Activities of Valérie HAYER related to 2022/2046(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Upscaling the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on upscaling the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework: a resilient EU budget fit for new challenges
Amendments (36)
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, since the adoption of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) in December 2020, the political, economic and social context has changevolved beyond recognition, startincluding with the unprecedented scale and dramatic consequences of the continued COVID-19 pandemic, which is far fromnot over yet;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas citizens rightly expect thea bigger EU budget to respond effectively to evolving needs and to better support them in crises;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the combined effect of multiple crises and, low MFF ceilings and cumbersome rules applying to any MFF review or revision has given rise to a ‘galaxy’ of ad hoc instruments beyond the EU budget, as well as greater use of external assigned revenue not subject to the budgetary procedure, most notably in the case of NextGenerationEU; whereas, as one arm of the budgetary authority, Parliament should play a full role in this new budgetary environment in order to ensure democratic accountability and transparency;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines the central role that the EU budget must plays in delivering on the Union’s political priorities, including making a success of the green and digital transitions, fostering an inclusive and social recovery, promoting growth, strategic autonomy and energy independence, providing support for small and medium-sized enterprises, fostering sustainable development that leaves no one behind and ensures cohesion and upward convergence, ensuring a more robust European Health Union in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, promoting the rule of law, EU values and fundamental rights, contributing to greater opportunities for all, and ensuring a stronger Union for its people and in the world;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Asks therefore the Commission to consider putting forward a legislative proposal establishing a temporary instrument outside the MFF for the mutualisation of war-related costs ("Ukrainian crisis Adjustment Reserve"), that would be aimed to support the most affected Member States;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the decision to grant Ukraine and Moldova candidate country status and a membership perspective to Georgia; emphasises that this decision entails a long-term financial and budgetary commitment to supporting the necessary reforms specific to each country, as has been the case with other candidate countries, as well as to reconstruction and recovery;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Considers that the EU budget should play a role in the reconstruction and recovery of Ukraine once the war is over, along with contributions by Member States and other international partners and Russian war reparations;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that essential new policy initiatives put forward since the adoption of the current MFF have come with proposals to shift money away from key EU policies and objectives that actually pay for the collateral damages of the recent crises; considers that recurrent redeployments are not a viable way to finance Union’s priorities;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points to the extensive use made of the special instruments in the first two years of the MFF; notes that the Flexibility Instrument was mobilised for Heading 6 spending in 2022 and points to the proposal that it beCommission’s proposal in the Amending Letter 1/2023 that it will be significantly mobilised for spending under both Headings 62b, 5 and 76 in 2023; points out that, under the defence proposal of July 202218 , further appropriations are to be mobilised via special instruments in 2023 andalso in 2024; _________________ 18 Proposal of 19 July 2022 for a regulation on establishing the European defence industry Reinforcement through common Procurement Act (COM(2022)0349).
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Highlights that the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve (SEAR) was almost exhausted in 2021 and is projected to be fully exhausted in 2022 after having provided a combination of humanitarian aid and support to Member States for tackling natural and man-made disasters; points out that the extension of the scope of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) to include public health emergencies, coupled with the increased scale and frequency of natural disasters, the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and the resulting arrival of large numbers of refugees in the EU, has placed the SEAR under extreme strain; expects, further, that the dramatic consequences of the unprecedented wildfires in the summer of 2022 will require significant financial support, including from the SEAR;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises, therefore, that the 2021-2027 MFF is already being pushed to its limits less than two years after its adoption, a situation aggravated by the unforeseeable events of 2022; points out that it is simply not equipped, in terms of size, structure or rules, to respond to a multitude of crises of this scale, nor to adequately finance new shared EU policy ambitions and the swift implementation of the requisite EU-wide solutions; is very concerned, in this regard, about the ability from the European Union to respond to any future unknown crises that might happen by 2027;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls that the MFF is increased annually on the basis of a 2 % deflator applied to 2018 prices; underlines that spiralling energy prices and extreme energy market volatility caused mainly by Russia’s decision to cut gas supply have been feeding soaring inflation, with severe impacts on citizens, businesses and consumers; is deeply concerned that such unexpectedly high levels of inflation are placing the MFF under severe strain and reducing its purchasing power further, in a context where its overall level is already lower than previous MFFs in terms of share of the EU GDP; stresses that, in practice, this means that fewer Union projects and actions can be funded, thereby negatively impacting beneficiaries;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Recalls, further, that, despite Parliament’s demands that the European Union Recovery Instrument (EURI) be placed over and above the ceilings, the refinancing costs are repaid from within the MFF ceilings, exerting further pressure on the MFF, especially and requiring the use of special instruments in 2023, in a context of rising interest rates and increasing NGEU borrowing costs;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Observes the continuing demand for the EU budget to serve as a guarantee for additional necessary macro-financial assistance (MFA), especially for Ukraine; welcomes the EU support in this regard; notes, however, that the higher risks of default and the large amount at stake entail significant contingent liabilities;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Concludes that, in this context, the need for an urgent review and revision of the MFF is beyond any doubt and that a ‘business as usual’ approach will not remotely suffice to tackle the array of challenges posed and could thereby undermine confidence in the Union in the short, medium and long term;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines that the unanimity requirement for adoption of the MFF Regulation impedes the necessary decisions in the revision process; calls, in that regard, on the European Council to activate the passerelle clause set out in Article 312(2) TFEU to allow for adoption of the MFF Regulation by qualified majority; recalls its proposals that the ordinary legislative procedure be applied for the adoption of the MFF Regulation;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Strongly supports the use of the Regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the EU budget (the Conditionality Regulation); believes that its entry into force had a general deterrent effect on nationals authorities planning to breach the rule of law with EU funds; regrets its long- overdue application by the Commission in case of Hungary; commits to do whatever it can to ensure the respect of the provisions of the Regulation and their effective implementation; emphasises the clear link between respect for the rule of law and the efficient implementation of the EU budget; notes that any upscaling of the 2021-2027 MFF should aim to reinforce the protection of the rule of law and EU’s financial interests; underlines that the Conditionality Regulation aims first and foremost at protecting the EU budget rather than the rule of law; asks the Commission to assess how the Regulation could be improved to allow the EU to suspend EU funds whenever there are breaches of the rule of law in Member States in order to ensure the full respect of Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Reaffirms its long-standing position that new political initiatives must be financed with additional fresh money and not to the detriment of well-established, pre-existing Union programmes or policies; strongly criticizes the systematic use of redeployments and the relabelling of existing programmes to finance new initiatives(“budgetwashing”);
Amendment 162 #
18. Highlights that many of the policy ambitions recently stated – notably in the fields of energy and strategic and industrial autonomy – and the new policy initiatives since January 2021 (Chips Act, Secure Connectivity, Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority) imply spending under Heading 1; opposes the use of agreed programme envelopes to finance new initiatives and believes that the margins are insufficient to accommodate the greater long-term needs; calls, therefore, for an increase in the ceiling of Heading 1;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Welcomes, in this regard, the announcement made by the Commission President in her State of the Union address on 14 September 2022, calling for the establishment of a European Sovereignty Fund; shares Commission’s concerns over the EU’s dependencies on non-EU countries, as it is the case for energy, critical industrial items, fertilisers, raw materials, chemicals and other key products for the European economy; commits to critically assess any proposal to make sure it responds to real needs and provides fresh means; calls in this regard for the establishment of a new dedicated Fund to secure the strategic autonomy of the Union by financing cross-border energy infrastructure, renewable energy production and energy efficiency, as well as supporting space, cybersecurity, key industrial sectors, the circular economy, food security, new partnerships, production of critical chemicals and raw materials; insists that any such new fund should be established according to the ordinary legislative procedure and function under the full oversight of the European Parliament and with direct management by the Commission; emphasises that its overall amount should be established on the basis of a clear assessment of the costs and investment gaps; asks all of it to be based on lessons learnt from NGEU and be presented with the upcoming MFF revision in 2023;
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Regrets that, contrary to Parliament’s position, it was decidedcalls that the costs of EURI borrowing and the repayment of debt bare included as a budget line under Heading 2b, alongside flagship programmes such as Erasmus+, EU4Health, and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values; stresses nevertheless that interest costs and debt repayment depend on market developments, are not discretionary spending, do not follow the logic of caps on spending and should never compete with programmes under the same ceiling; recalls that any activation of the Emergency Support Instrument also depends on the availability of an unallocated margin under the ceiling of this heading; reminds that this decision was taken for the 2021-2027 period only, without prejudice to future negotiations; insists, therefore, that the status quo presents significant risks to programme spending and that the repayment line be removed from Heading 2b and counted over and above the MFF ceilings;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Reiterates its position that the Social Climate Fund must be fully incorporated into the EU budget and within the MFF, without negatively impacting other programmes and funds under this heading, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring food security and delivering on the Green Deal; calls for the ceiling of Heading 3 to be adjusted accordingly; calls on the Council to move forward with the targeted MFF revision as soon as possible to integrate the Social Climate Fund into the MFF; reminds the other arm of the budgetary authority its obligation to respect budget unity;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Highlights that the necessary spending to enhance defence cooperation and investment cannot solely be covered within the ceiling of Heading 5; calls for the ceiling to be increased in line with needswelcomes the Commission’s upcoming proposal for a European defence investment programme (EDIP) in view of introducing joint procurement and life cycle management of military capabilities; calls for the ceiling to be increased in line with needs; considers, in this regard, that savings could be made thanks to a mutualisation of defence spending between the Member States at the EU level;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Deplores the fact that, even prior to the war against Ukraine, funds available under Heading 6 were woefully inadequate and that pressure has since increased substantially; underlines that the continued funding for the needs of refugees from Syria, Iraq and other countries was not factored into the MFF or NDICI-Global Europe negotiations and should therefore have been financed by fresh appropriations with a corresponding increase in the ceiling of Heading 6; highlights that, owing to the risk of default on MFA loans provided to Ukraine, a far higher rate of provisioning than the standard 9 % is likely to be required as further loans are rolled out, rather than redeployments; highlights that a far higher rate of provisioning than the standard 9 % is required for MFA loans provided to Ukraine as further loans are rolled out following the higher risk of default due to the war imposed by Russia; underlines that additional needs in Ukraine must not lead to money being diverted away from other geographic regions in need; insists, therefore, on an increase in the ceiling for Heading 6 to fully cover the current and projected future needs of the Union’s external action, which have dramatically increased both in neighbouring countries, especially in Ukraine, and worldwide as a result of the food, energy and economic crises;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses that the MFF revision must not lead to any downwards revision of the pre-allocated national envelopes; emphasises the fact that the late agreement on the MFF for 2021-2027 and on the cohesion policy package, coupled with the COVID-19 crisis, led to a slow start to the programming process, but not because of the policy itself even though more administrative simplification is strongly needed; underlines that the delayed start does not in any way call into question the pivotal role and added value of cohesion policy as the essential Union investment policy and convergence instrument;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recalls that payment appropriations flow directly from commitments and recalls, therefore, that any increase in the ceilings for commitments per heading will have to be accompanied by a correspondinglative increase in the ceiling for payments for the same or subsequent years;
Amendment 250 #
29. Stresses that, while crisis response measures are necessary and useful, cohesion policy is not a crisis response tool; is concerned that cohesion policy is increasingly being used to reinforce other policies and to make up for shortcomings in budgetary flexibility or crisis response mechanisms in the MFF; emphasises that cohesion policy is one of the priorities of the Union, has long-term investment objectives linked to the EU’s strategic agenda, in particular the European Green Deal and the Digital Agenda, and should not be used to replenish funding for other policies; calls, therefore, for cohesion funding levels to be preserved in the budget along with common agricultural policy;
Amendment 259 #
31. Considers that the special instruments are constrained both by scarcity of resources and rigidity of design, hampering their ability to serve as effective crisis response tools; stresses, therefore, that the revision is imperative in broadening the potential of the existing flexibility provisions; criticises in particular the Council’s decision, despite Parliament’s warnings, to mergeonsiders that the merging of the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) and the EUSF in the current MFF has led to shortcomings, while reducing the overall funding available;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Calls for annual appropriations for the Flexibility Instrument to be increased from EUR 915 million to EUR 2 billion; calls, in addition, for the SEAR to be split into two strands – the EAR and the EUSF – and for annual appropriations to be increased from EUR 1.2 billion for the SEAR overall to EUR 1 billion for each strand in 2018 prices; considers that this will provide vital additional resources to respond to current and emerging needs;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Insists that, beyond a reinforcement of the existing special instruments, it is necessary to establish a permanent fiscal capacity for the Euro Area and common crisis instrument as an additional permanent special instrument over and above the MFF ceilings so that the EU budget can better adapt and quickly react to crises and their social and economic effects;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. Insists that decommitted appropriations should remain in the budge, fines not used for EU programmes top-ups in 2021-2027 and penalties should accrue to the crisis instrument so as to provide additional budgetary flexibility; underlines the need for corresponding changes to the Financial Regulation;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Underlines that many of the shortcomings and inadequacies in the current MFF are inherent in its logic and design, where predictability of spending drives decisions on structure and amounts and curbs flexibility; regrets the high tensions the MFF negotiations trigger due to its nature;
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37 a. Regrets the decrease of the EU budget in terms of percentage to the EU GDP over the last decades; considers that capping the EU budget at roughly 1% of the EU GDP as a rule impedes the EU from fulfilling its increasing tasks; calls on the Member States to take decisions based on needs instead of dogmas;
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
Paragraph 39
39. Deplores, however, the repeated use of off-budget instruments, in particular under Article 122 TFEU, which runs counter to citizens’ interests, as this frustrates oversight, accountability and the transparency of public spending; considers, in that regard, than an annual plenary debate in Parliament on all EU finances, including off-budget instruments, will be an important step towards enhancing transparency and accountability;
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 40
Paragraph 40
40. Stresses, in this context, that the trend towards increased use of external assigned revenue is not a satisfactory solution as it weakens the role of the budgetary authority (Parliament and the Council), thereby negatively impacting democratic scrutiny and reducing the transparency of the EU’s finances; demands legally sound solutions that allow for targeted, one-off or needs-based top- ups that display the same advantages as earmarkxternal assigned revenue (i.e. not counted against the ceilings), but that are at the same time subject to full control of the budgetary authority; reminds its strong commitment to the universality principle;
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Calls on the Commission, furthermore, to begin a longer-term reflection on the EU budget post-2027 in the light of evolving spending needs and building on the work of the Conference on the Future of Europe with respect to own resources and the budget; insists that the successor to the current MFF be equipped to deal fully and flexibly with a range of policy priorities and spending needs and to ensure resilience in the event of crises; asks the Commission to review the whole architecture of the MFF, including through an assessment of the suitability of a long-term programming framework for all EU programmes and of the duration of programming periods of seven years;