Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL) and Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteurs, speak to the press on the outcome of the MFF revision vote. This transcription is a result of an automatic process. Please check against delivery.

Strasbourg

press conference

OLBRYCHT, Jan (EPP, PL)

Multiannual financial framework 2021-2027 (T)

MARQUES, Margarida (S&D, PT)

Press conference by Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL) and Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteurs on the Outcome of the MFF revision vote

SOUNDBITE (English), Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL), co- rapporteur, What is important in this is the decision of the Parliament, is that, as you know, the annual budget is accepted by the qualified majority in the council. And it's this is the codecision with the Parliament. In contrary, the revision is in the in the Council, it's unanimity. And in the Parliament, it's the procedure of consent. That's all. The single vote. So what is the very specific for this decision? Because we from the very beginning, the Parliament was fighting to, to have this kind of revision in the middle of the Multiannual Financial framework, because from the very beginning, for us, it was very clear that this budget is not big enough to the challenges which we will face.

SOUNDBITE (English), Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL), co- rapporteur, We didn't know at that time about the Covid and of course the war. And of course, after that, it was even more clear that the revision is necessary. Council through many months, didn't want to do it. They want to have just review and to have just small technical rearrangements. At the end it was very clear that it will not be possible to do it, especially when the, the financial aid for Ukraine was going to the end because the MFA, the macro financial assistance was finished in the end of 2023.

SOUNDBITE (English), Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL), co- rapporteur, So the question was what to do the 1st of January 2024. So that's why it was necessary to find the money for Ukraine. And the Commission came with the idea to put the 50 billion for Ukraine, as you know, for grants and for loans. And of course, the to have the money for Ukraine inside the budget requires a change of budget. It means requires revision. So the Commission came with the idea to make the link between the money for Ukraine and the changes inside the MFF.

SOUNDBITE (English), Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL), co- rapporteur, That's why the Commission came with a very strong proposal to have more than 60 billion money for the year 2024, 2025 and 2026. This was the turning point. So that's why the Council decided to accept it and to have to revise to make the revision. And of course the revision it means money for Ukraine and the rest for the budget, for the Multiannual Financial framework. So this was the moment for the Parliament to enter. And of course, we presented our view what should be reinforced and the Commission proposal 65 we propose even 10 million more.

SOUNDBITE (English), Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL), co- rapporteur, Of course it was not possible, but politically speaking, it was just to say, well, where are the priorities? And of course, in the proposal that the Commission and our proposed that there were some elements concerning the budget, and I will just concentrate. One of the thing for us Parliament was the possibility to influence the construction of budget, not only the amount of money, but it will be explained by my colleague, but also the construction of budget.

SOUNDBITE (English), Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL), co- rapporteur, It means that we what we were fighting for many years is to having the more flexible budget, to have more possibilities, to change it during the term, to use money which is not spent. So both the commitments, money which is committed and to keep it in the budget and to reuse it. It was the long battle last years to have it in the budget. And of course, this time we decided to use it and to say we need a change.

SOUNDBITE (English), Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL), co- rapporteur, So that's why we propose to have more money for flexibility instrument. I mean, to make it more flexible, to use money for the commitment. Symbolically, we didn't manage to have billions for this, but of course, for the next period, it will be the point of reference so that it is possible to use it like this. And also to change the rule concerning the capping, I mean, the limit of the next financial instrument, single margin instrument. It means if the money is not spend, it can be used later.

SOUNDBITE (English), Jan OLBRYCHT (EPP, PL), co- rapporteur, But the question if we have capping for each year or not, if we have capping, you can imagine that in 2 or 3 years, at the end of the financial perspective, there will be a lot of different claims for money because the project will be finished. The claims will come and it will be necessary to use money which is not spend. And of course, if we have capping so we will not be able to use money to pay what has been claimed by the member States, so it can create what we called the the backlog and the reserve, which will not be able to use.

paragraph-9 What we managed is to to resign from this, not to have capping just to give you these this examples. We Parliament, will use this possibility first to support Ukraine, but also to influence the change of the construction of the budget.

SOUNDBITE (Portuguese), Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteur, I would start by referring to what my colleague just mentioned. This is an important turning point for the EU budget. This is an important time, as I say, for the budget, but I'd like to highlight what's positive in this agreement. And secondly, what we were less keen on. The positive things are as follows. There is a revision. This is the first time there has been a revision of the MFF in the mid-term, and that's very important.

SOUNDBITE (Portuguese), Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteur, The Parliament made a request and the Commission put this forward. So there were negotiations and we had a revision. And the Parliament is in a position to give the thumbs up to this revision. A second aspect, we found important the fact that we created this tool to support Ukraine. This is very much a priority in the revision of this budget. But I would also emphasise the fact that this Ukraine mechanism was set up within the EU budget. This might seem a marginal issue which could have been sidelined, but it was important that this either be inside or outside the budget.

SOUNDBITE (Portuguese), Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteur, There was a debate in the council and there had to be an extraordinary council meeting on February the 1st, owing to the blackmail conducted by the Hungarian prime minister. What we managed to do was to see to it that the Ukraine mechanism was indeed adopted within the EU budget. Firstly, because we were shouldering our political responsibilities as Europeans, and also we wanted some predictability of when planning to assist Ukraine. And we wanted to comply with democratic accountability, showing that the EP was indeed in a position to keep pace with this mechanism.

SOUNDBITE (Portuguese), Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteur, It's essential for this Parliament to have done so, because the Parliament must continue to see to it that it plays a role as a budgetary authority. A third positive point was the setting up of STEP. STEP does not tally with our expectation of having a sovereign fund, but we've taken the first steps to creating this sovereign trust fund, and we hope that this will be set in train as soon as possible.

SOUNDBITE (Portuguese), Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteur, A fourth point was already picked up on by my colleague. In other words, we are in a better position to be able to ensure that we comply with our commitments with the creation of the recovery fund and bearing the costs of the debt from the recovery fund. It's important that this proposal was made, the idea of being to set up this flexibility mechanism, and at the same time, we wanted to see to it that the payments of the debt costs it's not be done by dint of cutting programs. Rather, this should be based on funds which have not have been tapped into in other programmes.

SOUNDBITE (Portuguese), Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteur, :It goes without saying. There are other aspects that we could hone in on: the neighbourhood instrument and its clout, and the Solidarity Fund, the emergency reserve financing for the roll out of the Migration and Asylum pact. These are very positive developments which are part and parcel of this revision. There are things which were less palatable to us. I mean, this has been signed off on but, there are some points we are critical about. The bar was not very high. It's hard to explain of the cuts in research programs, although the EP has managed to buffer these cuts.

SOUNDBITE (Portuguese), Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteur, We are aware that the research program is pivotal for the future of the EU. It's a program which has attained excellent results. It's a program, which certainly has legs. So we don't understand why there have been these reductions in it, particularly when it comes to the health program. The Parliament managed to extend the timeline for the reduction in funding for the health program. So those were the facets we had in mind today in the plenary. And we wanted to to share these points with our colleagues.

SOUNDBITE (Portuguese), Margarida MARQUES (S&D, PT), co-rapporteur, We've emphasised, the positive and negative, points that, weighing things up. By and large, we have attained important results so that the EP can be in a good position to tackle future challenges. I think the result of the vote just goes to show that the European Parliament has made a clear commitment to this process. And indeed, the Parliament can certainly chip in. It's a two pennies worth when it comes to attaining tangible results.