Debate: General budget of the European Union for the financial year  - all sections
Date: TUESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2021
Speaker: Irena Drmaž
Language: EN

The core priorities for the Union – and I think we share the same view – are the recovery of the European economy, the fight against climate change and the EU green and digital transition. On this, I think, we are of a common view.  In this respect, the events that we have confronted recently with the pandemic, with natural and other disasters, as well as the dramatic developments at the international level, are the confirmation that we need to foresee sufficient margins in the EU budget to face challenges that could occur in many areas, including security, humanitarian aid and migration.  If these margins do not exist, the EU will not be able to act on these occasions. Parliament, with these margins, proposes to increase the expenditures above the Council’s positions of 4.1 billion in commitment appropriations and 2.5 billion in payment appropriations. We are just at the beginning of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF). The Council cannot accept the full use of the margins in almost all headings, as well as the substantial use of special instruments requested by Parliament.  What the Union needs is a budget for 2022 that creates trust for the future, avoids unnecessary expenditure and foresees sufficient margins to face any unexpected circumstance or challenge that may arise in the next years.  Allow me to touch upon a few more detailed points. Regarding the financing of research and innovation: the Council recognises that Horizon Europe is an essential instrument to support the recovery of our economies from the pandemic and to contribute to the Green Deal, to a climate—neutral economy and to a successful digital transition. However, Parliament’s proposal to increase the allocation foreseen by the Council by more than 1.51 billion goes against the attempt to make a stable evolution for the future.  The Council also considers that the opportunity offered in Article 15.3 of the Financial Regulation needs to be employed in a responsible manner and back—loaded for the second part of the MFF period. This would bring a more appropriate and stable financing of Horizon once the top—ups from Next Generation EU stop.  Moreover, the Council is surprised by the proposal to make use of the more than 400 million resulting from the remaining 2020 research decommitments as they were neither forecasted nor included in the MFF agreement.  With regard to the investment in people and social cohesion and values, Parliament proposes an additional EUR 700 million for the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) to foster the implementation of the European Child Guarantee.  I would like to note here that Parliament and the Council have agreed on a provision to finance the measures necessary to deal with this important topic for the years 2021—2027 in the framework of the ESF+ Regulation, which entered into force from July this year. It is difficult to understand why a few months later Parliament wants to change the agreed approach. Moreover, here there is also the implementation aspect. The ESF+ is mainly implemented under shared management, and Member States’ programmes are already underway.  As regards the financing of the recovery and resilience, while the Council fully acknowledges the importance of programmes such as EU4Health and Erasmus+, these programmes have already been reinforced in the draft budget. Therefore, a further increase of EUR 300 million does not seem reasonable.  The Council reaffirms its strong commitment to ensuring sufficient funding for the important areas of migration, border security and defence. However, Parliament’s proposed increases in these areas do not seem well funded, and what is more would leave us without any room for manoeuvre in case of unexpected events.  Regarding the external action of the Union, the Council takes note of the proposed increase of over one billion as compared to the Council’s position. The Council acknowledges that the situation in external policy, and humanitarian aid in particular, can fluctuate quickly, as shown by the evolution in Afghanistan this year, and the Council agrees that there is a need to be able to react swiftly to possible oncoming challenges.  However, we also note that when the situation in a country deteriorates, development aid is often substituted by humanitarian aid. They are not systematically complementary. This will, in all likelihood, be the case for Afghanistan as EU development assistance is based on clear conditions and principles.  A partial shift on the NDICI cushion for the margin would allow for a quick, controlled mobilisation of resources when they are most needed, including humanitarian aid.  Also, in particular, the Council finds it difficult to understand the increases proposed for staff, notably in the case of the European Parliament. In the case of the budget of this House, especially, we regret that there is at the moment no explanation for such a significant increase in staff. Under these circumstances, our citizens might find it difficult to understand that the EU administration bears no part of the effort and even more difficult to understand that this increases its ranks, notably in the case of the European Parliament itself.  I have listened today to all your arguments and debates during this meeting, and I will inform my colleagues in the Council accordingly of what you have said. The Council will do its utmost to engage in a constructive dialogue, allowing us to come to an agreement on the budget for 2022 within the deadlines foreseen in the Treaty.