What changed

SUGGESTIONS

The Committee on Women's Rights and GenderRegional EqualityDevelopment calls on the Committee on Budgetary Control, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions into its motion for a resolution:

A. whereas, gender equality and the elimination of inequalities are core values upon which the Union is founded, and the commitment to promote equality between men and women in all of its actions as enshrined in Article 8 TFEU;

1. Reminds that cohesion spending is reimbursement-based and hence very complex and more prone to error than other spending areas; acknowledges that the proximity of the closure of the 2014-2020 period, the flexibilities and additional funding made available through CRII(+), CARE and REACT-EU and the parallel implementation of the RRF may have contributed to increasing the pressure on the managing authorities and beneficiaries and thus the number of errors;

1. Stresses that equal opportunities for men and women should be a given in all policy areas; however evidence based data should be the basis, rather than wolf-crying calls claiming women are more impacted by war, Covid, climate change, or that the best solution for women is more abortions; therefore savings can be made in the budgetary process by reducing these budgetary lines;

2. Reminds that, without prejudice to the need to support the authorities and beneficiaries to better comply with spending rules and minimise errors, the most pressing issues to be addressed in the area of cohesion policy are, on the one hand, the overly complex rules and procedures and the disproportionate administrative burden they entail and, on the other hand, the effective targeting of the funds;

2. Raises concerns about the demonisation of groups supporting pregnant women; notes that this is contrary to Article 2 TEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, where the right to life is enshrined; is further concerned by disrespect of Member State competences in the area of health; therefore calls for a removal of funding for organisations which promote abortion; calls on the Commission to explore the core mission of those to whom EU funds are granted and to withhold funding from actors using EU funds for the purposes of terminating human rights, particularly women’s rights and gender equality;

3. Highlights the role of the EPPO in protecting the EU budget; reminds that, in her appearance before the Committee on Regional Development on 25 May 2023, the European Public Prosecutor noted that the management and control system for EU expenditure currently in place is not designed to detect fraud and that audits or administrative investigations rarely detect financial crime; stresses the need to provide the EPPO with the necessary means to carry out its duties; is of the opinion that a strengthened EPPO would make it possible for the legislator to further simplify the regulatory framework for cohesion;

3. Notes that gender mainstreaming is flawed, because it would force women into roles, employment and identities, which they may not want, rather than simply giving individuals and families the opportunity to decide;

4. Notes that the Commission’s error estimates are above the materiality threshold but are significantly lower than the Court’s; draws attention to the different methodologies applied by the two institutions; is worried about the growing discrepancy between the assessments provided by the Court of Auditors and the Commission, especially in the area of cohesion;

4. Notes the flawed methodology in calculating the Union’s gender pay gap of 12.7 %, as it fails to take into account a person’s choice to undertake work which is lower paid, or is part time in nature;

5. Draws attention to the increased risk of decommitments in the coming years and urges the Commission to continue its cooperation with the Member States and the regions to both speed up and ease the good closure of the 2014-2020 programming period;

5. Notes the importance of combatting violence and trafficking, as outlined in the Daphne initiative but calls for transparency over the results of the money invested.

6. Is concerned that the prioritisation of the RRF in the Member States is causing delays in the implementation of funds under the CPR 2021-2027.