Committee on Budgets Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
BUDG European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPiotr Serafin
We will keep implementation under close review. In September, we will take stock again, once we have the updated forecasts from Member States that are due by the end of July. On that basis, we may propose further reinforcements of payment in the usual draft amending budget in October. I want to stress that overall, it is a positive development. After years of delays, investments funded by cohesion policy start to materialize exactly at a time when they are needed, when our economy is confronted with the negative consequences of war both on the European continent but also in the Middle East.
Rural development is also under pressure. That is why we have included a request for 2.2 billion euro in this amending budget. This should broadly cover needs until the end of the year, though we may still return after the summer with an update. As usual, we will monitor the evolving needs and inform you in our meetings on payments in July and October with a further update of the situation. This brings me to another development which we propose to address in the draft amending budget for this year: the rising costs of fertilizers caused by the crisis in the Middle East.
Following last month's fertilizers action plan, we propose to increase the agricultural reserve for 2026 by 300 million euro. Together with 200 million euro already available in the reserve, that gives a 500 million euro package to support the most affected farmers already this year. We also propose to reinforce the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund by 140 million euro. This will help avoid a shortfall later in the year as expected assigned revenues for 2026 are lower than forecast. Higher than expected expenditures require also higher revenues.
The good news is that we also have extra revenue from fines and customs duties. Together with the surplus carried over from the start of the year, this will help offset the impact of the additional 8 billion euro in total payment appropriations on Member States' budgets this year. I hope you can support this amending budget and approve it quickly together with the Council so we can respond to these urgent needs in 2026. Now let me turn to the draft budget for 2027 and the main figures. As you can see on the slide, total commitment appropriations is almost 200 billion euro.
Compared to 2026, funding is broadly stable for headings 1, 2, 3 and 7. Heading 4 and 5 increase, reflecting higher commitments for asylum, migration and defense in line with the mid-term revision of the MFF. Heading 2b rises significantly year-on-year because of the EURI line. We'll discuss about it later. Heading 6 declines slightly in line with the seven-year downward profile agreed in 2020.
External assistance was front-loaded at the start of the MFF and then reduced gradually over time. The mid-term revision only partly corrected that trend. Importantly, part of the planned provisioning of the EFSD+ can now be recovered by reflows under the external omnibus instead of fresh appropriations. So the support remains the same for the programs covered by EFSD+. So we talk about the support for the development in third countries, but the budget appears lower in fresh appropriations.
Let me now go through the headings in a bit more detail. Heading 1: support for research and innovation decreases slightly, mainly because of the specific profile of the ITER project and a small reduction in Horizon Europe linked to the MFF mid-term revision. Heading 2a: we are following the programming initially planned for 2027. Heading 2b: there is no margin left. But priority programs in heading 2b continue as planned, including the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, Creative Europe, Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values and the Justice program, as well as the agencies.
For the EPPO, we are proposing a substantial increase of 7 million euro, including five additional posts and 11 additional European delegated prosecutors. That demonstrates that the Commission is determined to support EPPO in its activities all around Europe. Let me say a word on Erasmus+. Recoveries from the COVID years remain very significant and they allow us both to further increase Erasmus+ funding, as the Parliament has repeatedly asked, and to create more room for the EURI cascade in 2027. Heading 3: here we also have the agricultural reserve under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund with the full 450 million euro in fresh appropriations for 2027.
This is our best estimate for now, but we will update in the autumn through an amending letter based on the latest execution data. Heading 4 continues to benefit from the reinforcement in the MFF mid-term revision for the implementation of the Asylum and Migration Pact. So three funds which are dedicated to that will receive extra 1.2 billion euro. Heading 5 reflects our security and defense priorities. The new European Defense Industry Program, agreed, adopted by co-legislators in December last year, but also in March we proposed Agile to speed up the move from innovation to deployment in the defense sector.
We also continue to support internal security through the Internal Security Fund and Europol. Heading 6 continues to fund Syrian refugees in Türkiye and in the wider region in line with the 2027 financial programming. It also helps to address the crisis in the Middle East, including Palestine. It covers humanitarian aid to crises around the world and also includes the 200 million euro support package for Greenland announced lately by the Commission. In Heading 6 we also have a 303 million euro surplus of provisions under the European Fund for Sustainable Development.
I referred to it already and I will also refer to it in a minute. This can be used to increase the margin without having a negative impact on the programs. For Ukraine, we provide 4 billion euro in non-repayable support under the Ukraine Facility financed from the Ukraine Reserve, which sits outside Heading 6. And now for to Heading 7, salaries and pension updates are automatic and rules-based, but high inflation has kept many institutions under pressure on both credit and staff. The Commission proposed a reinforcement for Heading 7 in the MFF mid-term revision, but as you know, it was not kept.
We have applied the same strict approach to all institutions, we know this will require difficult choices, especially for the smaller institution. We welcome the Parliament's efforts to keep non-salaries spending within the 2% limit and staffing stable. And yet, even with this strict approach, the needs exceed the ceiling of Heading 7 by 700 million euro. That means we will need to keep using the special instruments as we have done since 2024. Now, EURI cascade.
As interest rates rose, the amount set aside for NGEU interest became insufficient already in 2024 budget. So we have this EURI cascade mechanism in place. For 2027, the additional needs for the EURI line amount to almost 5 billion euro, above what we had in the financial programming. This is our best estimate at this stage, the final amount based on disbursements until the end of September will be set out in the amending letter in early October. As for financing, in line with the agreement which was reached between two arms of the budgetary authority, we go for the 50-50 approach, which means 2.5 billion euro will come from existing availabilities, 520 million euro from the remaining unallocated margin under sub-heading 2b and the other 2 billion euro from special instruments.
The other half will be covered by the EURI instrument using decommitments made since 2021. Ukraine support loan. Now, this Ukraine support loan, as you know, decided by the heads of states and governments December last year, it will provide urgently needed military assistance and general budget support for Ukraine, planned disbursements in the second and third quarters of 2026 amount around 30 billion euro. And that would lead to funding costs that we would need to reflect in the budget 2027, the funding cost at the level of 1.15 billion euro. To finance these costs, we have followed the logic set out in the revised MFF regulation as adopted on the 23rd of April.
First, we identified budgetary room created by the surplus provisioning of the European Fund for Sustainable Development that I mentioned earlier under Heading 6, so this provisioning that was no longer necessary and resulted in reflows not affecting therefore the implementation of the policy.
The remaining share of costs will be funded from the flexibility instrument, 50 million euro, past margins from the single margin instrument, 335 million euro, and current margins under the single margin instrument, 262 million euro. On that basis, the full amount is covered by existing availabilities and there is no need to mobilize the new Ukraine support loan instrument. As with the EURI line, we will update the final amount and if needed the financing in the amending letter. Now remaining margins for 2027. They are as planned in the financial programming, except in heading 2B and 7 where we have been relying on special instruments for some years now.
In heading 1, the margin is 179 million euro. In heading 3, 81 million euro remains available including 35 million euro under the EAGF sub-ceiling. Heading 4 has a margin of 104 million euro for possible emergencies and heading 6 has 100 million euro for unforeseen events. In total, the remaining margin in commitments is close to 477 million euro. No availabilities remain in the flexibility instrument.
The EU Solidarity Reserve and the Emergency Aid Reserve remain fully available to support requests under the EU Solidarity Fund and humanitarian aid and other emergency needs. Now on payments. Between 2026 and 2027 budgets, including draft amending budget presented just a few minutes ago, payments increase by almost 14 billion euro or 7% year on year. That brings total payments in 2027 to 212 billion euro, leaving just half a billion euro under the payment ceiling. We see increases in payments across many headings.
This is normal for this stage in the cycle. Programs are now running at full speed as already expected in the long-term payment forecast. So the large overall increase should not come as a surprise. Our estimate of payment needs for 2027 is thorough and realistic, but we are fully aware of the impact on Member States' GNI contributions, especially at a time when many of them face major fiscal pressures. Next steps on the budget procedure that you, those of you, and for me it will be the second budgetary procedure, so I almost know it by heart by now.
So the full draft budget in all languages will be adopted on the 9th of July. We will then hold two trilogues on the 16th of July and on 14th October. We will also present an amending letter in early October with the usual agricultural updates, the final figures on the EURI interest line and the Ukraine support loan, and if needed, an update for heading 7. Conciliation will start on the 27th of October and we aim to reach an agreement by 16th of November.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you, Commissioner. First of all, now Nils Ušakovs, general rapporteur for the 2027 budget. Please.
Nils Ušakovs
Oh, Commissioner, thank you for this presentation and for coming to our committee so soon after your college meeting. This budget will serve as a bridge between the current and the next MFF and is an opportunity to build a robust foundation for the years to come. Therefore, the European Union needs to deliver on the promises we made to the European people. In the context of increased uncertainties and strategic challenges from inside and outside, we need a budget that will deliver prosperity for our citizens, create and protect high-quality jobs while leaving no one behind, invest in the green and digital transitions, and what is really important, ensure security. This is what the Parliament stated in its guidelines for the 2027 budget adopted with a large majority in the April plenary session.
After having only a brief look at the statement of estimates for 2027, I have the following initial statements and also questions. The Commission proposes a draft budget that increases the commitments appropriations by 3.5% compared to the budget 2026. It represents 0.99, less than one percentage point of the GNI, just a few days before Council starts discussing the next MFF numbers. This is clearly not up to the needs. Inflation is growing up again, so in real terms, the EU budget will be stable or even decrease.
That's not the message we want to pass to our citizens. The level of the margins is also extremely low, less than 500 million euro. Now we will have to cope to unforeseen events, so how we will be able to cope to unforeseen events or increased needs? And this is not a fictitious scenario. We have just received a draft amending budget for 2026 for urgent needs.
This is the last budget under the current MFF. We need to use all the possible availabilities in order to deliver. The interest payments are leaving virtually zero room of maneuver to use money to increase programs according to political priorities for cohesion, housing, health, SMEs, and this will clearly affect what can be achieved with the 2027 budget. The aim of the EU budget is not to cover for interest payments. We can see now that the EURI repayment costs are estimated at 9.9 billion as against 4.98 billion in the financial programming, double as planned.
The full heading 2b margin for is at the moment 519.9 million. When we talk about flexibility instrument, it is 1.9 billion euro. If we talk about the decommitments made since 2029 under the EURI instrument, we're talking about 2 billion 459.8 million euros. In the context of EURI, so the question is that in the context of EURI, can you explain in detail your assumptions for the projected NGEU disbursements for 2027? Still on the EURI calculations, what is your assumption concerning the level of interest rates?
Could you also give us an assumption on the liquidity management costs? They severely impact the impact the amount available for other priorities. On which basis did the Commission calculate the amount and what is the level of certitude do you have in this amount compared to the final needs? We will continue the unwavering commitment to continue providing financial support to Ukraine. However, the Commission mentions that the debt service costs to cover the related borrowing operations are expected to amount 1.15 billion in 2027, which the Commission proposes to finance entirely through budgetary availabilities.
Can the Commission explain this rationale? This amount is eating all the flexibilities. Why the Commission didn't propose the use of the decommitments? And by the way, since the flexibility instruments are completely exhausted and there is no margin in some headings, that means we cannot finance the PPPA under those headings. So, then going further on heading by heading.
Heading 1 is crucial to ensure EU future growth and competitiveness, but it's decreasing. This is not comprehensible. Heading 2b, Erasmus, is the most popular EU program. The Commission has started planning to cut the program's budget since two years ago in order to free margins for Europe, and as the program also benefited from internal recoveries. I want to remind everyone that Parliament never gave its green light to this change to the financial programming.
This is on the table for this year's negotiations. Heading 3, agriculture. We know that technical updates of the budget later can significantly impact budgeted appropriations. The Commission says that the amount of assigned revenue for 2027 will be lower than in 2026. Why is that?
How can you be so sure in this uncertainty at such an early stage? Heading 5 has 13 million margin, which is not significantly different from zero. This means actually no margin. While security and defense is a priority of the European Union, and new initiatives are financed from redeployments, in particular the redeployment from EDIP, which has barely been adopted on the 16th of December 2025 with a sharply constrained envelope. Heading 7, external action is a key for Europe to be a global actor.
The available margin seems very limited to react in case of any new developments. Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, we have all learned that we can only live in safety and stability within the borders of our Union if in our immediate neighborhood we were surrounded by countries which are safe and stable. Heading 6 continues to be under unprecedented pressure with only a slight margin available. Needs around the globe, in particular when we talk about Southern neighborhood, the Middle East and Africa are tremendous. So the question is, given the very limited sources of funding, how will the European Union live up with its commitments?
Another question would be, could the Commission clarify the amount of decommitments expected in 2027 meant to compensate the linear cuts applied across Heading 6 programs following the MFF revision? And also, given rising humanitarian needs around the globe, does the Commission foresee a recourse to the Emergency Aid Reserve, and if so, for which amount? On payment levels, the situation is more positive as the Commission estimates that a substantial increase will be needed in the level of payments, reflecting a good level of implementation of the penultimate year of the current MFF. This is very beneficial for our beneficiaries. So the question is on how the Commission deals with the uncertainty of the pace of Member States submitting program amendments and payment claims in these last two years of the MFF 21-27 in order to avoid a payment crisis in 27.
Apart from being the last budget of the current MFF with very limited margins, the budgetary landscape is evolving very quickly. Therefore, it's of the utmost importance that our committee will be informed in a timely, accurate and comprehensive manner of any and all budgetary developments the Commission anticipates compared to what is in the draft budget.
In that respect, should we watch some particular program implementation? Do you expect any possible variations or reflows which should be monitored over the coming months and which could further affect the 2027 budget? To conclude, in the final year of the MFF, the objective is not to spend for the sake of spending, but supporting major and high-impact projects that deliver real benefits for our citizens. It is also urgent to strengthen Europe's security and defense capabilities. Let me also emphasize the need for targeted and tangible support to Member States bordering Russia, Belarus, or Ukraine as they face economic, social, and security pressure.
As a rapporteur, I'm looking forward to working together with the shadow rapporteurs, with the specialized committees to deliver a European Union budget for a stronger and more resilient European Union. And for the Parliament, I want us to be united, to be strong in the negotiations with the Council. In this challenging context, we'll have a constructive approach during the negotiations. Thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you, Commissioner, please.
Piotr Serafin
Thank you, let me start where you have ended. I am also looking forward to the cooperation with you, Mr. Rapporteur, and the whole of the European Parliament in this annual budgetary process. And I do hope that it will work. I mean, we are in the difficult circumstances, but it's always like that. But at least when it comes to our bilateral cooperation, despite of the difficult circumstances, we will manage to find the right way forward.
There was a lot of questions. I'm not sure how much time do I have.
Four minutes.
Piotr Serafin
Four minutes. Well, you can cover written follow-up as well. So I might not manage to address all of them. So maybe I will start...
Let's aim at five.
Piotr Serafin
Okay. But the question of the level of commitments in the 2027 year budget. I think we are all aware that when we draft, when we propose a draft for 2027 annual budget, we all need to respect the ceilings which we have in the MFF adopted in 2020. We all know that, you know, the level of flexibility that we have is ultimately defined in the MFF which is there for seven years. So here you saw the dilemma.
On the one hand, you said why the increase is so low of commitments, but then you said but why the margin that has left is so low. Of course, I mean, if we would increase the level of commitments more, the margin left would be even lower. But what we were, for us the driving principle was to make sure that, as I said at the beginning, the EU budget in the current times of instability, unpredictability, should deliver on meeting, respecting the commitments that we have made, both when it comes to the spending programs, but also when it comes to the debt servicing. On the EURI line assessments, this was the question. So what we assess, what we estimate is that we expect non-repayable disbursements to reach 48 billion euro, sorry, 38 billion euro by the end of the third quarter this year.
So the bulk of the disbursements will take place in the fourth quarter of this year.
But with this 38 billion euro disbursed by the end of the third quarter, that would need to be reflected also in the budget for 2027. We will reach, we will reach altogether the exposure at a level of 308 billion. So that is basically the outstanding borrowing that we would need to cover. So this was the one assumption on the liquidity management costs. My services estimate that they will be at the level of 350 million euro next year.
This is the liquidity management costs. As you know, the problem is that we have to be ready at any time to pay the bills when they come from the member states. That's why we cannot surprise the financial markets. That's why we have a plan how to borrow on the financial markets in a predictable way. On Ukraine support loan, I think we are also very transparent and very clear, and this is also part of the debate which took place between the Parliament and the Council.
This is part of the proposal of the Commission that the Ukraine support loan special line, that is the last resort instrument. It is also very clear based on the legal text that if there are availabilities in the EU budget, we need to use them first. We can resort to the Ukraine support loan line only once there are no availabilities. And in this specific context, I think that reflow which took place because of the decreased needs for provisioning, that I think was the fact which allowed us to propose what we have proposed and to avoid the use of Ukraine support loan lines. There were questions also on how to avoid payment crisis.
I think, you know, we monitor situation regularly. You see that today, for example, I also presented the amending budget for 2026. And if it is adopted, then I think it will also, I think this would be the, this would be the one of the potential solutions to ensure that the EU budget is ready, able to pay the bills anytime they come and to respect the commitments which were taken. We might come back to you, as I have already announced, with draft amending budget three based on the situation on the ground, based on the developments on the payment, on the payment side. Thank you.
I know that I took too much of your time.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Nevertheless, thank you. Mr. Lewandowski, who replaces Mr. Hayer as rapporteur for the other sections 27, please.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you, Chair. Yes, this is a message coming from our rapporteur, Mr. Hayer, to you. Dear Commissioner Serafin, drogi Piotrze, this is only my addition to this text. Thank you for your presentation of the 2027 draft budget. I would like to underline, and this will not surprise you, that the situation of the other sections is worrying year after year due to the high pressure on Heading 7.
What you presented can be summarized in a few words. The Commission cut all the requests for the new staff and limited to 2% the increase in non-statutory expenditure.
This means that the Commission cut a total of more than 41 million euro compared to what the other institutions requested. And the Commission rejected any of the additional 17 posts requested, as well as the Court of Auditors' request to transform 28 temporary posts allocated until 2027 for NGEU-related work into permanent staff. I would like to recall that the continuous pressure on Heading 7 is due to the failure to address this issue during the MFF revision. It is clear that special instruments will have to be used again for this heading to ensure that the institutions can meet their legal obligations. The Commission considers that an amount of euro 700 million will be needed from the special instruments.
I note that even if the Commission reduced the estimates of the institutions in such an automatic way, it acknowledged at the same time the particular challenges of each institution, such as high inflation with long-lasting effects, increased rental and IT-related costs, and increased workload coming from new tasks. Every institution is doing every effort to optimize their budget already since several years, and it is good that these efforts continue. However, the situation is becoming very difficult and cannot go on like this in the long run. I will look into the situation of each institution individually and carefully analyze and discuss the draft budget and the cuts together with the institutions. I will see then if they will be able to absorb the cuts after a lot of reductions over the past years.
I am looking forward to our cooperation on this matter and trust that we will have successful negotiations and agree on a responsible and sustainable budget for each of the institutions. And now, Chair, Mr. Chair, this is the end of my role, but although I know our rapporteur Michalis Hadjipantela better after our joint mission to Poland, budgetary mission, I cannot anticipate his thoughts and reactions to the discussion. Thank you.
Piotr Serafin
Very briefly. We are all aware of the context in which we are operating. The reality of the Heading 7 that was voted in the current MFF is known very well to everyone. It was based on the assumption that the inflation will be 2% per year and that it will be like that in 21, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. We know it was not the case.
We know that the inflation was much higher. And higher inflation has an impact both on salaries and pensions, but also on non-salary expenditure. This is exactly the reason why the Commission asked in 2024 to update the level of resources in Heading 7. This was part of the MFF revision. You also know that it was not, this request was not accepted, and we are still with what we had, with what was agreed in 2020 in our budget for administrative expenditure.
And only to meet our legal obligations, as Mr. Rapporteur said, to meet our legal obligations, we need to make this recourse to the flexibility instruments. 2027 is not going to be better in that respect than 26.
We have no other choice but to stick to the principle of stable staffing. We have no other choice but to stick to the principle of maximum 2% of increase when it comes to non-salary related spendings. Then we'll have a debate, we have it already now, on the next MFF. But what I can tell you is that I know that different institutions have different challenges. For example, I know the Commission is a big institution.
We are not maybe as big as the administration of city of Paris or not as big as the social security scheme in Poland, ZUS. We are lower, bigger, smaller than that, it's 33,000 people. So what we are implementing, and this is also you will see that, we are implementing a tax solution. We cut staff in every DG 1% each year. And this is that's the way we create a pool that we redeploy in order to strengthen the priorities of the areas in which the priorities, new priorities are there.
You should know that the level of employment in the Commission today is lower than it was in 2014. It's lower by 1,500 posts. And the new tasks are coming. But I think we know Commission is under pressure. That's the way we are trying to cope with it.
I know that it might be more difficult for smaller institutions where the scope for redeployment is is lower. But I'm afraid that that's the only at this point idea that is that I have on mind is to recommend redeployment within institutions to try to identify areas that can be deprioritized and to dedicate resources that are released in such a way to the to the priority areas. The experience from the last year negotiations, and I think many of you were present during those negotiations, is that this area, the area of administrative spendings and extra posts, also in not only in EU institutions but also in decentralized agencies, that will be one of the most difficult areas of the negotiations with the Council. That's my experience from from last year. I don't think it will be any different this year.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you, Commissioner. We go to the shadow rapporteurs now for two and a half minute each. Please respect this time limit. And first of all, Ms. Bunjumea, please.
Isabel Benjumea Benjumea
Thank you, Chair. I will be speaking in in Spanish. Muchas gracias, comisario, por su comparecencia en este Comité de Presupuestos para presentar la propuesta de la Comisión Europea para el próximo presupuesto anual 2027, que, como ya se ha señalado, será el último del actual marco financiero plurianual. Desde mi grupo vamos a analizar con atención y detalle las cifras de la propuesta, como también haremos con las que presentará el Consejo para que desde el Parlamento podamos encontrar una propuesta que logre el respaldo mayoritario de los diferentes grupos. Esperamos que todo confluya en un acuerdo final entre las tres instituciones durante el próximo otoño y que nos permita tener estos muy necesarios presupuestos aprobados a tiempo.
No olvidemos que el presupuesto es el origen y la razón de la existencia de un Parlamento, por lo tanto celebro la normalidad institucional que aquí vivimos en la aprobación de los presupuestos, cosa que lamentablemente no puedo decir sobre mi país, España.
En mi papel de ponente y responsable del Grupo Popular Europeo, quisiera recordar cuáles son las prioridades que hemos defendido y que seguiremos defendiendo para este presupuesto anual, todas ellas incluidas en la resolución a la que ha hecho referencia el ponente aprobada en abril. Las prioridades son: reforzar la capacidad competitiva de nuestras empresas y pymes a través de la simplificación, la reducción de la burocracia y la eficacia en la gestión. Una apuesta decidida por los programas claves de la Unión Europea como la PAC, la cohesión, la política pesquera o Erasmus Plus. Situar a las familias como una prioridad del pilar social de la Unión Europea. Aumentar la inversión en defensa, así como fortalecer la seguridad en nuestras fronteras combatiendo la inmigración ilegal, la trata de personas y la delincuencia.
Un firme apoyo a Ucrania. La defensa del Estado de derecho y del mecanismo de condicionalidad. Reforzar los mecanismos de control y evaluación de las ayudas a terceros países combatiendo el terrorismo y exigiendo el respeto a los valores europeos. Y por último, la defensa y la protección de las comunidades religiosas, especialmente los cristianos perseguidos en el mundo. Sí quiero destacar que este presupuesto vuelve a estar muy limitado, como se ha dicho ya, por el pago de los intereses de la deuda de los fondos Next Generation, como también lo estará el próximo marco financiero.
Es muy necesario recordar esto cuando algunos pretenden usar la deuda mancomunada como respuesta recurrente a cada uno de los retos de la Unión. Por lo tanto, agradecerle las cifras, las miraremos en detalle y estamos dispuestos a una buena negociación para un buen presupuesto. Gracias.
Tamás Deutsch
Köszönöm a szót, tisztelt elnök úr, tisztelt biztos úr. A 2027-re tervezett európai uniós költségvetés által most ismertetett fő számai, a költségvetési javaslatban szereplő megoldások alapos elemzést igényelnek. Nyilvánvalóan a most itt ön által elmondottak első reagálásra teremtenek lehetőséget. Kiindulópontként minden esetre kedvezőbb helyzetben van Serafin biztos úr, mint egy esztendővel ezelőtt, amikor a hétéves keretköltségvetés javaslatát ismertette itt az Európai Parlament Költségvetési Bizottságában, de miközben ismertette a költségvetési javaslatot, aközben az Európai Bizottság elnökasszonya egy sajtótájékoztatót tartott, és nem mindenben volt köszönőviszonyban egymással az, amit von der Leyen elnökasszony mondott, illetve Serafin biztos úr mondott. Most elnökasszony nem nehezítette meg az ön dolgát azzal, hogy egy lényeges kérdésekben más tartalmú 2027-es költségvetési javaslatról tartana sajtótájékoztatót.
Röviden három pontban. Elsőként is, Patrióta frakciónak az a véleménye, hogy sajnos folytatódik az a gyakorlat, hogy az Európai Unió költségvetése az a sodródás költségvetése. Mindig valami egy vagy két év múlva bekövetkező változástól reméli az előterjesztő, az Európai Bizottság, hogy már most azonnal megoldandó problémákat majd akkor megoldanak. Majd a 2020-ban útjára induló új MFF old meg problémákat. Ha az nem, akkor majd az RRF fog megoldani problémákat.
Ha a kettő együtt sem old meg problémákat, akkor majd az MFF félidei felülvizsgálata old meg problémákat. Ha nem, akkor majd az új MFF old meg problémákat. El kéne jutni oda, hogy végre sokak által jelzett problémákat most azonnal elkezdünk megoldani, és én értem, hogy egy biztosnak ez a nehéz helyzete, hogy a szűk mozgástérről beszél, de hát az az igazság, hogy szűk mozgástér ide, szűk mozgástér oda, a problémák megoldásához kéne hozzálátni, nem pedig a jövőre áttolni, most például egy új 2027 utáni MFF-re a problémák megoldását.
Másodikként problémánk van a prioritásokkal. Úgy ítéljük meg, hogy a szűk mozgástér az nem teszi lehetővé, hogy az illegális migráció finanszírozására, az ukrajnai háború finanszírozására és az NGO-k finanszírozására eurómilliárdokat költsünk, amikor a regionális fejlesztésre, illetve az agrár támogatásokra kéne pénzeket fordítani. És végül, de nem utolsósorban nem látjuk, hogy a 2027-es költségvetésben meglenne a fedezete annak, hogy Magyarország végre hozzáférhessen azokhoz a pénzekhez, amelyeket eddig politikai okokból visszatartott az Európai Bizottság, ilyen értelemben tehát ehhez módosító javaslatokat kell majd benyújtanunk.
Beata Szydło
Thank you. Next is Ms. Beata Szydło, ECR, please.
Thank you, Chair. I will speak Polish. Myślę, że pan komisarz też będzie miło mu usłyszeć nasz język polski wspólny. Panie komisarzu, dziękuję bardzo za przedstawienie tej prezentacji, bardzo ciekawa. Nasunęło się w związku z nią dużo pytań i dużo wątpliwości.
Ponieważ rodzą się wątpliwości związane z priorytetami, które Komisja Europejska w tej chwili próbuje w tym projekcie podnosić. Przede wszystkim budzi wątpliwość ciągłe zadłużanie się Unii Europejskiej i brak moim zdaniem planu na to, jak to powstrzymać, w związku z tym, że to zadłużenie jest coraz większe, mówili zresztą o tym również moi przedmówcy. Istnieje obawa, że jest to spirala, która będzie się ciągle nakręcała i w związku z powyższym nie będziemy już wkrótce mogli realizować planów związanych z podstawowymi politykami, tymi najważniejszymi politykami dla wspólnoty. Kolejna kwestia dotyczy priorytetów określonych w tym projekcie. Żyjemy w czasach wielkich napięć geopolitycznych i wydaje się, że to, co jest najistotniejsze dla Europejczyków w tej chwili, dla Unii Europejskiej, państw członkowskich, to jest oczywiście bezpieczeństwo granic, również wsparcie przemysłu obronnego, Unia Europejska przygotowała specjalny program.
Natomiast patrząc na podział środków w projekcie na rok przyszły, wydaje się, że nie są to priorytety, które znalazły uznanie w Komisji Europejskiej. W związku z tym uważam, że powinno być przesunięcie tych akcentów finansowych i być w mojej ocenie trzeba odejść od tych wydatków, które realizują projekt obciążający gospodarkę europejską, to znaczy cele Zielonego Ładu, które przynoszą efekty negatywne dla rozwoju gospodarki europejskiej. Natomiast widać, że w tym projekcie one ciągle są traktowane jako priorytetowe. Mówił pan komisarz również o wsparciu dla rolnictwa, ważna kwestia, to łączy się oczywiście również z tą poprzednią kwestią, o której mówiłam. W związku z tym, ażeby przedstawić naszą ocenę co do tego projektu, wymaga to wszystko analizy, ale na tym etapie mogę powiedzieć, że uważam, że akcenty powinny być inaczej postawione.
Dziękuję bardzo.
Moritz Körner
Thank you. Next is Moritz Körner for Renew, please.
Thank you, chair. I will speak German. Vielen Dank, Herr Kommissar, für den Vorschlag des Haushalts. Ich glaube, wir stimmen hier alle überein, Kollege Ušakovs hat es ja auch schon gesagt, dass das natürlich auch ein sehr schwieriger Haushalt wird, insgesamt nur Margins von 477 Millionen. Das heißt, wir werden klare Prioritäten setzen müssen.
Für meine Fraktion dabei besonders wichtig, die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union zu stärken, natürlich auch unsere Sicherheit und auch weiterhin die Frage der Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Eine Verstärkung von EPPO, von der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft, haben Sie schon angesprochen, aber auch da sollten wir weiter drauf achten, die Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Europa zu stärken. Es ist natürlich so, was auch schon einige Kollegen angesprochen haben, die Zinsen steigen, die EURI-Line setzt den Haushalt insgesamt unter Druck. Und da möchte ich den Berichterstatter unterstützen, das darf aber nicht auf Kosten von Erasmus gehen. Wir dürfen nicht mit diesen zusätzlichen Zinsen für die Schulden, die wir zahlen, am Ende Erasmus und damit die junge Generation in Europa leiden lassen.
NextGenerationEU darf nicht heißen, die nächste Generation bezahlt es. Und deswegen wird das Parlament auch insbesondere für Erasmus stark kämpfen müssen und glaube ich auch in den Verhandlungen uns stark darauf einsetzen. Insgesamt werden wir mit den Kollegen sprechen müssen, denn wir müssen glaube ich als Parlament sehr gezielt vorgehen. Es ist der letzte Haushalt in diesem mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen mit sehr wenigen Spielräumen. Das ist jetzt schon vielfach angesprochen worden, da müssen wir sehr gezielte Prioritäten setzen.
Ich freue mich auf die Verhandlungen und dafür, dass wir als Parlament hier gemeinsam starke Verhandlungsergebnisse liefern werden.
Rasmus Andresen
Yes, thank you so much also to you, Commissioner. I think this draft budget didn't really come with a big surprise because we all know how limited also the last budget like in this MFF is, and this we had known for a long time. Even though I think it's still important to remind us all on what this limitation also means for our ability to act in the next months, even also with a completely unclear outcome on where we will land on the MFF negotiations. And this is why I also think it's important to raise that again and also to address the Council, maybe some of them are listening to our debate, respecting the Parliament as an important institution on that also like the way the Council normally is acting with the budget doesn't really help at all in finding some strong priorities and also on addressing them for the next time. I would like to raise two issues.
First of all, on the mainstreaming targets on biodiversity and climate. If I get it right, and this is also not a big surprise to be honest, we will not reach the biodiversity target, but I would like to ask a little bit more into that and also on what kind of assessment you are doing out of or making out of this fact we had known already before. But still I would like to comment you on this on biodiversity, but also on climate and especially also on the difference between commitments and payments when it comes to the climate target and the experience we made because I still think this is a very relevant point.
Secondly, as the budget rapporteur on on the Global Europe program, I'm also of course interested a lot in the foreign policy part of next year's budget. You mentioned Greenland and Palestine, maybe you could elaborate a bit more on those two aspects and more in general on how you are dealing also with increasing humanitarian needs we may not know now, but could be there next year before we will end up with a solution in the next MFF. So maybe you could also come with a statement on this.
Piotr Serafin
Thank you. I appreciate all the questions. I also understand many many of you have said that, you know, this is early hours, so you need more time to make the assessment and before you will have a clear mind on what you think about this draft amending budget, you need to study it first well. Now, so maybe I will make a few comments and to clarify a few a few points and situations. I was taking notes here.
Yes. I took note of the priorities of the EPP and of course I I believe that the also EPP will find those priorities reflected in the in the draft budget for 2027. You have mentioned not only by the way not only EPP, but also other political groups mentioned the importance of migration. So indeed this is the area where we can spend more more than it was agreed during the MFF negotiations because of the review of the MFF. And this is quite an important increase, 1.2 billion euro more for the funds that assist member states to manage the migration problem.
When it comes to the common agriculture policy, I think this was mentioned at least again by the three political groups, you see we are determined to meet our commitments and as demonstrated by the amending budget for this year, we want the EU to assist the farmers once if and once and if they are confronted with a crisis like the one we have in front of us. The crisis of the fertilizers prices, the crisis which was aggravated by the war in Iran and the blockage of the Hormuz Strait. And that is why already this year 500 million euros can be dedicated for that for that objective. Honorable member Deutsch was referring to the problems that but I have to admit, you didn't specify the problems, I want to be clear and I was I wanted to I was listening very carefully which problems you would like the EU budget to address. There are problems of course that the EU budget and the EU can address and I do believe that as I said at the beginning, we are respecting our commitments.
We are delivering what we have promised to deliver. And that's for me will continue to be the driving principle also for the 2027. But of course, I mean the EU budget at the level of 1% of GNI, if you want the EU budget to solve all problems of Europeans and all problems of all member states, it's not going to work.
It is only 1% of the EU GNI. It is a bit more than 2% of the total public spending in the European Union, if we look at the spendings at the national level. So I think we should also be very clear that there are problems we can address with this 1% and there are problems that unfortunately, as long as the EU budget is so small, will not be addressed through the EU and thanks to the EU budget. But for sure, when it comes to the CAP I mentioned, when it comes to the cohesion, we, and we again demonstrated with the amending budget for 2026, we will do, we will respect all the commitments, all the payments, all the investments that were put in place by the regions, by the member states, they will be reimbursed. And that is our something that, so there won't be any problem in that respect and we will work to make sure it is, it will continue to be like that.
Then I also would like to reassure that the draft amending budget for 2027 does not increase the debt of the European Union. We are confronted with the interest rates of the debt of the borrowing which was decided some time ago. Concretely in December 2020, this was the decision of the European Council, all heads of states and governments, they have decided to go ahead with the NGEU program. It was a right decision at that time, but that decision was also accompanied by another commitment on the side of the member states, and that was the commitment to adopt new sources of financing. And since that other part of the equation, with one exception, the plastic own resource, was not put into place, that's why we are confronted with the debate which we have also today and we will continue to have in the future, how to finance cost of servicing today and in the future of paying back the debt.
On Erasmus+ program, we have, we will see, you will see an increase of the Erasmus+ program in 2027 by 165 million euro in relation to the current year, in relation to 2026. Why is that? It is because COVID. In 2020 and in 2021, Erasmus program was virtually put on hold. And we all know it, that those who were studying at those years, they were not travelling, they stayed at home.
So we had significant savings from that period. They allow us to at the same time increase the budget of Erasmus year by year, including in 2027, and at the same time increase the availabilities in the budget to also cover some of the servicing costs of the NGEU. On Palestine and Greenland, on Greenland, of course we had a long-term planning for Greenland, but the announcement that was made lately and is going to be reflected in the budget for 2027 is about additional 200 million euro which were found in different compartments of managed by my colleagues commissioners in charge for external spendings, but also cushion that we have in that NDICI program.
Here the idea is that we should because normally we support a lot I mean the EU support to Greenland was very much concentrated on the support to the education system. So we want to go beyond, we want also to go into the energy system, into the critical raw materials and into the support of the infrastructure. When it comes to the Palestine for 2027 what we have in this overall amount I have mentioned or maybe I didn't mention for the support for the Middle East countries of 1.8 billion euro, 333 million euro is for Palestine that includes also support for Palestinian authorities and early recovery and reconstruction and Gaza and UNRWA and humanitarian assistance. On climate and on bio I mean as you as you said we were not we're I mean we were expecting that when it comes to the biodiversity target that it's not going to be to be met. So what we have here we have that what what's 5.8 that's what we are going to that's what of the total budget so for the period 21-27 EU budget including NGEU is contributing 113 billion euro of 5.8% of the total budget to biodiversity mainstreaming objectives.
The ambition was 7.5% of the EU budget to diversity in 24, that was achieved in 24 but the projections indicate that the 10% target for 26-27 will fall short of the initial ambition. When it comes to the climate mainstreaming objectives which by the way many of the investments that yes I will finish many of the objectives that we that we fund and are covered by the climate mainstreaming objective they also contribute to our sovereignty when it comes to the to the energy. They also support the development of clean technologies that are making us more competitive. And I will stop here. I'm not gonna hit you.
But many thanks once again for all all the questions and also for your patience thank you.
Carla Tavares
Thank you. Thank you for the answers commissioner. We now go to the other sections, two minutes per shadow and we really have to keep keep us ourselves to that time limit. First of all Ms Tavares who speaks for Sandra Gomez Lopez the S&D shadow rapporteur.
Thank you chair, dear colleagues, commissioner, I will speak in in Portuguese. Senhor Comissário, agradecendo quer aos serviços da Comissão, quer ao senhor Comissário também o trabalho desenvolvido arduamente seguramente nos últimos meses para preparar esta proposta de orçamento, permita-me que enquanto correlatora do Quadro Financeiro Plurianual e no seguimento daquilo que já foi a intervenção do meu colega Nils, reforçar duas preocupações.
Por um lado, que estamos perante um orçamento proposto pela Comissão, um projeto de orçamento que representa 0.99, menos de 1% do rendimento nacional bruto, e espero que não signifique esta proposta que nos devamos preocupar muitíssimo relativamente à ambição que a própria Comissão tem para o quadro financeiro plurianual, quando estamos a poucos dias de conhecer aquela que será a proposta. Em segundo lugar, também prende-se com, e o senhor Comissário também explicou, tem a ver com o instrumento especial de apoio à Ucrânia, do empréstimo de apoio à Ucrânia, que há poucos meses atrás discutimos nesta comissão em tempo recorde, salvo erro mais ou menos três semanas, e de facto com alguma surpresa, e não escondo até alguma preocupação, o que verificamos agora é que todos os fundos para cobrir este custo deste empréstimo provêm não do instrumento como seria expectável, o senhor Comissário já explicou, mas integralmente do orçamento num ano em que naturalmente as disponibilidades são mais escassas. E na altura quando discutimos o instrumento aqui nesta comissão e depois até na reunião com o Conselho e com a presidência cipriota, uma das preocupações da criação do instrumento era exatamente não amputar os próximos orçamentos. Bom, voltando então às outras secções e em nome da minha colega Sandra Gomes, naturalmente agradecer a apresentação da proposta. Cabe agora ao Parlamento exercer as prerrogativas enquanto autoridade orçamental e avaliar se a proposta está alinhada com as necessidades políticas e orçamentais reais.
Naturalmente iremos analisar as propostas e a documentação em detalhe e preparar uma posição equilibrada e realista do Parlamento sobre as outras secções. Entendemos que devem ser afetados recursos financeiros e humanos suficientes desde o início ao longo de todo o período de execução do quadro financeiro plurianual para que as instituições, os organismos e as agências descentralizadas da União Europeia possam assegurar uma conceção de políticas eficaz e eficiente, uma execução e aplicação de qualidade e prestação de assistência técnica, em especial quando o respetivo mandato é alargado. Naturalmente estamos cá para colaborar e confiamos plenamente no trabalho que o nosso relator das outras secções irá desenvolver e que nos guiará seguramente nos próximos tempos para termos um processo inclusivo e produtivo no final. Muito obrigada.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Next is Mr. Deutsch, you want the floor again? No, Mr. Bocheński for ECR, please.
Tobiasz Bocheński
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm going to speak Polish. Panie przewodniczący, panie komisarzu, nie ulega wątpliwości i wszyscy zgadzamy się, że stoimy przed wielkimi wyzwaniami jako państwa członkowskie, jako kontynent. Widzimy zawirowania geopolityczne, widzimy kryzysy ekonomiczne, sami doświadczamy problemów związanych z budżetem Unii Europejskiej. Czego jednym z chyba z przykładów jest nieustające przysyłanie nam budżetów korygujących, które zaciemniają transparentność naszej kontroli nad wydatkowaniem środków i warto by zastanowić się nad odejściem od tej praktyki ku większej jednak koherentności. Nasze stanowisko, jeżeli chodzi o other sections, jest następujące.
Jeżeli mamy na stole raport Draghi'ego, przedstawiony zresztą na prośbę Ursuli von der Leyen, który jasno punktuje i stwierdza, że nie jesteśmy konkurencyjni w dzisiejszym świecie, że mamy bardzo dużo problemów rozwojowych, to my oczekujemy podejmowania decyzji odważnych, a nie utrzymywania status quo i dryfowania. I stwierdzenie przez reportera, że zostaną, zostają zamrożone różne nowe zatrudnie etaty, nie ma zatrudnianych nowych osób, jest dla nas niewystarczającym stwierdzeniem.
Kiedy jako posłowie głosujemy budżety poszczególnych instytucji ujętych w budżecie, a jak pan wie, jest ich kilkadziesiąt, to raczej oczekujemy od Komisji odważnego postawienia sprawy i zastanowienia się nad prawdziwym red tape policy i nie tylko mrożenia nowych etatów, ale również zastanowienia się, gdzie można dokonać koniecznych cięć w administracji, ponieważ myślę, że jest to powszechne przekonanie dzisiaj wśród społeczeństw europejskich, że biurokracja europejska jest zbyt rozległa. I oczywiście można dokonywać retorycznie bardzo godnych podziwu porównań z administracją Paryża czy innych wielkich jednostek. Ale jeżeli chcemy osiągnąć cele założone w raporcie Draghiego, to nie osiągniemy ich poprzez zatrudnianie nowych urzędników, tylko poprzez ograniczanie naszych wydatków.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Thank you. No other shadows are present, so we can go to catch the eye. Mr. Souza Silva, please.
Hélder Sousa Silva
Thank you, chair. Dear Commissioner, thank you so much. I would like to start by thank you, thank you for your very clear presentation in the beginning of this session. And thank you again for your sensitivity related with Erasmus+ and Creative Europe. I mean, the increase in both, greater than 5% inside this very difficult budget, I think it represents a great effort from your side.
I have one question related with EU decentralized agencies. I have the responsibility in the Budget Committee related with this file and for me the EU decentralized agencies are our operational arms. If they fail, the EU fails. And currently several EU decentralized agencies face financial or human resources constraints for the fulfillment of their mandates or to comply with security and cybersecurity requirements. How is this issue being tackled in the 2027 draft budget to ensure that EU has a modern public administration suite to fulfill its role?
And of course, I have two detailed questions. How you justify the huge reduction in Agency of Drugs and in the ECHA, in the Agency of Chemicals? Thank you so much.
Victor Negrescu
Thank you, chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for the presentation. First, I would like to address the issue of the impact that the oil crisis and the increase of the prices of fertilizers had on farmers. I think it's very important also to be specific about how the potential additional funds are going to be spent in this direction. The second issue, you mentioned the border protection and details are important.
We always increase big numbers, but we forget the details. So one of the most important border issues right now, which is also a security issue, is how we protect our borders against drones. So I'm wondering whether a priority that was fixed by the Commission to create maritime security hubs will be implemented, especially if you refer to the fact that we have available funds. Last but not least, with regards to the implementation of the cohesion policy, as you know, we have the N+3 rule. Would it be possible during this negotiation to have a common declaration of the European Commission, Council and the Parliament in reaffirming and reinstating the fact that the N+3 rule will be respected fully, even if the future MFF will change probably the architecture?
It's very important to show predictability when it comes to funding and make sure that the projects that are supposed to be implemented in the years to come through this cohesion policy will continue to be implemented while respecting the N+3 rule. Thank you.
Tomasz Buczek
Panie komisarzu, mówiliście dużo, mówił pan dużo o zasadzie elastyczności, że już praktycznie tutaj ten budżet jest na granicy elastyczności i moje pytanie jest takie, czy w związku z tym, że jeszcze w 2020 roku Komisja Europejska mówiła, że odsetki od instrumentu Next Generation EU będą wynosiły 5 miliardów, obecnie mówi się o 10 miliardach, a z informacji, które dostaliśmy niedawno na nasze skrzynki mailowe o całości zadłużenia, które będzie w budżecie 2027 roku to jest 15 miliardów euro i to są duże różnice z prognozami, które jeszcze sześć lat temu były. I moje pytanie w związku z tym jest takie, no bo tutaj rzeczywistość definiuje obecna sytuacja gospodarcza, wysokość stóp procentowych, inflacja, która ma przecież przełożenie na te stopy procentowe. I nie tak dawno pamiętam rozmawialiśmy w sprawie pożyczki dla Ukrainy 90 miliardów euro. Pan wtedy przyznał, że nie bierze pan w ogóle pod uwagę planów, w której strona ukraińska nie będzie nam spłacać wobec sytuacji, że Rosja nie wypłaci tutaj reparacji wojennych. I moje pytanie jest takie, obserwuję tutaj całokształt waszej działalności jako Komisji Europejskiej w sprawie budżetu i przyświeca wam chyba taka definicja too big to fall, za duży by upaść i taka definicja chyba przyświecała też kiedyś w 2008 roku bankowi inwestycyjnemu Lehman Brothers.
Moje pytanie jest takie, czy bierzecie w ogóle pod uwagę, że sytuacja może wymknąć się spod kontroli, mogą być sytuacje wojenne, gospodarcze, kryzysy kolejne i co w tym momencie, skoro ta elastyczność jest taka niska?
Jean-Marc Germain
Merci, Monsieur le Président, ma question porte sur le la non-mobilisation de l'Ukraine Support Loans. On a modifié le MFF pour permettre de financer les intérêts du prêt à l'Ukraine en dehors du budget et puis aujourd'hui on nous arrive alors que ça a été un peu compliqué, je repasse pas sur les épisodes et aujourd'hui on arrive en nous disant en fait non, il n'y avait pas besoin de modifier le MFF, il y a toutes les marges de manœuvre qu'il faut. On nous avait dit aussi que 2027 serait terrible et qu'il faudrait couper les programmes parce que les intérêts d'emprunt liés à la dette COVID seraient énormes et donc tout ça paraît un peu étrange que finalement tout tienne dans la boîte sans qu'il y ait besoin de modifier ce cette possibilité. Et donc ma question c'est est-ce que vous êtes sûr que les programmes ont été correctement évalués et sous question aussi c'est que on a bien compris quelle était la règle de mobilisation de l'Ukraine Support Loan, mais tout ça s'entend une fois que les priorités du Parlement auront été prises en compte et donc on ne peut pas vider toutes les marges de manœuvre, refuser que les priorités du Parlement soient prises en compte et en déduire par avance qu'il ne faut pas mobiliser l'Ukraine Support Loans. Merci.
Piotr Serafin
I think that when it comes to the special support instrument for Ukraine, this was present in the last question but also in the first question. I think it is worthwhile to refer to the regulation 2026/469 adopted on the 23rd of April, which in recital 6 says: "To finance those costs" - and we talk about Ukraine support loan - "it is appropriate to first seek budgetary availabilities under existing budgetary ceilings, including amounts that could be made available as a result of the reuse of surpluses or reflows from budgetary guarantees and financial instruments, and subsequently under other special instruments." So the way in which we finance the support loan for Ukraine has been actually discussed and it is regulated in this legal act. And we do what we are obliged to do. We first look into the availabilities, including reflows that we have in the EU budget, and only if it would not be enough, we have a mandate according to the law to go beyond and to activate special instruments.
On the amending budgets, I think we will need them and we will need them also in the future. Why we need them? For example, let's take cohesion policy. Our estimates in the annual budgets are based on the projections from the member states. And sometimes, and this was also the case when it comes to 2026 budget, member states were not correct because the implementation of the cohesion policy went much faster than expected.
And we have to be, and that's why we have amending budget, we always have to be in a position as the EU budget to pay back, to reimburse investments that were committed under the EU budget. So that's why I will continue to defend the concept of amending budgets. We need them, we will need them, and they are absolutely necessary to avoid a situation in which we have invoices and have no money to pay. That's the logic of the amending budgets. On the Draghi report, I have read this report.
There is indeed a lot many critical comments on the European economy and on the ways in which it could be improved, but I have not read the recommendation that we should reduce investments through common instruments. I think if Draghi have written anything, it was on the contrary, that we should quite dramatically increase the spendings through common instruments, including debt instruments. And actually he was, if I am not mistaken, he was talking about 600 billion euro of additional debt per year. So that was the Draghi recommendation. I'm not sure whether you would like us to also put it in place.
But I think on administration, I said so and I will repeat it. I understand that the need to debate also the European public administration. But I believe it's important not to be close to the reality and close to the facts.
Facts are, and I know that even I, before I became the commissioner responsible for the human resources, I was not fully aware of it. The staff in the European institutions, all of them, except for the decentralized agencies, by the way, in all EU institutions today is lower by 3% than it was in 2014. It is lower because in between 2014 and 2020, there was cuts in the European public administration. As of 2020, we are implementing the rule of stable staffing. And that's why European public administration today is smaller than it was in 2014.
When I look into the member states and I try to find a member state in which the public administration today is smaller than it was in 2014, I have to tell you I have a lot of difficulties to find a single member state that could that would be in the same position. We should also remember that the European public administration allows us, allows member states to make massive savings, including on administrative staff. Let's take example of the of Brexit. We can look what happened after Brexit with the European public administration. So the employment in the UK in the public administration increased by 100,000 people.
I am not able, and I'm not going to pretend, I'm not able to prove that all of that increase is because of Brexit. But when I, for example, hear 2,500 people that they had to employ in the for the UK government to deal with the trade policy, I know it is exactly because of Brexit. And the same stories would be about the, yes, because you know, the trade policy, this is the DG Trade, this is a common competence, and we have European administration and member states delegated that to the to the common institution. This is always also the case with many of the decentralized agencies. The fact that we do certain we have decentralized agency allows national administrations to dedicate less resources, including human resources, into the implementation of common tasks.
But talking about the decentralized agencies, there were questions related to the questions related to drug agency and chemicals agency. So the situation here is that indeed we cut the budgetary subsidy to those agencies, but that is because they have a surplus from the previous years. So they will be able to preserve the level of spending as it was in the previous year plus, I hope, 2% increase with for the spendings, non-salary spendings. On N plus three, I will look at it, but to be frank, I was a bit surprised even with this question because to me, on my mind at least, but maybe I'm wrong, on my mind the programs that are in, I mean commitments, the principle N plus three will be applicable still to the commitments that will be taken in 2027. I will double check, but to me it would be common sense.
But if Mr. President you have doubts, I really double check double check that. Yes, and then you know, why the interest rates are increasing, there are many factors, but the latest one, the latest one is the war which we have in Iran. And the situation that we have on the on again on the energy market. Because the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, the energy prices are increasing, financial markets expect there will be higher inflation in the global economy, including in the European economies.
So we are paying the bill for this war as Europeans. And that bill is reflected exactly in the interest rates that are increasing all across the board. As simple as that, financial markets expect higher inflation, they expect that interest rates will be higher and the cost of money increases. So that's what is taking place. But how are we going to manage unpredictable situations?
And you said wars. I mean, we have two wars, one on our continent, the other one in our neighborhood. We might have even more, I'm not saying otherwise. But I think, you know, the EU budget has some tools that can be still activated. But in case of a major catastrophe, then again, I think we would need to go back to the heads of state and government, to the European Council.
But you know, for the normal crisis, we have still, be it on the agriculture markets, be it related to the climate or weather or natural disasters, for that we have still some resources and we will be able to react. But we should be aware, we are already in those unprecedented times when there are wars on the European continent, around us. We are in those unprecedented times when we need to increase our public spending on security and defense. So we are already in that difficult situation and we are already confronted with the need to manage, including the EU budget, in such a situation. Thank you.
Johan Van Overtveldt
Sorry. Thank you, Commissioner. This meeting means that the official procedure for the 27 budget has now really been kicked off. The Council will of course also examine the proposals laid down by the Commission and determine its position. The first trilogue will take place on July the 16th, as well as an interinstitutional meeting on payments and a NextGenerationEU meeting to which all BUDG members will be invited.
Thank you all for being here, and of course special thanks for Commissioner to be available at such short notice. Thank you.
Bienvenue à toutes et à tous. Nous allons commencer notre réunion de la commission des budgets. Je vous rappelle que la réunion est retransmise sur le web. Le profil linguistique de la réunion est le suivant : l'interprétation est assurée en allemand, anglais, français, italien, néerlandais, grec, espagnol, portugais, finnois, suédois, tchèque, estonien, hongrois, lituanien, letton, maltais, polonais, slovaque, slovène, bulgare, roumain et croate. L'ordre du jour a été distribué.
Y a-t-il des objections ? Pas d'objection. L'ordre du jour est adopté. En ce qui concerne les communications du président, les projets de décisions de la réunion des coordinateurs du 19 mars vous ont été envoyés et sont considérés comme adoptés en l'absence d'objection. Pas d'objection.
Ils sont adoptés. Nous passons maintenant au point 4 de l'ordre du jour : le budget 2025, section 3. Il s'agit de l'état des lieux de la préparation du budget 2025. Je donne la parole au rapporteur, Victor Negrescu.
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Chers collègues, nous entamons aujourd'hui une étape importante de notre travail sur le budget 2025. Comme vous le savez, nous avons déjà adopté les orientations générales pour le budget 2025 lors de notre dernière session plénière.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.