On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union support for internal security for the period 2028 to 2034

3.Stresses that the fight against organised crime, including drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings and illicit financial flows, requires adequate and predictable EU funding; calls for sufficient support under the next MFF for Europol, Eurojust, the EU Drugs Agency, the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Training, the European Anti-Fraud Office, the EU Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, in line with their mandates, in order to strengthen operational cooperation and enforcement capacity;

4.Deplores the lack of a breakdown of the budget of the Union support for internal security; notes that this would give the Commission great latitude to shift and decide on spending priorities during implementation; stresses that simplification and flexibility must not come at the expense of transparency and oversight by the budgetary authority; recommends, therefore, that the basic act include sub-envelopes for all specific objectives;

5.Considers that a certain degree of flexibility in the allocation of funding between home affairs objectives is necessary; underlines, however, that such flexibility must be circumscribed so as to ensure sufficient ex ante predictability regarding the actual 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 for the Union support for internal security, while fully respecting Member States’ national security prerogatives and the principle of subsidiarity, in order to allow the programme to pursue its objectives and deliver on citizens’ expectations;

6.Raises concerns regarding the absence of clear criteria as to what the Commission would consider an adequate or sufficient level of resources to be allocated to migration, border management and internal security in order to meet all objectives in the area of home affairs, as highlighted by the European Court of Auditors in Opinion 09/2026;

7.Recalls that the overall additional funding allocated to Home Affairs actions through the EU Facility, including to the Union support for internal security, will be established in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure, with full respect for the prerogatives of the budgetary authority; expresses concern, however, that the subsequent allocation of funding from the EU Facility between the three Home Affairs funds and across Member States is determined solely by the Commission through its work programmes; 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;

8.Deplores the lack of a sufficiently detailed indicative budgetary nomenclature proposed in the Legislative Financial and Digital Statement (LFDS); considers that this will hamper 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, therefore, a more detailed nomenclature that properly reflects the Union support for internal security’s 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 amend 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.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;

12.Takes note of the suggested complementarity between the programme and the other Home Affairs funds, as well as 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 Union support for internal security 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 for the Union support for internal security; 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;

13.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 internal security; 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;

14.Stresses, furthermore, that robust control and audit frameworks must be established to protect the EU’s financial interests, especially against fraud, across all funds, programmes and financial instruments of the future MFF;

15.Calls on the lead committee to coordinate its amendments so that they are entirely consistent with those adopted to the proposed NRP Regulation; reiterates, in this regard, 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.