On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union support for asylum, migration and integration for the period from 2028 to 2034

2.Takes note that, according to the proposed NRP Regulation, the financial envelope for the three proposed Home Affairs Regulations constitutes a ring-fenced minimum; considers, however, that each of the three Home Affairs Regulations should have separate financial envelopes to better reflect their specific priorities and objectives;

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-making 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 Union support for asylum, migration and integration;

5.Considers that a certain degree of flexibility in the allocation of funding between home affairs objectives is necessary to ensure a timely and effective response to evolving and unpredictable challenges in the areas of migration, border management and internal security; underlines, however, that such flexibility must be circumscribed so as to ensure sufficient ex ante predictability regarding the effective level of funding allocated to each objective, enabling beneficiaries to properly implement the funds; considers that the increased flexibility provided for in the proposed NRP Regulation, which allows Member States to reallocate amounts, when submitting their initial plans or during implementation, between the three Home Affairs envelopes without the need to provide a justification, would run the risk of reallocations not being based on objective criteria; stresses, in this regard, the need to ensure stable and sufficient funding as part of the Union support for asylum, migration and integration, while fully respecting Member States’ national prerogatives and the principle of subsidiarity, in order to allow the programme to pursue its objectives;

6.Is concerned regarding the absence of clear criteria, definitions and methodologies 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 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 Opinion 09/2026;

7.Believes that all substantive policy choices 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;

8.Deplores the lack of a breakdown of the budget of the Union support for asylum, migration and integration; recommends the establishment of a minimum allocation for each objective of the Union support under this regulation to ensure transparency, predictability and strategic alignment with, and appropriate balance between, EU priorities; emphasises, furthermore, that a balanced allocation is a prerequisite for a meaningful performance-based budget focused on measurable outcomes and the efficient use of EU funds, as well as for the collection of consistent data and the measurement of progress across policy objectives;

9.Deplores the lack of a sufficiently detailed indicative budgetary nomenclature for asylum, migration and integration proposed in the Legislative Financial and Digital Statement (LFDS) accompanying the proposed NRP Regulation; considers that this will hamper oversight and the budgetary authority’s ability to accurately steer policy priorities in the annual budgetary procedure; 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 a nomenclature that properly reflects the asylum, migration and integration objectives and structure and enhances transparency, accountability and parliamentary control;

10.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;

11.Highlights the importance of improving coordination between the EU’s relevant funds to avoid overlaps and maximise the impact of EU funding;

12.Stresses that the Union support for asylum, migration and integration should be reinforced while continuing and expanding direct funding streams within the EU Facility for local and regional authorities, building upon the model of the current Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund thematic facility, in line with Parliament’s position expressed in its interim report and the objectives set out in this regulation;

13.Insists that the prerogatives of the budgetary authority be fully respected; calls for a periodic evaluation of the results achieved through the EU’s financial support, in order to ensure greater efficiency and accountability;

14.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;

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 Union support for asylum, migration and integration; underlines that any change to the architecture, objectives and eligible actions under the programme will need to be appropriately reflected in Annex I to 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.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;

17.Takes note of the suggested complementarity between the Union support for the asylum, migration and integration 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;

18.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 by any participating third country to the Union support; 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;

19.Calls for the definition of consistent and harmonised requirements for Member States regarding the prevention, detection, reporting and correction of fraud from the outset of the implementation period;

20.Stresses that existing robust control and audit frameworks must be fully implemented, consistently applied and effectively enforced at all levels, including in relation to third countries associated to the programme, in order to protect the Union’s financial interests;

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