Debate contributions by Jacek PROTAS

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The rule of law conditionality mechanism, which has been in place for five years, is one of the pillars of protecting the transparency, purposefulness and soundness of the management of European Union funds. Today, when we start the planning process for the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034, we also need to review the functioning of this important instrument. Thank you very much to the authors of the report, in which they constructively point out the shortcomings of this mechanism and propose concrete solutions for the future. From this point of view, I would like to strongly strengthen my voice against the Commission's proposal to make widespread use of financing not linked to costs in the next MFF without adequate safeguards to ensure sound financial management in the implementation of European funds. I share the concerns about such a significant transition to a new budget delivery model without taking due account of the shortcomings identified in the existing performance-based instruments and without a comprehensive assessment of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. I call on the Commission to review its proposal that European funds should serve our people well and be invested safely.

Mr President, thank you very much. Let me start with a quote from the report: "Cohesion policy is a key pillar of the European Union budget. It aims to reduce economic, social and territorial disparities between the countries and regions of the European Union, foster innovation, the green and digital transitions, and strengthen economic cohesion." Let's not forget these key tasks. In 2024, we allocated more than 32% of the total budget to cohesion policy. Of the 431 programmes, 91 % had well-functioning management and control systems and 9 had serious weaknesses. The dubious merit of these 9% is, after all, specific to the Member States, so it is necessary – and here also the role of the European Commission – to have a proper impact on these countries in order to adapt their systems properly. The error rate has dropped significantly from year to year, but is still worrying according to the ECA. Of course, I share that view. On the other hand, the most important thing is where these irregularities come from, namely ineligible costs and projects, violation of public procurement procedures, lack of documents confirming expenditure. This shows that we need a real system of simplification in relation to the implementation of European measures. Simplification first and foremost. And finally, one more quote, Mr President. "The Court recognises that the RRF has blurred accountability mechanisms, which are more structured in cohesion policy." This is a proposal for the future when discussing the new budget.

Dear President, Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Cohesion policy is the cornerstone, backbone of the unity and cohesion of the European Union. Equalizing development opportunities, eliminating differences in the level and living conditions of the inhabitants of European regions is our primary task. If we forget this, we will lose the glue that builds the European community. I am talking about this in order to warn against attempts to introduce radical changes in cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy after 2027, which are aimed at its nationalisation and centralisation. It is impossible to activate the development potential of regions, respond to their most important needs, applying the same measure to all. Regions must have the tools to implement their own development policies with European support. It is not enough for them to be intermediaries in the distribution of centrally managed funds. Deconcentration is not the same as decentralization. We should all be aware of this when planning cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy for the coming years.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you very much. Speaking of the review of cohesion policy, I would like to draw attention today to one very important aspect, namely the need to move away from a rigid framework of thematic concentration. Development needs, barriers to economic growth, social deficits are very different in the countries and regions of the European Union. Our regions differ from each other, sometimes diametrically. It is therefore not possible to apply a single template for the European Community as a whole. It's irrational. A more flexible approach will allow for better and quick desired results of cohesion policy. It will also speed up its implementation. I therefore call for more flexibility in the mid-term review, especially in the approach to the regions bordering Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and for my proposals to be taken into account when planning the new cohesion policy post-2027.

Mr President, thank you very much. The European Court of Auditors report shows a negative trend of increasing the error rate in budget expenditure to 5.6% and in cohesion policy to as much as 9.3%. Undoubtedly, these are alarming phenomena. This is likely to be influenced by objective factors, such as the cumulation of the implementation of cohesion policy and the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The institutional capacity of many Member States is often inadequate to accumulate such large amounts of investment. Also important is the war in Ukraine, which has changed the internal situation in many member countries. However, I would like to draw the European Commission's particular attention to the need to simplify the procedures for implementing cohesion policy and the RRF. Excessive complexity and requirements imposed on beneficiaries hamper the effective investment of funds and also undermine citizens' trust in our policies. Many potential beneficiaries will even give up applying for support because they are afraid that they will not be able to cope with procedures and excessive bureaucracy. Simplifications in cohesion policy have been talked about for a long time. However, the time has come to turn words into concrete, effective actions for simplification in cohesion policy.

Mr President, thank you very much. The authorities of the European Union should remain firmly on the side of the Georgian people, who strongly expect integration into the community. Georgia's membership in the European Union is a guarantee of sovereignty and independence from Putin's Russia. As a Pole, I understand very well and I wholeheartedly support these aspirations. If, as a European community, we fail the Georgians and stop the integration processes, we will hand this country over to Putin without a fight. That would be an unforgivable mistake with huge negative consequences. At the same time, we cannot afford to tolerate violations of democratic principles and civil liberties by the Georgian government and the parliamentary majority. The adoption of the law on foreign agents, despite huge protests and opposition from the President of Georgia, is a dangerous phenomenon of duplicating Russian patterns. These actions are incomprehensible and unacceptable, contradicting the declarations of the Georgian government about its willingness to continue the process of integration with the European Union. In conclusion: we must support Georgian civil society in its efforts to build the foundations for the country's integration into the European community. At the same time, we expect strong pressure from the European Commission on the Georgian government to restore democratic order and civil liberties.

Mr President, thank you very much. Natural disasters, floods, fires that have hit Europe in recent weeks have caused massive damage to public infrastructure. Roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, cultural and sports facilities have been damaged or completely destroyed. I would like to point out that many of these facilities were still under construction with the support of European funds. Therefore, on behalf of local and regional authorities, I ask the European Commission to prepare specific legal instruments that will allow managing authorities to consider existing expenditure as eligible and to allocate additional funds for the completion of these projects according to new, improved projects. A flexible approach to the management of the 2020-2027 programmes is also needed to dedicate support to the needs arising from natural disasters. The needs that regional and local authorities are best aware of. I also call on the national authorities to prepare resources for own contributions to projects requiring additional funding. Without our concrete, measurable and immediate help, local governments will not be able to cope with the reconstruction of public facilities after disasters. The resolution is important, but the most important thing is concrete, quick and courageous decisions.