On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union support for the Schengen area, for European integrated border management and for the common policy on visas for the period from 2028 to 2034

3.Recalls that the overall additional funding allocated to home affairs actions through the EU Facility will be established in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure with full respect for the prerogatives of the budgetary authority; expresses concern that the allocation of funding between the three Home Affairs funds and across Member States is determined solely by the Commission through its work programme; considers that this effectively limits Parliament’s role to approving an aggregate figure with no say over actual spending priorities; calls for clear allocation criteria, enhanced transparency and parliamentary involvement throughout the entire decision process;

4.Considers that sufficient resources, including human, technical and IT resources, must be available from the outset and throughout the entire programming period of the 2028-2034 MFF to ensure an effective implementation of the proposed Union support for the Schengen area, European integrated border management and the common policy on visas; underlines the importance of ensuring efficient and proportionate use of Union funds, while avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens;

5.Considers that a certain degree of flexibility in the allocation of funding for home affairs objectives is already provided through the Thematic Facility; in line with Opinion 09/2026 of the European Court of Auditors, considers that the increased flexibility provided for in the proposed NRP Regulation, allowing Member States to reallocate, when submitting their initial plan or during implementation, amounts between the three envelopes of the Home Affairs Regulations without the need to provide a justification, would run the risk of reallocations not being based on objective criteria and could result in a lack of ex ante predictability of funding for the programme; stresses that in duly justified cases any unforeseen but necessary changes to the initially planned allocations should remain within the limits and objectives set out in the basic act and that Member States should inform the Commission of such changes without undue delay;

6.Is concerned regarding the absence of clear and objective criteria, definitions and methodology as to what the Commission would consider an adequate or sufficient level of resources to be allocated to asylum, migration and integration, border management and visa policy and internal security, in order to meet, in a proportionate manner, all objectives in the area of home affairs, as highlighted by the European Court of Auditors in its Opinion 09/2026;

7.As highlighted in Parliament’s resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2028 to 2034, believes that all substantive policy choices, such as programme objectives, spending priorities, financial allocations, funding rates, eligibility, selection and award criteria, conditions, definitions and calculation methods, must be determined in the relevant basic act legislation, with full respect for Parliament’s prerogatives as a co-legislator and one arm of the EU’s budgetary authority, and that any supplementing and non-essential elements entailing policy choices that are not included in the basic act must be adopted exclusively through delegated acts; further insists, in the context of the approval of NRPPs, that Parliament and Council be placed on equal footing during the entire procedure;

8.Deplores the lack of a sufficiently detailed indicative budgetary nomenclature for the Schengen area, for European integrated border management and for the common policy on visas proposed in the Legislative Financial and Digital Statement (LFDS) accompanying the NRP Regulation; considers that this will hamper oversight and the budgetary authority’s ability to accurately steer policy priorities in the annual budgetary procedure; recommends giving consideration to fixing indicative sub-envelopes in the basic act; expresses concerns that the overly aggregated budgetary architecture would dramatically increase the Commission’s discretion in transferring and reallocating resources without a decision from the budgetary authority, and would severely limit parliamentary oversight; recommends, therefore, a more detailed nomenclature that properly reflects the programme objectives and structure and enhances transparency, accountability and parliamentary control;

9.Recalls that the budgetary nomenclature must be established in line with Article 47(2) of the Financial Regulation, which provides that each title must correspond to a policy area and each chapter, as a rule, to a programme or an activity, in line with the principles of specification, sound financial management and transparency; recommends that the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs amends the proposal to include an annex defining the nomenclature of the programme; insists that the budgetary nomenclature forms an integral part of Parliament’s negotiating position and must be discussed in interinstitutional negotiations; considers, in this regard, that the revised LFDS must be part of the final political agreement;

10.Insists that sufficiently detailed and sound legislation, with an appropriate level of governance, is a condition for proper budgetary decision-making and adequate parliamentary oversight during budget implementation; recommends introducing provisions to strengthen control over how the budget is mobilised and spent; considers that the so-called ‘steering mechanism’ can in no way be a substitute for Parliament’s legislative and budgetary powers, and cannot be conceived without a sound governance architecture that ensures the effective exercise of such powers;

11.Insists that the prerogatives of the budgetary authority should be fully respected; calls for more transparency regarding the allocation and use of funds from the EU Facility;

12.Welcomes the emphasis placed on increased coherence between migration, asylum, return and external policies; stresses that synergies and complementarity with other EU policies and programmes, such as the Union support for asylum, migration and integration and for internal security, should be pursued exclusively with a view to maximising operational efficiency and delivery, avoiding duplication of funding, while preserving the distinct policy objectives of each instrument;

13.Recalls that under Article 6(2) of the Financial Regulation, the establishment and implementation of the budget must comply with a general regime of conditionality in case of breaches of the rule of law; underlines, furthermore, that Article 6(3) of the same regulation requires the Member States and the Commission, in the implementation of the budget, to ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and respect the values on which the EU is founded, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union; in this regard, calls for a comprehensive ex ante screening in the award procedure process under the programme;

14.Stresses that the use of external assigned revenue under the present Union support must be clearly circumscribed, fully transparent and subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny; takes note, in that regard, of the provisions relating to additional contributions to the programme; recalls the importance of ensuring the traceability of external assigned revenue; underlines that, should the lead committee consider amending provisions relating to external assigned revenue, this should be done in coordination with the Committee on Budgets and the other committees in order to ensure a consistent approach;

15.Recalls the proposal for a regulation on establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework and other horizontal rules for the Union programmes and activities (the performance regulation), which establishes a single streamlined list for performance indicators and monitoring and evaluation provisions, some of which are relevant for the programme; underlines that any change to the architecture, objectives and eligible actions under the programme will need to be appropriately reflected in Annex I of the performance regulation, as part of the process of amending and negotiating that regulation; points out that, while sectoral legislation can supplement the performance regulation, for instance as regards programme evaluations, it should remain consistent with the provisions of that regulation;

16.Takes note of the proposed complementarity between the Union support for the Schengen area, for European integrated border management and for the common policy on visas and other programmes such as Global Europe; stresses that enhanced complementarity between instruments must not come at the expense of traceability of expenditure or the prerogatives of the budgetary authority; underlines that the contribution of the programme to operations financed jointly with other instruments must be explicitly identifiable at all stages of the budgetary cycle; stresses, in this regard, that any such contribution must be duly reflected in the programme performance statement; insists that the budgetary authority retain full control over how resources are combined across instruments and over the effective contribution of each programme to EU priorities, specifically through detailed budgetary nomenclature; stresses that enhanced complementarity between programmes must not lead to disproportionate complexity for beneficiaries; calls for EU funding to be clearer, more accessible and more coherent in order to facilitate uptake and maximise the impact of investments;

17.Calls for consistent and harmonised requirements to be established for Member States regarding the prevention, detection, reporting and correction of fraud from the outset of the implementation period;

18.Stresses that robust control and audit frameworks must be established to protect the Union’s financial interests;

19.Calls on the lead committee to coordinate its amendments so that they are entirely consistent with those adopted to the NRP Regulation; reiterates the need to maintain a horizontal implementation framework and rules for policies included under the NRPPs, in order to ensure coherence and avoid fragmentation.