves the goal. We want to achieve something, for example with agricultural policy, with cohesion policy; It is in the interests of the people to achieve these European goals. And that is precisely why the reasoning of the self-proclaimed patriots is not correct, because we want to reduce social disparities in the area of cohesion policy, for example, which is good for the people. This not only creates security for the people, but that is what we want to achieve at European level. As you have rightly said, we support the sovereignty of the local people and, in fact, of the nation-states.

Madam President, Let me say in advance: I accept the blue card that comes right away, that's fine. The Committee on Budgetary Control and its mission have been mentioned on several occasions. We were in Slovakia. You may not have read the report at all, but it is quite balanced. I believe that the position of the Slovak authorities is reproduced there quite correctly. Nor do we go into the current scandal coverage of the guesthouses and other things, but it is about structural problems; this is the task of the Committee on Budgetary Control, which we have followed up on. There are indeed problems. Concerns about this Fact-finding mission They have not diminished. In particular, it also concerns the equipment of the Slovak authorities. If the staffing and powers are not sufficient there, then this is a problem for us, because then we only have the EPPO, and the EPPO does not want to do this alone. We need the Slovak authorities on the ground, and if they are not independent and not adequately equipped, then we have a structural problem. This needs to be addressed. It's about two things: It is about the Slovak Republic being a very important part of our European Union. And the money that is made available belongs to the people there, and not to a few, but to everyone, including in the field of agricultural policy. That's what it's about. And this is a structural task that we, as a Parliament, have to carry out, in every European Member State. And the second, of course, is: We must safeguard the financial interests of the European Union, the interests of the people who pay taxes in Europe. And it surprises me that especially self-proclaimed patriots are not so to speak committed to ensuring that these interests of the hard-working people are perceived, that the money does not go to oligarchs or individuals, but to the people who really deserve it.

Mr President! Well, who would have thought that there should be a new case of misappropriation and misuse of funds. Of all those who often complain about the - let's say - waste of taxpayers' money at European level. First of all, I would like to thank the administration of our Parliament, which has meticulously and persistently and over a long period of time collected interesting things that read like a crime novel. It is about the abusive use of around 4.3 million euros. If you read carefully what the administration has collected so far, then it is essentially a matter of sampling. So it is quite possible that the sum that stands in the room is even higher. Of course, the presumption of innocence applies, and it is foreseeable that there will also be a legal assessment, both in court and in Parliament. We will, of course, also take up this matter in the Committee on Budgetary Control. We were officially informed on Friday. Coordinators are now informed and we will make recommendations for the administration very quickly in a timely process. Of course, it is foreseeable that this will also involve EPPO and OLAF. At least the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) has reportedly already started work here. We will pursue it objectively hard, but also fairly. We will focus on: Are there really intentional abuses? We will also have to talk about how to better prevent this in the future. Nevertheless, I want to say that there must be no distraction. At the end of the day, the crucial question for me is: There was individual misconduct, because this is also decisive for the question: Can we get the money back? How will we judge this criminally? This is about taxpayers' money and therefore, ladies and gentlemen, it is also a central statement that we hope to be able to represent together: The dissolution of a political group must not protect against prosecution. I look forward to working together on this interesting case in the Committee on Budgetary Control.

Mr President! Well, who would have thought that there should be a new case of misappropriation and misuse of funds. Of all those who often complain about the - let's say - waste of taxpayers' money at European level. First of all, I would like to thank the administration of our Parliament, which has meticulously and persistently and over a long period of time collected interesting things that read like a crime novel. It is about the abusive use of around 4.3 million euros. If you read carefully what the administration has collected so far, then it is essentially a matter of sampling. So it is quite possible that the sum that stands in the room is even higher. Of course, the presumption of innocence applies, and it is foreseeable that there will also be a legal assessment, both in court and in Parliament. We will, of course, also take up this matter in the Committee on Budgetary Control. We were officially informed on Friday. Coordinators are now informed and we will make recommendations for the administration very quickly in a timely process. Of course, it is foreseeable that this will also involve EPPO and OLAF. At least the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) has reportedly already started work here. We will pursue it objectively hard, but also fairly. We will focus on: Are there really intentional abuses? We will also have to talk about how to better prevent this in the future. Nevertheless, I want to say that there must be no distraction. At the end of the day, the crucial question for me is: There was individual misconduct, because this is also decisive for the question: Can we get the money back? How will we judge this criminally? This is about taxpayers' money and therefore, ladies and gentlemen, it is also a central statement that we hope to be able to represent together: The dissolution of a political group must not protect against prosecution. I look forward to working together on this interesting case in the Committee on Budgetary Control.

Madam President, Thank you for the debate. I would particularly like to thank you for the preparatory work, the months of preparatory work, because we have prepared all the reports over many hearings and many meetings. Personally, I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs in my report. You may not believe it if you have followed the debate today, but we have worked very constructively together, and I also believe – regardless of how some points were called for today – that we have indeed managed to find balanced compromises. And that's what it's all about. Because, despite all the heated debate, we have very, very many important points here that should unite us as a Parliament: in particular our stance on the high error rates, in particular our stance on the RRF’s erroneous statements, in particular the impact on the next multiannual financial framework. These are points that are very, very important, and they will also decide what role we as a Parliament will still play in the future. That is why I believe it is important that tomorrow in the final vote we know our responsibility in this area, that we take discharge seriously and that together we also take the role of Parliament seriously. As I said, I would like to thank all those who have not only taken part in this debate, but have also done the important preparatory work. Parliament's right to discharge will remain not only one of our strongest weapons, but also one of our most important rights. Let us defend this together, please. I look forward to the vote tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, I would especially like to welcome Tony Murphy, President of the Court of Auditors, because the Court of Auditors has really been a source of inspiration and information for this report. Let me just start by seizing the opportunity to stress that the Commission's discharge is a really important issue for us as the Parliament. It is not like any other resolution – it is a very important resolution. We are bound by treaty to give recommendations to the Commission, and it is about democratic accountability, it is about transparency, about trust in institutions. It is an important political signal and our refusal to grant discharge could highlight serious concerns. I'm not expecting this, Commissioner, but it shows its importance, and it is about budgetary discipline. Therefore, I think it is the best tool at our disposal as the Parliament in general during the term to show our importance. So we should not mess this up. We should be ready to make compromises and seize the opportunity to show that we can be united as Parliament on the important things. Talking about the important things, I would like to refer to the main findings. The first one is, of course, the error rate. The EU requires urgent reforms to address rising error rates. There are too many errors made in EU spending. Currently, it is 5.6 % for the spending affected by error, while for cohesion it is extremely high at 9.3 %. Of course, we know that there is an ongoing dispute about the method of the error rate. We know that the Commission with their 'risk at payment' approach sees a much lower error rate. But we as the Parliament, we agree that there should be one common calculation method and, also, there has been an increase in error rate for the last three years. This has to stop, ladies and gentlemen, both for the spending in the regular MFF and for the RRF. Speaking about the RRF, we need major improvements in oversight and flexibility when designing performance-based instruments in the future. Also in 2023, the Court found errors in the Commission's payment as milestones and targets were not satisfactorily fulfilled and funds should not have been paid out. In addition, the implementation of the RRF also struggles with absorption and, most importantly, a lack of transparency. The Commission reports on the 100 largest recipients in the RRF is totally inadequate, as public authorities that further disrepute the funds are included in the list. Let me be very clear: the RRF is not a blueprint for the next MFF. Let me also stress that subsidiarity is not an outdated idea. We also have to talk about the reste à liquider, record high unpaid commitments and mounting EU debt sparks warnings over long-term effects, slow absorption of cohesion and RRF funds keep pushing the reste à liquider up. Over EUR 543 billion have been contracted, but still need to be paid out. We risked an avalanche of decommitments, which would mean a loss of EU added value. I know that there are other important issues as well, like NGO and other beneficiaries' financing that will play a major role in the debate, of course. But let me repeat: it is extremely important that we are ready to find compromise, and therefore I count on your responsibility. Thank you very much for the cooperation so far.

Mr President! A heartfelt thank you also to the rapporteur for the hard work: It's not easy to get the different points under one roof. I believe that this has been well done, and we must now also look ahead in a united way. I would also like to thank you for the fact that many of the points from budgetary control and also from our audit have been included in the report. This is very, very important, also for the future. I know, of course, that there are also individual points which distinguish us and which we must also address, which must also be clarified in Parliament. Be it the question: How will we deal with UNRWA in the future? Be it the question: What about Mercosur? Be it the question: Do we still want to tolerate certain examples of incitement of hatred in Palestinian textbooks, or do we also take financial action against it? These are things that need to be clarified here in Parliament. But it should also be in the foreground – and that is why I hope that there will be little key votes and few red lines – that together we see what we need to achieve here with the budget. I believe that Parliament's control rights are also in jeopardy and that we have always done well here, even if we have shown unity. I also wish for less in the future. key votesMore unity: This is more necessary now than ever.

I have heard once again in this debate that it is a question of cancelling funds for the NGOs. Can you give me a name for the current EPP Group from a colleague who has called for the funding in the LIFE programme for NGOs to be reduced or cancelled? A name?

Madam President, Commissioner! Personally, I find it really hard to listen to this debate because there are so many phantom discussions going on here that I am slowly getting upset. It would be nice if perhaps the Social Democrats would also send someone who has already dealt with the subject and, for example, has looked past the Committee on Budgetary Control. Maybe you write this down so that it's completely clear: It's not about specific NGOs. You said that too, Mr von der Renew. For example, we also reviewed the Horizon programme, so we just couldn't find anything. If you have any information about other areas – outside LIFE – where we have similar problems, tell us. I am chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control. I like to follow it. But just pretending to have phantom debates is really not conducive to the matter. In addition, ladies and gentlemen, rules only make sense if they apply to everyone. And what you do: They are defending a practice that we hope we all believe is not right. You defend it because it comes from your network area, and that's not okay, ladies and gentlemen. Otherwise you have to say: We think it is okay that in the Commission people who are paid by European taxpayers pay NGOs of European tax money, who then lobby MEPs who are paid by European tax money, so that laws are implemented by other people who are also paid by European tax money. If you think that's right, stand up and say that. Otherwise, it is completely clear: We must not give this impression that there is public-funded contract lobbying. We all have a responsibility, as well as politicians, but damn it the NGOs. And perhaps the NGOs will question themselves so that we can continue to support civil society and these NGOs in a reasonable way. Otherwise, unfortunately, this will be called into question in the future.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to express my gratitude to Tony Murphy and Jan Gregor and everyone else involved at the Court of Auditors for their independent, high quality work in preparing the annual report. Considerable resources are dedicated to this report, and I can assure you that, in this House, it is well used as an invaluable source of information on the way the Commission has to implement the EU budget. There's a lot of talk about the error rates and a lot of things have already been said. And there's also a dispute in methodology. I know about it, but still, we can agree that the Commission has to look into the root causes of this increase and the way forward to address it, and also making sure that the root causes are addressed and fewer errors will be made in the future. Another issue that draws our attention is the rising difference between funds that have been committed but have not been paid out yet. This is known as reste à liquider, pardon my French, or in short the RAL. For 2023, it's EUR 542 billion. Never before has this figure been so high. This requires the Commission and Member States to carefully plan the amounts that need to be paid in the future, and for both of them to make serious progress with implementation, so that all this money reaches the real economy, the SMEs and the farmers who need it. I would also like to say that if you read carefully, you can also see a lot of things that work well and that a lot of money is spent very well also in cohesion policy. So we have to take into account the whole report. Thank you very much for your listening to me.

Madam President, Secretary of State, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the challenges of the budget have been sufficiently described. You heard about it. Still, I would like to highlight some issues that are important for the European Parliament and for heading seven. As the rapporteur for the 2023 budget, I have strongly advocated for cybersecurity. And there was a tough discussion then, I remember it very well. It is clear from the requests and of the other institutions, as well as the Council's own budget, that it remains a pressing concern also in 2025. I believe cybersecurity should be addressed across all institutions in a spirit of cooperation, because we all have significant needs across the institutions. So I hope that we will have successful negotiations which will lead to the European Parliament and the other institutions acknowledging the critical importance of providing additional resources to covering cybersecurity needs. I think this is more important than ever, looking at the overall situation. We must provide our colleagues across institutions with adequate resources, and we consider ourselves as a Parliament to be the advocate of the other institutions as well. This is our part in this procedure. Both Council and Parliament have agreed to give them, sufficient means to protect the interests of Europeans. This is why I have to point out that stable staffing is a very good idea, but has in some institutions reached its limit. There is an urge to extend for the institutions, especially smaller ones, such as the EDPS. They face severe staff shortages compared to their workload. And of course, if we give them new tasks, we have to also give them the adequate resources. Also, we cannot allow our colleagues to struggle with security issues, as the EEAS, for example, does while being located in the remote areas of this world. So we must fulfil the security needs to prevent any accidents. Or let me just rather say, incidents. We should not wait for this to happen. Another critical issue is that the staff situation in Luxembourg must be finally changed. We've been talking a lot about this issue. It has been known for years and extensive conversations among institutions already took place. So Luxembourg institutions must have enough housing allowance to attract qualified staff and work properly for the future of the European Union. Still, I have to seize the opportunity and stress that we did not take into account the shortcomings of heading seven in the MFF provisions, and we are now having a very difficult situation because of that. Nevertheless, still, I am confident that we budgetary, responsible institutions can work together in the coming months in order to reach a satisfactory result for all institutions and as a result, for the EU citizens. And if we can't save money, at least we can save some time, at least 10 seconds.

Mr President! I will hurry up and do not want to list the general things here. Members will certainly do so, but from the point of view of the Committee on Budgets there are a few important points, in particular on human resources: We have managed, even with amendments, to provide AMLA with reasonable human and financial resources. It is extremely important for the board to be equipped with the necessary autonomy in personnel recruitment. The abolition of the Commission’s right of veto on the main administrative decisions is also a good thing here – and I hope that we in Parliament agree on this. In the case of costs, the fees are calculated in such a way that stable revenue streams are generated. It is also important – I say this very clearly – that the revenues from the fees must be predictable in the future, as they have a direct impact on the financing from the EU budget. You understand that we, as the Committee on Budgets, see this as very important. With our decision here in plenary, AMLA will be given a high level of transparency in terms of sources of revenue. We have parliamentary oversight and accountability is improved.

Mr President, Commissioner! I would like to thank all those who have contributed to a solution, because it was urgently needed. We want to transfer the first funds to Ukraine as early as March. This is urgently needed. But let's not fool ourselves: These are means that contribute to the preservation of statehood. Much more will be needed, especially on the part of the Member States. And there must also be more delivered than just warm words, as is currently the case in Paris, and - delivered in the truest sense of the word - precisely military goods. I think that if we trace back what we proposed here as Parliament a few months ago, we must ask ourselves: Is the glass half full or half empty? The fact is: Especially in the areas of crisis preparedness, research, development and, last but not least, security and defence, we are not as ambitious as Parliament wanted us to be, nor as ambitious as the Commission. I think we will soon realize that we will reach our limits again. And it would have been good if the Member States had been more ambitious. But we, as a Parliament, should also be a little proud of the fact that, together, we have also enforced a conditionality mechanism across parties, which I am convinced has contributed to the existence of this solution in the first place. The blackmail potential of Putin's friend in the Council has been diminished. We can be proud of that together. This is a good example of Parliament's influence.

Mr President! I would also like to thank almost all the groups who have made it very clear that it is not the question of whether the objectives of this action plan are concerned, but that we need to talk about how. I would like to thank you very much for this, because it shows that this Parliament is very united here, at least as far as the speakers with an affinity for fishing are concerned today. What annoyed me, I would also like to say openly, is a bit of moral arrogance, for example from Mrs Roose, who has now also left the debate, who simply says: So people who see it differently are the right and their helpers. Maybe you tell her and tell her that this attitude, this moral arrogance, is sometimes responsible for fishermen actually following populists. I would also like to thank you very much, Commissioner. You have suffered harsh criticism, and my report is critical and the first draft has been even more critical. However, I have also taken note of the fact that you have argued in a very differentiated way today and that we, as the Commission and as Parliament, can also be able to find appropriate solutions because, once again: It is not about the objectives of the action plan, it is about implementation. And this is, I believe, a first good step that we can also do this together in the future, for which I would like to thank you very much. I believe that once again, when we adopt this report as it stands, with the comments of our colleagues, we have a good position, we can really face our fishermen and say that we are fighting for you, it is not all easy, we have great challenges, but we stand by your side. That should be our signal today. Thank you for the debate.

Mr President! Sometimes, in our political life in Brussels or here in Strasbourg, we forget what it is all about – in our negotiations, in our committee meetings, in our deliberations. That is why I would like to remind you once again of what happened almost a year ago when you presented an ambitious plan, an action plan, which has caused criticism not only among us here in Parliament, but also among the majority of the Member States, including in the Council, but above all in the fisheries sector, among many fishing companies, in many countries that have protested massively. And some of the criticism at the time may have been exaggerated, as is sometimes the case in politics. However, I have to stick to some key points of criticism. I also remember that at that time, on the ground, at my place, where fishing operations were really affected, representatives of the Greens and representatives of the Social Democrats also said that we do not want that either. We do not want general bans. They did not attach this to you, Commissioner, but to Ursula von der Leyen, as is the case in politics. At the same time, however, I would like to reiterate very clearly here, at this point, what the real points of criticism were. One point of criticism, and this needs to be improved, is political communication and communication within the Commission. There were different statements, including on the legislative value of this action plan – this must not be repeated. And what it was really about was just the approach of the general bans, even with an ambitious time approach. I don't think we can say in the future in the fisheries sector that there will never be any restrictions. We will never be able to say, everything is wonderful and you can continue to fish as before. That won't be the point. But we need to move away from these general prohibitions. And it is interesting that, in the meantime, a whole series of scientific studies have come onto the market, especially on the issues addressed in the Action Plan, which say in a very differentiated way what the impact of fishing really is, for example in the area of crab fishing. These are the same scientists who take you very seriously when it comes to the ICES Advice I'm leaving. So it's not that you can choose your scientists, but you really have to listen to them. In the request – in the report – I deliberately refrained from presenting an alternative action plan with certain species, with certain fishing vessels, but we want to draw up guardrails. We want to say what can't be done. In particular, we want to say that we want regional solutions in the future, that we want to talk to those affected, that we do not want to act against them. This approach has found a clear majority in the Committee on Fisheries. Nevertheless, there are a number of amendments which I am critical of today, in particular because they change the balance of the motion and because some of the amendments also change the balance of the motion. out of scope is. We do not want to present an alternative plan, but we want to focus on the key points. Some of the applications even go so far as to seek to regulate relations with third countries. Do we really want to address the question of how we deal with the United Kingdom in this report in the future? I don't think that's good. So, once again: We have drawn up guidelines for the new Commission so that we can give a clear signal, especially at this politically difficult time, also to the fisheries sector, to tell you that we are working with you, we are not working against you. It won't always be easy, but we'll listen to you. We want regional solutions, we don't want general bans. That is why I also hope for the colleagues who are keen on fishing, including those from the political groups who have tabled amendments, so that this spirit is preserved. If we go out with this report as it is, then we have a good position as a Parliament, together, with a broad majority hopefully, at the new Commission and especially in the near European election campaign, to tell the fishermen that we stand by your side.

Mr President, this is a very important issue for all of us in Europe, and it truly is just the tip of the iceberg, so let’s just put the election campaigning aside. And my question would be, also to the Commissioner, how did the Spanish Government inform you? And how were France, for example, as a neighbouring country, informed by the Spanish Government? That is a crucial European question. I recognise that not many colleagues here talked about, for example, the legislative package on maritime security. And I also remember that somebody who spoke one month ago here in Parliament, Mr Sánchez, did not talk about this issue at all. Frankly speaking, he did not talk about European issues at all. So my question would be, how did the Spanish Government inform the European government?

Mrs. Roose! So apart from the fact that you have now thrown recreational and professional fishing in a pot, which have very different interests, I tell you: First of all, I have an opinion as a Member of Parliament, and what associations I am close to say is another matter. I have to decide for myself and don't follow lobby groups. And the other thing you said, so really the claim that there is a solution in this law for the cod you mentioned, for example, in the Baltic Sea, is really far-fetched. You won't find a scientist who can fully tell you the reasons for the bad cod stock. In any case, the Institute, the Thünen Institute, the ICES Advice co-determined, this cannot be complete. And to say that we pass this law, and then the cod gets better, so you really can't promise that to people.

Madam President, This law is not consistent with other laws dealing with the subject matter. You can already see this in the definition of what a good condition is. The prohibition of deterioration is completely inadequately regulated. We have the problem in the fisheries sector, for example that seabeds, most of which are still unexplored, are automatically attributed to poor condition. All these are not trifles, but very fundamental grievances of this law. And this can also be seen in the fact that the Commission has to resort to tricks, for example by saying: Offshore wind turbines are now restoration measures. Because the different goals contradict each other. I'm not against offshore wind power, but to say that a massive concrete block on the seabed and miles of cables are a restoration measure of nature simply shows: The whole thing has a striking side, the whole thing is not well thought out. That may not matter to many because that's a good goal and because we have a beautiful title of law. But that must not be our claim as MEPs. All I hear is that the MPs who are against it and have these fundamental concerns are playing power games and are bad people. I give you this moral arrogance. I'm a Christian Democrat, I'm fine. But what you really do: You're not taking people with you, you're heating up a city-country conflict, and you're hurting climate protection. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, On Europe Day, fishermen all over Europe have sounded their horns in protest against the Commission's current plans. That is, we have managed to bring up against us the people we need, those we want to involve. That must end. We must finally start incorporating the fisheries sector. Let me take the area of crab fishing as an example. They were very concerned about the presentation of the action plan. They are also very concerned about the discussion of Nature restoration law. These are people who we need, who carry on the cultural heritage, who are extremely important for tourism, and who, moreover, also live on it, for whom we must stand up. I am grateful to you, Commissioner, and also to colleagues McAllister and Jens Gieseke, for answering me and for making it clear that you are taking these plans off the table. On the other hand, it is really problematic if, at a time when the Thünen Institute, i.e. the scientists you trust – you know it – is presenting a study that proves that the impact of crab fishing on the seabed is clearly very limited. So let's leave this confrontational path and let's finally find regional solutions, with the people, with the local fishermen! This is the much better way than what you are now presenting confrontationally.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, It is accomplished: We have a result in our budget negotiations. And that in itself is very important, because I think it would have been very difficult to convey that in these difficult times we are even arguing about comparatively small-scale issues and are not able to bring a budget together. Nevertheless, some fundamental problems remain, and I believe the most fundamental is that we must work even harder to make everyone understand that the European Union cannot be a mere money-distributing machine. The point is that we set clear priorities, that we set political priorities, and I believe that, as my two previous speakers have pointed out, we have succeeded quite well as a Parliament. I would also like to express my sincere thanks for the fact that we have managed to reach agreement and, at least, to anchor some of these priorities in budgetary terms, even across party boundaries, despite differing political views on priorities. For the future, we must learn that we also determine the future with these priorities. We are talking about relatively small amounts. And if you look at the overall budget and the tight framework that the multiannual financial framework offers us, you might think of one thing or another: Well, those are just smaller amounts. But it is also about setting very clear priorities for the future, and smaller symbolic amounts are sometimes very, very important. We have seen in heading 7 that the situation as a whole is very difficult. As a Parliament, we have worked from the outset to show a clear line here too. We have also managed to impose cuts on our own Bureau. We have referred to legal regulations, to the energy situation. We simply have a difficult situation, even in this section. But it is precisely here that we must also learn for the future. I am very happy that we have been able to set a clear focus on cybersecurity, that we have managed to achieve real reinforcement here, and that we have also made it very clear that committed We have agreed and agreed that we also want to work together strongly in the future. This is something that we have emphasized often enough at this point. This shows that we must also be able to see the challenges of the future in the budget. And we, as Parliament, also say that we want to live up to our role as advocates of the other institutions; Europe only works if all institutions are able to work well and if they are also financially and materially equipped and staffed in such a way that they can fulfil their mandate. This also applies to us as a Parliament, knowing that we are also facing a difficult situation here, because the situation in Heading 7 will not be easier next year. This time we have only managed to remain relatively close to the flexibility instrument. We, as a Parliament, will also have to work to ensure that we do not break this bar in the future either. And that is why we will continue to depend on working well together in the future. I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, I would also like to thank the Presidency of the Council and also the Commission, which has done justice here to its role as guardian of the Treaties and honest broker. We have just celebrated 70 years of the European Parliament. I believe that we will also live up to our responsibilities as legislators in the future. We will defend our role confidently, and that is what we are learning after 70 years of the European Parliament.

Mr President! I believe that the debate has shown several points. On the one hand, it was precisely the colleagues from the technical committees who defended the priorities of the Council Presidency and also want to stand up for them and also want to finance them. I think that's a very good message. The second is: I believe that it has also arrived that Parliament is in great agreement here, that we are, of course, discussing one or the other issue, such as the Palestinian textbooks, vividly, but are absolutely united on the major points and are also closed here as a Parliament. And the third is: I have noticed that both Commissioner Hahn and Deputy Minister Georgiev have been following the whole debate – this lively debate – all the time. This means that they have the requisite tenacity to ensure that we also achieve a good result in the negotiations. I'm looking forward to it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The colleague rightly criticised the fact that this must not be a budget like any other – that it must also be remembered. If we look at heading 7, you quickly get the idea that it could be a household like any other. But I would like to remind you that at the beginning of this procedure, as a Committee on Budgets, we have already reduced a sum compared to the draft budget of our Bureau, which was 33 million times larger than ever before. So we also know very well in this House that we have a lot to do and that in these difficult times Parliament and all the institutions must also take the lead. But I also believe that on 24 February hardly anyone would have objected if we had said that we have to strengthen our resilience here, we have to be prepared for hybrid warfare, we have to make cybersecurity a real focus. Ladies and gentlemen, we really have to. This is the only real focus we are putting on staff in this budget: Cybersecurity. I am glad that we are united here across all factions and that we will enforce this. I also say this: I would like to thank you for the constructive atmosphere, including the Presidency of the Council, because I know that, of course, we are all in one boat here. With CERT-EU, we already have an instrument that coordinates, that can lead and that we can strengthen. I very much believe that together as a Parliament, if there is a constructive will, we will find a way together in the negotiations here to find a good way for all to benefit all institutions. But – I say that too – it is not an option that we do not act here and simply let the risks be risks. We need to be defensive. We need to strengthen our resilience, my dear friends. The other institutions are also counting on us. Of course, it is our role as Parliament to strengthen the other institutions as well. I call it the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors. Because it is precisely at a time when, as Parliament, we should also say this with confidence, when the Community method is increasingly marginalised and intergovernmental action is being taken, that we also need monitoring instruments. It is precisely when Article 122 is always at the heart of action that we must strengthen the institutions that really control it, such as the Court of Auditors. Here too, as a Parliament, we should not allow ourselves to be divided and take a very clear view: When it comes to 800 billion euros, then a few places at this point are really not the wrong investment. There is enough to control, especially with this amount. I believe that, unlike in previous years, we should, of course, not participate in these jealousies between institutions. The situation is too serious for that. We have many major tasks, and I also see my task in my area in the fact that the broad lines that Mr Ştefănuță has just described do not fade into the background and that we are exhausting ourselves in small-scale discussions between the institutions, but are working together to find solutions that are really appropriate to this budgetary situation – and I also ask all those involved to do so. We are supposed to be frugal, ladies and gentlemen, and that is why I am now giving the House 57 seconds as a sign that we can hopefully achieve good results in the negotiations.