What Loránt spoke about.

Mr. President, please. It was interesting to listen to the debate and see that the question of unanimity versus qualified majority dominated most of the speeches. Unanimity is not just about sovereignty. This is our primary tool to enforce compromise and cooperation between Member States. Eliminating monotony in sensitive areas will not magically increase our global weight. Instead, it results in massive political fragmentation between East and West, between small and large Member States. Today, much has been said about federalism, but the reality of the Commission is centralisation. More and more policies, audits and decisions are culminating in the European Commission, without accountability. For example, regions are often left out of the preparatory debates. But let me make a suggestion. Instead of weakening unanimity, the governance of the European Union should be strengthened where joint action would bring real competitiveness, completing the European Digital Area, building the banking and financial system.

Mr. President, please. The European People's Party is committed to unconditional respect for human dignity. It is unacceptable for anyone in Europe to be disadvantaged in accessing services, healthcare or education just because they are older or because they have faith. The loopholes must be filled. For the People's Party, equality of rights is not only a principle, but also a practical requirement. Discussions on the adoption of the Directive should therefore continue. At the same time, honourable colleagues, let us not be hypocritical, even though we are creating new legislation in Brussels, if in reality hatred and discrimination in the Member States are not only reduced, but institutionalised, especially vis-à-vis indigenous national minorities, and this is somehow always left out of the Commission's list. It is astonishing that in 2025 the shameful principle of collective guilt is still being applied in Slovakia, at the heart of the European Union. Slovak state offices today, in the present, confiscate land properties from foreign citizens, people of Hungarian and German origin, citing the historical Beneš decrees. Moreover, the situation is deteriorating dramatically, last week the Bratislava legislature decided that those who dared to contest the correctness of these decrees could be sentenced to up to half a year in prison. This is not only a violation of property rights, but also of freedom of opinion. In Romania, when Hungarian football teams from Romania enter the field instead of the sports festival, intimidation is often the master. The Utras chant hateful slogans against the Hungarian community and tear down the flags of the community in the settlements with impunity. This is not football hooliganism, but open, ethnic discrimination. Where is effective public and European action at this time? The credibility of the Union, colleagues, depends on the elimination of double standards. We cannot be sensitive to one form of discrimination while turning a blind eye to the other. Equality of rights cannot be selective.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, behind every irregular arrival, there is a transactional lie. Families sell their last possessions because a criminal network promised them a VIP ticket to Europe. Instead, they are packed into the back of a suffocating truck or forced into a leaking boat. The business of these networks is not just illegal migration; it is the trade of human hope for profit. For too long, we focused on managing the consequences and, at last year's elections, the citizens warned us. I am relieved to see that the Commission and Parliament have finally recognised that we must attack the root causes of the irregular movements – the smugglers themselves. We are moving from reactive management to proactive enforcement. The results are already visible: compared to 2023, we witness a 60 % drop in irregular border crossings. This report is the additional tool we were missing. By establishing the European Centre against migrant smuggling within Europol, we are creating a centralised intelligence hub that connects the dots between the Member States. Coming from Romania – which manages a significant external border – I know that the solution is not internal borders, but seamless police cooperation. We must ensure our officers can talk to each other, using secure channels like SIENA, sharing data instantly to dismantle these gangs before they even load their trucks. This represents the EPP approach: firm on security, tough on crime and committed to protecting our external borders. We send a clear message: Europe is closed for illegal migration!

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, as someone coming from central and eastern Europe, I can say with conviction that enlargement is not only a policy, but a promise fulfilled. EU integration transformed my country. It brought prosperity, democracy and, yes, a lot of common challenges to face. Today, we must ensure that the next wave of enlargement brings the same success, for both the candidates and the Union itself. That is why I believe we should approach the next enlargement with confidence, not fear. Experience shows that we do not need a fundamental change of our institutional system. What we need is the political will to make existing mechanisms work better, to simplify, not to reinvent. Of course, decision-making can be improved, but efficiency cannot come at the expense of democracy. Smaller and medium-sized Member States, those at Europe's geographic and cultural frontiers, must continue to have a meaningful voice. The European Union is strong precisely because it balances unity with diversity, efficiency with equality. On behalf of the EPP Group, I thank all those involved in the preparation of this report. Its content shows us that it is possible to adapt the institutions and their processes to new realities. To put it bluntly, when there is a positive decision on new countries joining the EU, the Treaty and our institutions are ready to work on them. We need to focus on what has always made enlargement a success: merit, fairness and respect among partners.

(in writing) The new rules for European parties and foundations are long overdue. I am grateful to my co-rapporteur, Charles Goerens, to the shadow rapporteurs, to the Polish Presidency, and to the Commission for their readiness to unblock this seemingly complicated file. Let me highlight a few key elements of the regulation. It provides European parties and foundations with clear rules on governance, including the possibility to have associated members from third countries. It strengthens their financial viability and facilitates their cooperation with national member parties through clearer provisions on organising joint political activities. We have also included measures to reduce the excessive administrative burden on the parties and to increase their legal certainty. In addition, we addressed the new and growing risks of foreign interference. Dear colleagues, you are about to vote on new, simplified rules governing our European parties and foundations. Let me remind you that these rules will benefit all European parties and foundations represented in this Hemicycle.

Madam President, Commissioner, equality is at the heart of the European project. Yet 50 million citizens, from traditional minorities in different regions of Europe, remain ignored by the Commission. You have been mandated to defend all minorities, but when it comes to historical communities rooted for centuries in Europe, you are no longer heard. Yet these communities represent almost 90% of our linguistic and cultural diversity. They do not manifest themselves loudly, but they defend their languages, their traditions, their identity with dignity. They are Breton, Alsatian, Frisian, Hungarian, South Tyrolean... Many of them still suffer discrimination and the loss of their language. The example of the German-speaking community in Belgium – aus Belgien – with its guaranteed rights and strong institutions, proves that another path is possible. It is time for the Commission to take responsibility. Not one of the 11 European Citizens’ Initiatives has led to a legislative initiative. It is time to act. This initiative fully deserves it.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, a number of policies supporting the Roma population were designed and paid for over the past 15 years, but their effective implementation and persisting commitment at all levels has been painfully slow and inefficient. Hundreds of thousands of Roma citizens still live in houses without electricity or running water. Tens of thousands of children do not attend kindergarten or finish primary school, and face the prospect of lifelong severe poverty, illiteracy, precarious health and social marginalisation. We must also acknowledge that anti-Roma sentiment remains deeply entrenched in many European societies. This prejudice fuels discrimination, hate speech and even violence against Roma people. It's our collective responsibility to challenge and combat this phenomenon in all its forms. Roma people must be actively involved in all the strategies that affect their lives. By the way, they also fight against the use of the term 'antigypsyism', or 'Antiziganismus' in German. We must promote Roma inclusion in all aspects of society, including education, employment, healthcare and housing. We must ensure that Roma people have access or equal access to opportunities and resources, and that they are protected from discrimination and hate crime. Mute hate speech! After the extremely disappointing failure of the Commission to take any action on the Minorities SafePack European Citizens' Initiative, which, among other things, targeted Roma statelessness, it could be considered a good sign that we have a new Commissioner on equality. We are looking forward to more effective planning and much better results in Roma strategies and other minority groups.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European Parliament is under attack. We face external enemies who would like to see a weakened parliament. But there are also internal interests that oppose a strong, influential and increasingly relevant parliament. The EPP Group fully supports the ongoing judicial investigations and upholds the presumption of innocence for all individuals involved. The reputation of Parliament and several of its Members was tarnished three years ago. Yet there are still no indictments against any Members. Now, again, colleagues who signed a letter requesting 5G services in rural areas saw their names published in the press, even though they have not yet been questioned by the authorities. The headlines against them amount to public executions. This is unacceptable. We must defend the free mandate of the Members. The Belgian authorities must conduct their own investigation properly, without leaking partial information to the press or making ambiguous statements. The judicial saga surrounding Qatargate and the handling of the current investigation into Members by the Belgian authorities raised a number of questions. Therefore, the EPP Group calls for a hearing in the LIBE Committee, with the participation of the relevant Belgian authorities. Some colleagues will use this momentum as an argument to push for the implementation of the ethics body agreement. Colleagues, an outsourced ethics body cannot prevent wrongdoing or corruption, but it would compromise the independence of our Parliament. We must get it right. Parliament must withdraw from the ethics body and establish a firm, clear, robust and efficient internal mechanism to strengthen its integrity.

Well, I believe that for the EU it is important to find the right way for coordination, institutional and financial support, for cross-border law enforcement. Yes, education is important, but it's equally important the environment in which those children live. We know, unfortunately, in many western European societies, parallel societies, parallel neighbourhoods grew up. That made it impossible for children to be integrated in those societies and they went on the road of radicalisation and they were reached out by criminal gangs. This is something we need to tackle and it will not be easy. National efforts and coordination, both are extremely important.

Madam President, Commissioner, reality cannot be ignored anymore. From France, all the way up to Sweden, there are more and more terrorist street shootings linked to drug and human trafficking and gang-related assassinations. More and more innocent victims and ruined lives. These are criminal acts, predominantly involving individuals and groups with a migration background. How did we get there? We know the answer: the pretence that cultural differences are irrelevant, the illusion of an inclusive society, procedures granting fast track citizenship, the tolerance of illegal migration. In reality, tens of thousands of second-generation EU citizens of migrant backgrounds have become socially marginalised and pushed to the periphery. From there, for many of them, it was only a short step towards religious radicalisation or organised crime. We do not have years to correct the mistakes of past decades. The safety of citizens in Sweden, in Belgium, in France must be ensured today. Law enforcement must be strengthened both in numbers and weaponry. Investigative procedures must be accelerated. Criminal gangs must be dismantled. Migrants in irregular situations must be returned, and the EU can and shall assist through coordination.

Oh, Mr. President. I welcome the Commission's action against online platforms. We need to look at what happens during the election. Romania is the first country where it turned out that TikTok clearly influenced the result of the presidential election by strengthening partisan positions and foreign interference. However, TikTok and foreign interference cannot be held solely responsible for the situation resulting from the presidential elections in Romania. There are deeper social reasons for what happened, and it is also worth investigating the failure of the institutions dealing with countermeasures within the scope of national competence. What needs to be done in Romania: governance that puts citizens' expectations first and a fair presidential election process. Online platforms in the EU need to be regulated, as they are increasingly replacing classic media. They provide information and influence voter choice. Classic media is subject to strict regulation, which should also apply to platforms. The internet is free. Banning platforms would not be effective, not least because it would immediately appear under a different name, a redesigned, new platform. Dear colleagues, most of the work is done in schools. Without a critical view of the citizens, democracy has little chance. The acquisition of skills to discriminate against misleading fake news should be part of the education systems of the Member States. There is a huge backlog to catch up on, so we need to start as soon as possible.

Dear Madam President, It is good to see, it is good to hear, that common sense is beginning to return to the European Parliament, because five years ago, who proposed measures that wanted to stop illegal migration, immediately gave it the adjective of extremism. In the end, we managed to break the taboos, or more precisely, the voters broke the taboos, when in June they said that this is an important issue, so please solve it. For them, the increase in attacks related to illegal immigration, the increase in social spending and the migrant business, which is profitable for some, are unacceptable. At the beginning of the summer, the migration pact was born in the last hundred meters. Half-success, half-solution. We achieved so much then, but now we have to go all the way down the road that we started. For example, there will be no need to be cautious in the Return Directive. This should be a piece of legislation with strict and clear measures. And, besides, additional laws will be needed, but I think we now have a parliamentary majority that is determined and courageous and able to make decisions that previously seemed uncomfortable. This is what the citizens have given us a mandate and a task to do.

Madam President, dear colleagues, since its inception, the European project was built on dialogue and measured decisions. Today, we mostly witnessed a forceful political exchange but no dialogue and not about the Hungarian Presidency's priorities – maybe next time. The core of the presidency programme is competitiveness. Presented in July, it anticipated key elements of President von der Leyen's programme and the Draghi report – same starting point, almost the same conclusions. But now we should work together to find the right policies, tools and resources to win the battle for a competitive Europe. This is what the citizens are waiting from us. Dear Madam President, Dear Prime Minister, A topic very close to my heart is also included in the Hungarian Presidency's programme: the protection of indigenous national minorities and cultural heritage. The European Parliament supports the need for European standards for the protection of minorities in the Member States and candidate countries across mandates. If we can convince the Commission and the Council that there should be no double standards, that this should not be the only forgotten minority group in the European Union, well, that is a much harder nut to crack. How do you see the opportunities on this topic?

Oh, Mr. President. After more and more terrorist acts in Western Europe, political leaders are falling into fatalism, as if such horrific events could not be prevented. As if it is not our right to decide who can enter our countries and how we can live in safety. In 2023, almost 400 000 illegal entries were recorded at the EU borders. This number can be reduced by one means: stricter protection of external borders. This is where more EU money should be spent. In the first quarter of 2024, more than 103 000 non-EU nationals were ordered to leave, but only around one third actually left. That's a terrifying piece of data. If out of the remaining 60,000 people there is only one potential terrorist who will kill innocent people at some point, then Member States have made a fatal mistake by not fully enforcing the expulsion. There's no other way. Everything is better than living in fear and closing in. It is not enough to deal with symptoms by closing borders; instead of a seriously flawed migration policy, common sense should be used.

Madam President, the agreement on the directive on asset recovery and confiscation had very broad support in the Parliament in all the phases of negotiations. Allow me to highlight some elements of this new tool in fighting organised and cross-border crime. The new confiscation framework of assets deriving from criminal activity targets the core motivation of organised crime: financial gain. Their profits are estimated at EUR 150 billion in the EU. Yet currently only about 1% of proceeds from organised crime are confiscated. Why is this so? We cannot confiscate if we cannot find out swiftly what assets criminals possess. It is difficult to confiscate assets the criminal origin of which is skilfully concealed, and cross-border exchange of information, even within the EU today, is limited and slow. The negotiated text will change the situation on all these fronts. Asset recovery authorities will have almost immediate access to all the relevant national asset databases, and they will be able to freeze criminal assets before they dissipate. Loopholes used by criminals to avoid confiscation will be closed by non-conviction-based confiscation or confiscation of unexplained wealth linked to criminal activities. Asset recovery offices will be mandated to swiftly exchange information with their counterparts in other EU Member States, and victims’ rights are now also better protected. The Parliament has secured a large number of wins during negotiations. So together with my colleagues the shadow rapporteurs, we encourage you to support this important legislative initiative as a relevant step in the fight against criminal organisations and to increase the security of our citizens.

I wish you a good day. Doamnă președintă, domnule președinte, fiecare cetățean român înțelege această urare în limba maghiară. Nu pentru că majoritatea a început să învețe limba minorității, ci pentru că în 2020 ați folosit limba maghiară ca instrument politic împotriva adversarilor dumneavoastră. Iar de când sunteți președinte nu ați răspuns deloc la propunerea venită din partea comunității maghiare de a realiza un pact majoritate-minoritate. Există modellé de succes în protecția minorităților europene în țări membre ale Uniunii Europene, care nici măcar nu pot fi discutate la București, iar între timp extremiștii capătă forță în România. Xenophobia, pe de o parte, și comportamentul antidemocratic, antieuropean, pe de altă parte, provin din aceeași rădăcină. Sunt de acord cu dumneavoastră, rămân multe de făcut în România și în Uniunea Europeană pentru România. Ne aflăm pe un traseu de integrare deplină la Uniunea Europeană. De aceea, aderarea integrală la zona Schengen trebuie să devină realitate, pentru că este dreptul nostru câștigat.

Mr President, dear colleagues, this proposal not only revisits last year’s resolution calling for the revision of the Treaties that already included some specific areas to be amended, but is in fact a profound EU reform. While each of us can find in it an element that resonates with the priorities of our voters, looking at the text and its annexes, it would change the entire EU architecture. One starting point was the need for a treaty change to be able to accommodate new Member States. Yet, instead of having precision surgery on specific points, this project is in fact an amputation of the consensus-based EU decision-making process in key areas. The unanimity provided for in the Treaties has in no way prevented meaningful action when there was a political will. In fact, it is never efficient to have a broad legislation based on a single case, as the foreign affairs and the sanctions regime looks like. Political priorities come and go. Tomorrow, we might have other challenges. But we cannot change the Treaties every time we are confronted with a defiance. A Union of diverse issues should not aim to eliminate the power of consensus, nor should it aim to impose majority decisions on a minority at all costs, including in the ratification process of the new treaty. Even if we accept that we would gain in efficiency in doing so, we would lose more in terms of democratic control. The majority of the proposals reflect a centralist approach. Not even one strengthens national or regional competences – this being the opposite of federalism. Centralising power in the hands of the EU should never be an aim in itself. The aim should always be to deliver on the needs of our citizens.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, congratulations to the organisers of the Fur Free Europe successful European Citizens’ Initiative. As standing rapporteur for the ECIs in Parliament, I am glad that another initiative made it to the plenary: the tenth in 10 years. More than 1.5 million Europeans signed your proposal. It is a remarkable number, which means not only a huge responsibility towards the supporters, but it gives a strong signal to the EU institutions that the ECIs cannot be ignored by the legislators. The EU animal welfare legislation is currently under revision. The EPP Group welcomes it. The Commission’s initiative is an opportunity to introduce the necessary provisions concerning a full ban on fur farms. Our Parliament is an important supporter of citizens’ participation. Through the plenary debates, we have raised awareness of the many ideas that emerge from the public agenda through various ECIs. In this regard, we will certainly carefully assess the actions taken by the Commission on a fur-free EU.

Dear Mr President, Thank you, Commissioner, Mr Secretary of State. Dear Members, I live in a safe part of Europe. In Romania, people of Jewish origin do not have to fear for their lives. There is no room for ideological controversy in our schools, so we do not delay teachers. Ethnic coexistence is not always easy, but no one has to fear for their life because they are wearing another country's football shirt. In Western Europe, however, something has gone wrong. It is incomprehensible to me that state security agencies do not have the possibility to expel non-EU nationals with a jihadist past from the country or to isolate radicalised individuals. They say they have basic rights. I ask, did the teachers killed in France, the Swedish supporters killed in Brussels, the hundreds of people killed in the terrorist attacks in Western Europe have no rights, no right to life and no expectation of the protection of the state? What is an open society? What good is freedom if we have to live in fear? The solution is clear and obvious, but we do not dare to talk about it openly enough. Strict protection of the external borders through joint efforts, swift processing of asylum applications at border crossings, employment contracts for immigrants and the immediate expulsion of those illegally staying in their countries. Dear Commission, Dear Council, Do not act ideologically, but on the basis of common sense.

Mr President, colleagues, I agree with the Council that there is an important lesson from this year’s exercise regarding the Parliament’s seat distribution, and that is that we need a permanent allocation mechanism and a reasonable timeline for the adoption of such a complicated file. I am not using the word ‘mathematical formula’, because it would be impossible to balance the weight of the Member States in Council and in Parliament using exclusively scientific tools. But a well-built allocation mechanism could replace, in the future, the lengthy political debate over Member States’ interests. It is a file with the slogan: ‘the sooner the better’. I would like to thank, in the end, the co-rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs for their contributions and also the work of all the staff in Parliament who worked on this report.

Mr President, dear colleagues, as co-rapporteur of the file on the composition of the European Parliament, I welcome that in its draft decision on the distribution of seats, the European Council has followed the logic of the Parliament’s proposal, carrying out, however, some additions to it. In the absence of a permanent allocation mechanism for the distribution of seats that could be properly linked to the voting system in the Council – as well as the fact that Parliament does not at present use all seats available to it – the Parliament has proposed a solution which strictly respected the principle of digressive proportionality, did not add more seats than absolutely necessary to achieve respect for this principle, reflected demographic development in Member States, and last but not least, did not propose seat losses in the case of any Member State giving the opportunity to the European Council to avoid unnecessary complications. I do regret, however, that while confirming our general approach, the Council did not consult the Parliament when it became clear that it intended to deviate from our proposal in regard to the number of seats. It added 4 seats and it deleted the proposed allocation of 28 seats of a union-wide constituency, subject to the adoption of the legal basis for that constituency. From a strictly legal point of view, we can admit that there is no direct link about the new electoral law proposed by Parliament and the distribution of seats, but a slim majority of the Parliament believes it was an important political point to make in order to get the Council’s opinion on the electoral law proposal. From the decisions of the Council that contains no reference on the transnational list, we may understand that there is not only no consensus in the Council for the idea among Member States, but not even a majority support. Nevertheless, taking everything into consideration, the principle of mutual sincere cooperation would have required that the European Council informed us about its intention not to follow our proposal. On our side, however, my co-rapporteur and I, we made important efforts to consult with the Council before we adopted an initial position. And a polite but unambiguous answer of the Council was that it needed to have the official proposal of Parliament first. Once it had it, the deal regarding consultation was not respected. Thus, there was no proper interinstitutional dialogue on the possible outcomes. What I regret most, however, is that the European Council took the unfortunate decision to introduce a recital calling for the increase in seats to be budget neutral. Not only is this a legally void proposal – I remind here that the European Council itself has increased the number of seats by four compared to the Parliament’s proposal – it is also lacking any legal consequence. The establishment of the Union’s annual budget is a task entrusted by the Treaties to the budgetary authority. I would like to thank the good cooperation we had with my colleague, co-rapporteur Sandro Gozi. We navigated well through this complicated file even though we were coming from opposite directions. Now, at present, given the necessity to move rapidly with this file in order to ensure that Member States can do their preparations for the election in line with their constitutional requirements, my political group, the EPP, will give its consent to the European Council decision, and I am confident that the majority of this House will do as well.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, the European Citizens Initiative is an agenda setting, instrument generating debate. But more importantly, it is the only participatory instrument at EU level which can lead to a proposal of a legal act of the Union. And this is the aspect that remains at the forefront of the European Parliament’s efforts. We must make sure that the voice of over 1 million Europeans, a very big democratic base, expressed during the signature of an initiative, is not in vain. My report contains appreciation towards the Commission in organising the process, but it also points out shortcomings and presents recommendations. The revised ECI Regulation has undoubtedly lowered the procedural hurdles for organisers and supporters. Following several cases lost before the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission has ultimately made it easier for ECIs to meet the necessary legal requirements and to benefit from partial registration. The central online collection system has also been improved over the years. The Commission unit responsible for ECIs has also run a number of communication campaigns, as did the European Economic and Social Committee, in order to make this instrument more known among citizens. Response during the Covid period was fast and useful. The temporary ECI Regulation that we swiftly approved in Parliament extended time limits for the different stages of the ECI process in response to the pandemic. The revised ECI Regulation also strengthened the political dimension by introducing a mandatory plenary debate in Parliament and extended and introduced the mandatory plenary debate in Parliament with the possibility of adopting a resolution before the Commission presents its assessment. However, we have to acknowledge that the ECI instrument still falls short of its democratic potential. It has not only limited visibility, but more importantly, low effectiveness in terms of proposals by the Commission for Legal Acts of the Union. This risks weakening the participatory mechanism. The report proposes several ways to improve the ECIs. First of all, a proper dialogue should be established with all organisers. No discrimination should be allowed based on their goals and the best ways to achieve them. This could already be initiated during the collection period. The Commission needs to carry out a thorough assessment of each valid ECI in a well argued, clear, comprehensible and detailed manner. More importantly, this assessment should be on the subject of the valid ECIs. Besides the central online collection system, allowing the collection on third-party systems again should also be assessed. Running an ECI is an extremely difficult and costly process. There should be a strong consideration of financial support for successful ECIs to reward their efforts. After all, their democratic involvement arguably has more impact than many civil society actions generously supported by the EU budget. Parliament also aims to increase its engagement in the ECI process. It commits to vote a parliamentary resolution after every valid ECI and after every Commission communication, setting out its legal and political conclusions and to change its rules of procedure to allow for this. One last idea about the ECI in the framework of other EU consultative instruments: I agree with all my esteemed shadow rapporteur colleagues, whom I warmly thank for their contribution and cooperation, when they say more in-depth discussion is needed on the concerns expressed in valid ECIs. I would, however, be extremely cautious about mixing this very special tool with clear rules and obligations with other more ad hoc consultation methods like the Commission-led citizens panels and thus diluting its effects.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner. As we reflect on the legacy of the European Year of Youth, clearly one of the most pressing issues was the lack of proper funding which affected the quality and scope of the events organised. Romania received a very small amount from Erasmus+ for youth projects and the payment was made only in November 2022. This definitely did not mean good planning, sufficient funding and effective events. You spoke about future planning and that several of your colleagues will be involved in this effort. So how can the Commission ensure that future initiatives are more closely aligned with the stated objectives and that resources are focused on activities that will have a significant impact? You also mentioned inclusion and diversity. What measures will be taken to ensure that policies and programmes are tailored to meet the needs of all young people, including those from diverse ethnic, cultural, linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds?