What Nils spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner Serafin, Presidency, colleagues, it is a privilege to present today the guidelines for the 2027 European Union budget – a document that both marks an end and a beginning. An end because 2027 will be the final year of the current multiannual financial framework, and a beginning because the way we manage this final budget will determine the credibility with which the Union enters the next financial cycle. And the beginning of the next financial cycle is paralleled by two ongoing wars: oil and gas prices skyrocketing and risks that the geopolitical and global economic situation will become significantly worse in the coming months. This places unprecedented responsibility on this House to be able to act in a united manner, putting controversial issues aside and concentrating on the numerous challenges ordinary Europeans will continue to face in the forthcoming future. The guidelines we have managed to draft call for a budget that, despite everything happening in the world, is citizen-centred, efficient and investment-oriented – one that supports prosperity, creates and protects quality jobs, strengthens territorial and social cohesion, reinforces Europe's competitiveness and – which is so important these days – contributes to the security of our Union. At the heart of these guidelines lies a simple idea, especially in times of crisis: economic resilience and social cohesion must go hand in hand. The 2027 budget must support resilient healthcare systems across all regions and address the growing challenge of affordable housing, recognising that housing is a basic necessity for citizens. It must ensure that the European Pillar of Social Rights is backed by real funding, including through the European Social Fund Plus, to combat poverty, reduce inequalities and support the most vulnerable. At the same time, we must continue investing in the green and digital transitions. Also allow me to highlight three areas of particular importance. First, our border regions. Municipalities along the eastern borders in the Baltic states, Poland, Finland and elsewhere face economic and social pressure, demographic decline, the loss of essential services and increasing security pressures. These communities need targeted and tangible support. Solidarity must be territorial, not rhetorical. Second, the situation of farmers in frontline Member States. Farmers in countries bordering Ukraine, Russia and Belarus are facing disproportionate pressures. Ensuring a fair distribution of direct payments under the common agricultural policy is therefore not a request for privilege, it is a demand for equity. Third, defence and security. The guidelines call for adequate financial support for Member States with external EU borders, including resources to strengthen critical infrastructure and support necessary border protection measures, where justified. Security without territorial resilience is fragile. Territorial resilience without budgetary backing is an empty promise. As I have already said, we are adopting guidelines in a very complicated geopolitical and economic situation. The escalation of conflict in the Middle East is deeply concerning. It can have serious economic, energy, security and humanitarian consequences for Europe and its citizens. For this reason, we call on the Commission to ensure that the 2027 Union budget is prepared to respond to current and future developments in this region. Colleagues, a central question in this budgetary procedure in general will be the financial room for manoeuvre. What appears at first glance to be around EUR 4.6 billion in available margins is significantly reduced once we account for the interest costs of NGEU and the deficit under heading seven. In reality, we are left with roughly EUR 1.3 billion of genuine flexibility. This is a very limited space in which to address many legitimate priorities. This is why we call on the Commission to make full and timely use of the commitments and special instruments. Parliament cannot accept a situation in which programmes such as Horizon Europe, Erasmus+ or EU4Health are weakened simply to cover interest costs. We also expect transparent and timely information throughout the procedure on all factors affecting budgetary availability. In the final year of the MFF, we must remain guided by sound financial management. The objective is not spending for the sake of spending, but supporting major and high-impact projects that deliver real benefits for our citizens. Colleagues, the EU budget is the most powerful tool this Parliament has to respond to citizens' expectations. In times of crisis, we must act in the most responsible way, keeping in mind only one priority: the interests of Europeans and our Union. Allow me to thank the shadow rapporteurs for the constructive spirit of cooperation throughout this process, and I look forward to the final vote.

Madam President, Commissioner, Colleagues, the impact of this file is very concrete. InvestEU is the EU's main tool to help turn good ideas into real projects: a school that wants to renovate its building, a small company that needs a loan to expand, a town that wants to invest in new buses. I support strengthening the EU guarantee and adding EUR 200 million on top of the EUR 1 billion proposed by the Commission: this means more projects can go ahead – including in social infrastructure – and more risk can be taken on innovative investments that banks alone would not finance. We also insist that support goes to real small- and medium-sized enterprises, not large firms pretending to be small, and that municipalities get practical help to protect to prepare projects. For countries like Latvia, this can mean more renovated homes, more opportunities for young people, SMEs and local authorities. It is especially important that we cut red tape and give clear, stable rules so that smaller towns and social organisations are not left behind. Every year we mobilise to invest. The EU should create visible change in people's daily lives.

Mr President, colleagues, first let me sincerely thank our rapporteurs, Andrzej Halicki and Matjaž Nemec, as well as our fellow shadow rapporteurs and their teams for the hard work that led to this agreement on the 2026 budget, which wasn't finalised until 2 a.m. I would also like to thank Commissioner Piotr Serafin and the Danish Presidency for the result. After tough negotiations, we secured a budget of almost EUR 193 billion for 2026, and we reversed the cuts proposed by the Council to programmes that citizens know and rely on. That means more support for research and innovation, more money for our youth in Erasmus+, a stronger EU4Health, European Social Fund Plus and Creative Europe. It also means more investment in basic infrastructure in our regions. We reinforced funding for workers' organisations, civil society and key institutions that provide cybersecurity or protect the rule of law. For a student looking for a scholarship, for a worker who needs training to keep a job, for a small town waiting for a safer road or a modern school building, these are not abstract lines – these are real opportunities and real protection. This budget is never perfect; no budget is ever perfect. But this budget is more social, more future-oriented and more honest about the needs of our citizens in Europe. This deal is good, and I invite you to support it.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, colleagues, the 2026 EU budget marks key changes. It finally recognises the eastern flank for what it is: a strategic necessity. This is not just a win for eastern border Member States like my home country, Latvia; it is the only viable path for the stability and development of the entire Union. Let us be clear: a secure and prosperous eastern flank is a secure and prosperous Europe. This budget starts translating political solidarity into concrete financial decisions. It acknowledges the disproportionate burden carried by the eastern border Member States and reinforces our collective resilience. And I would like to thank the rapporteur, Andrzej Halicki, and my colleagues in the Budgets Committee, in particular those who visited the Latgale border region on a special mission this April. The resolution signals a paradigm shift. This House is finally accepting that EU funds can, and must, be spent on border and security, and we see enhanced support for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. This, in its turn, strengthens the migration pact, providing essential tools for the return procedures of irregular migrants. This is vital for regions like Latgale which are confronting weaponised migration head on. We see critical increase in investment in military mobility, which, among other things, may help my home country to complete the Rail Baltica project. This is a strong start, but as we look toward the 2027 budget and the new MFF, we must go further. Border infrastructure is vital, yet we must equally support the ordinary Europeans, municipalities and businesses in the border regions, who are absorbing the social and economic fallout of the war. Finally, we cannot preach collective resilience while maintaining a hypocritical discrimination against farmers in central and eastern Europe. The next MFF must guarantee equal support for all farmers across the Union. Dear colleagues, dear rapporteurs, Andrzej Halicki and Matjaž Nemec, thank you for your work and thank you for the budget, and let us have it voted tomorrow at the plenary.

Madam President, dear colleagues, when the COVID crisis struck Europe, the response was often shaky, leading to decisions that proved controversial or simply wrong. But out of that chaos emerged something truly new that seemed to be even revolutionary: that was the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Europe abandoned its playbook on austerity; it chose to borrow money together to help its Members to recover. It was a huge shift in approach. But red tape, lack of administrative capacities, peculiarities of domestic management or politics in various Member States and other reasons have resulted in implementation below 50 % or around 50 % in many Member States like Latvia. We have lots of questions about the effectiveness of this 50 % being spent. We have the overall feeling that the experiment flagship response programme is gradually failing. The failure of the RRF would mean for us the failure of our new approach – that means support instead of austerity measures – and that cannot be accepted. EU needs RRF type of instruments beyond the MMF to deal with future crises.

Mr President, Dear colleagues, These days, people across Europe celebrate the victory over Nazism, commemorate the soldiers of the anti-Hitler coalition, the participants of the resistance, the guerrillas, everyone who fought and fell, fighting against this absolute evil. The European Union was created precisely as a result of this victory, and everything that is good in Europe is thanks to the soldiers who won Hitler. Everything that is bad for us is already the result of our own failures and mistakes. Every time we do not succeed in tackling the challenges that the European Union is currently facing on a completely different scale, we remember those who, 80 years ago, sacrificed absolutely everything so that we and our children can live in peace and security. Building a better Europe, let us live and work in such a way that we are not ashamed of these soldiers that we did not do, we were not able. Thank you to the soldiers of the anti-Hitler coalition, the participants of the resistance, the guerrillas. You are and will always be our heroes.

Madam President, access to European Union funding for large-scale transport projects usually boosts mobility and economic development, but not in the case of my home country, Latvia. I will give you some illustration. Currently, electric trains form the backbone of domestic passenger rail transport. However, the state of the electrified rail infrastructure is so poor that probably in the next 5 to 10 years, electric train operations might stop fully. Latvia had access to nearly EUR 500 million to save the situation, but failed. Then the Latvian Government redirected funds to its flagship project: Rail Baltica. But before this, authorities managed to increase Rail Baltica's estimated costs from EUR 2 billion to EUR 10 billion without any plans to fund the gap and without any credible completion deadline. As a result, Latvians in 5 to 10 years will travel between their own towns on foot, because the government failed with EU money. But EU money will be spent on an international project that probably will not be completed in the next decades. As a result, EU money is spent and Latvians are worse off. The situation is not acceptable.

Mr President, after the United Kingdom left the European Union, a special support tool, the Brexit Adjustment Reserve, was created under the current MFF. It has provided assistance to municipalities along the western border of the Union, with total funding of EUR 5 billion. Recently, members of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets visited the city of Balvi in Latvia, Latgale region, a region bordering both Russia and Belarus. The committee members saw firsthand the challenges faced by people and local authorities in these border areas: closed border checkpoints, severe economic and social problems. The three Baltic states, Finland and Poland are facing increased defence spending, at the same time urgently needing to support local residents and businesses struggling with various hardships. In the new MFF, a support tool for the eastern border municipalities must be established, mirroring the current Brexit adjustment mechanism used for western border municipalities.

Mr President, distinguished Commissioner, dear colleagues, apart from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, there are thousands of independent media outlets operating across the European Union in the Russian language. This means they are owned by EU citizens, they employ EU citizens and they produce content for Europeans, but they do so in Russian and they have no connection to Kremlin. The best way to simultaneously defend our values, freedom of speech and liberty, and also combating disinformation and propaganda, is to establish a transparent and effective support mechanism for free media operating across Europe and sometimes outside Europe in third country languages, starting probably with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Unfortunately, different Member States take different approaches. The current Latvian Government, for example, is actively undermining its own public broadcasting in Russian, which effectively serves local linguistic minorities for decades. That is why a united European approach and regulation are urgently needed.

Madam President, the previous mandate of the European Parliament and the Commission began with Brexit, and municipalities located at the western border of the European Union were particularly affected by the departure of the United Kingdom As a result, a special financial instrument was established, providing up to EUR 5 billion in support for these municipalities. This mandate starts with the continued war in Ukraine and municipalities at the eastern border of the European Union, like Latgale, in Latvia and now literally living by the wall, bearing significant economic and social costs. When you are forced to construct anti-tank infrastructure in your region, private investment obviously tend to avoid those areas. Eastern border regions currently receive no support comparable to what the western border regions have been granted. This glaring inequality must be addressed by the House and by the new Commission that will be presumably elected today.

Madam President, for the first time the European Union has a budget of EUR 200 billion, and it is an important increase in the Union's financial capacity. However, the European Union budget remains relatively small. A budget of EUR €200 billion is less than the budget of Denmark, and that means that we need to be clear with the priorities when we vote for the budget. Despite the pressure of repaying the COVID recovery debt, we have succeeded in protecting key programmes from cuts, that is when we talk about priorities, because taking funding away from youth or scientific research to cover interest payments would have been disastrous. In my own country, Latvia, the national government faces a similar challenge repaying debt. Unfortunately, the proposed solutions include several controversial measures, such as cutting funding for urgent medical assistance. Again, about priorities, we managed to provide additional EUR 3 billion to allocate to support European regions affected by natural disasters. It was crucial to find a solution that did not impact the Cohesion Fund – taking money from one part of Europe to assist another would have violated the very principles of solidarity. At the same time, we continue to struggle with the budget of the European administration. This is a never-ending story: increasing responsibilities every year, systemic underfunding and hundreds of transfers during the year to deal with the consequences of underfinancing. At this rate, we risk facing a significant crisis in our administration pretty soon. I would like to express my gratitude, when we talk about the budget, to rapporteurs Victor Negrescu and Niclas Herbst, and I would like also to express gratitude for five budgets we managed to adopt to our Commissioner Hahn. Good luck, Mr Hahn.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I will use this opportunity to talk about European administration. The recent incident at Strasbourg train station after the last plenary – which left thousands of employees stranded – has once again highlighted the inefficiency and, at the same time, the financial burden of the so-called 'travelling circus' that the European institutions endure every month. The annual cost is EUR 180 million, and it really raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of this event. We also have a historical practice of maintaining multiple European institutions in different Member States, such as, for example, Luxembourg – probably the most beautiful, yet also the most expensive Member State, especially with respect to housing. We pay salaries that 90 % of Latvians wouldn't even dream of owning and, at the same time, for certain employees the salaries are lower than the Luxembourg minimum wage. As a result, the European institutions struggle to hire the talent they need to fulfil their primary functions. Every year, the demands on the European institutions grow as we assign new responsibilities. Yet the financial resources provided do not match these increasing demands. For example, the European Union External Action Service, which operates globally, is forced to maintain offices in substandard, unsecure conditions, sometimes having to rent additional premises in order to provide and to prevent the risk of ceilings collapsing on the heads of staff. Other institutions have to request budget transfers as early as the summer, because the initial allocations are insufficient to cover basic operational costs, such as heating or electricity bills. I am talking right now not about the budget alone, but also about the new MMF, because we are spending hundreds of millions of euros in administration and, at the same time, we face the situation we just discussed with the External Action Service. We are discussing the usage of special instruments, such as the single market instrument to finance the needs of the administration. We are discussing the probability of taking funds from essential European programmes. That means that the European Parliament and the Council have to take the challenge and to start collaborating in order to provide a new MMF that will be dealing with hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money in the most cost-effective way.

Mr President, dear colleagues, in Latvia, especially in the border region of Latgale, there are hundreds of apartment buildings that have had no central heating for the last three decades. This was cut off during the energy crisis of the 1990s after Latvia regained its independence. As a result, each room has a separate coal‑burning stove, with numerous pipes sticking out of every single apartment. Obviously, that's a disaster from the environmental point of view and from the energy efficiency point of view. Altogether, we are talking about thousands of buildings that need renovation, and Latvia needs roughly EUR 20 billion to deal with this challenge. What we have at the moment at our disposal, including money from Brussels, is roughly EUR 200 million – that is 1 %, approximately. Providing sufficient support for building new affordable housing, and at the same time providing sufficient support for renovating existing housing, especially in the eastern part of the European Union, should be two pillars of the European Housing Programme.

Madam President, we have made significant efforts towards the revision of the Financial Regulation and achieved decent results in our fight to make the spending of European money more transparent, honest and effective. Still, we will be facing a number of challenges ahead. The Financial Regulation needs further improvement, as well as the way European money is spent. A main concern in the future will still be the inability to absorb available resources, inability to select suitable projects, and inability to implement sophisticated large-scale projects. 75% of funds are managed under shared management, and we all know that the ways national authorities select projects and ensure their adequacy differ from country to country. In Latvia, on one hand, they are concerned that a significant part of EU funds – up to EUR 500 million may just go unspent. This is a failure of the Latvian Government and the respective Ministries, and this also means huge missed opportunities for Latvian people. On the other hand, we have examples like Rail Baltica, a high-speed rail project connecting European countries in the Baltic region, the largest European project ever in the Baltic region, worth billions of euro. And we still don’t know precisely how many billions that will cost at the end of the day. And here we see another failure of the Latvian authorities that may result in another type of risks: the new railroad skipping Riga, the largest and central city in the region. At the same time, there are numerous examples of infrastructure projects related to construction and innovation, and renovation in the middle of nowhere, having zero or minimal effect. Parliament has undertaken considerable effort to improve the way European money is spent. Much more will have to be done in the forthcoming mandates of the European Parliament.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since the beginning of this parliamentary mandate, we have been preparing the work on this file and eagerly awaited this moment to finally adopt a revised Financial Regulation. Let me be clear: this revision was long overdue. It is remarkable that it took so much time. Parliament was united and ready from the very beginning. The multiannual financial framework is in place. We see substantial increase in funds, Corona reconstruction funds, NextGenerationEU. That is why our vision on what is needed to be done was so clear: transparency spending such large sums of money. However, despite our clear commitment, we have encountered hesitation from Member States, it seems, when it comes to strengthening the control of these enormous funds, expanding special control systems like the early-detection and exclusion system to be fully applicable to all funds without exception. Member States are reluctant both to empower the Parliament to fulfil its role as budgetary and budgetary control authority, and to trust the Commission, who is in charge of the implementation of the programmes. This needs improvement, and I can assure you that Parliament will keep insisting on being granted a role in structuring the EU budget, but also for obtaining full control over how funds are allocated. Despite several points of contention with the Council, we could significantly advance in this legislation. One such achievement is emphasis on decent working conditions and the protection of workers’ rights. Social standards in the Financial Regulation are a novelty and a monumental step forward. Now any entities seeking funding from EU programmes must uphold the right to decent working conditions in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. To put it simple, businesses that fail to respect workers’ social rights will not receive any money from Europe. You pay wages in envelopes. No EU money. We do not tolerate grey economies at the expense of taxpayers and their welfare, and we refuse to support shameful labour practices with European taxpayers money. This is a new general standard applicable to all European funds and not just specific programmes. There are millions of working people across our Union earning hard their money, and protecting their rights should be equally important as environmental or economic goals. Another significant step forward in strengthening our financial framework was to ensure alignment with the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation. By aligning with the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation and emphasising the importance of respecting Union values and fundamental rights, we are reinforcing our commitment to accountability, transparency and the rule of law. We aim for a legislation that is uniform and loophole-free to maintain the trust of our citizens in a democratic European Union. Through the revised Financial Regulation, we send a clear message: whoever fails to comply with rule of law conditionality will face consequences. We do not give money to those who do not respect our values and fundamental rights. I would like to close this address with gratitude to my co-rapporteur Monika Hohlmeier. It was really fantastic experience. I would like to thank Commissioner Hahn for the work you’ve done as an honest broker, getting us with the Council and Member States and getting this revision done. And, of course, thanks to your fantastic team and to the director. I would like also to express gratitude to the Spanish Presidency, which is not right now in the plenary, but we managed to do this.

Mr President, a couple of words about the walls at the borders and the European Union budget. In Latvia, the second largest city of Daugavpils is located roughly less than 30km away from the Belarussian border. Likewise, major cities like Ludza, Krāslava or Dagda are located within the same proximity to the Russian border. Building walls or any other military or border control infrastructure will definitely increase security, but that comes at a cost. That will bring the level of investment in this region – the region of Latgale – basically down to zero. You cannot build walls, you cannot dig rows or put anti-tank defences and expect economic growth at the same time. It just doesn’t work that way. And that clearly means we need a stronger, proactive role of the European Union and its budget. EU money must be directed towards providing additional new support for both the regions, like Latgale, for economic and social development, to compensate the costs incurred by the war and the geopolitical situation.

Mr President, Commissioner Hahn, Secretary of State Madam Samblás, colleagues, we have got a budget 2024, which is good news. We could reach a reasonable agreement. We could protect and reinforce key programmes that are vital for the Union and for the European citizens: science, youth, health programs, transport, military, mobility, the fight against fraud with EU funds, international humanitarian aid. These are the priorities. We could add EUR 85 million to Horizon, bringing the total budget to almost EUR 12.9 billion – money that the scientific community so desperately needs. Health research is also included in the programme. EUR 60 million more in the Erasmus+ programme, bringing the total to around EUR 3.9 billion. This means more support for young people to travel and experience student life in another European country and city. I know this very well from the experience of Latvian students in particular, and it is by far one of the most successful programmes in the European Union. The current economic crisis makes this programme even more important, and I am glad that the European Union supports young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. All in all, we could add EUR 670 million more to meet the needs and demands of Europeans. On the other institutions, where I am in charge as rapporteur, I admit we could not achieve a maximum result. There are many constraints we have to take into account: the pressure on Heading 7, high inflation, energy costs. But overall, we managed to reinforce five institutions and agencies, which is very welcome: the European External Action Service, the European Court of Auditors, the European Court of Justice, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Justice, values, data protection and of course, foreign affairs are the priorities. I would like to thank the Spanish Presidency and Secretary of State, Ms Samblás, Commissioner Hahn, it has not been easy this year, but willingness to find compromises is a powerful tool. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Mureşan, and the shadow rapporteurs for their collaboration and of course, the secretariat and the team who make it possible.

Mr President, Commissioner Hahn, Secretary of State Samblás, we all do understand in this House perfectly the magnitude of the pressure on Heading 7. The fact that we will have to use special flexibility instruments, like SMI for instance, is definitely the bad news for all of us. We can only deal with the pressure in the medium term if we revise the MFF, considering pressure created by the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine. And we must look truth in the eye: pre-war and pre-crisis financial planning will not work anymore these days. What we cannot do under any circumstances is to ignore the problem, continue expecting high-standard performance, but provide institutions with money for 10 months to pay for electricity. There are 12 months in a year, not 10, and this is not the way public administration of the largest union in the world should work and serve its citizens. In my home country, Latvia, public administration has a controversial image: sometimes the reasons for it are bad decisions by Latvian politicians. What we do not want to see is Latvian mistakes being brought to Brussels. When Latvia was joining the European Union, one of our hopes was to see our own public administration be more effective, citizen-oriented and European, not the other way round. It is our duty to keep European administration as a flagship example for all Member States. That is why Parliament ensures that they have the necessary resources to be able to meet their legal and contractual obligations and fulfil their mandate. I would like to express gratitude to rapporteur Mureșan, to the shadow rapporteurs for their support and collaboration, even though it is sometimes challenging to find an agreement in our ranks. I admit this was not the case on the estimates of Parliament. We were quick to achieve agreement and unity through a broad majority. Dear Commissioner, Secretary of State, I am confident that the same spirit will inspire the forthcoming trilogues and conciliation, and that we will be able to find compromises on the estimates of our institutions in a fair and constructive way, and will be able to deal with the financial burden or, if needed, to reshape this burden.

Mr President, Commissioner Hahn, Secretary of State Samblás, dear colleagues, there was a clear purpose why the European institutions were established: to help and protect the common interests of the European people. All of these establishments have specific roles, from developing EU laws and policy-making, to implementing policies and working in areas like health, medicine, transport or environment. The Union’s institutions are crucial in areas like protecting citizens’ rights, personal data and fighting fraud. It doesn’t matter whether you come from Portugal, Sweden, Greece or Latvia, but your fundamental values and fundamental rights will be defended by the European Court of Justice and the EU Ombudsman. The ECJ alone resolved 1 666 cases in 2022. In the same time the European Ombudsman opened 344 inquiries and provided advice on 811 complaints. Privacy will be ensured by the European Data Protection Service, and we have to bear in mind that new technologies such as artificial intelligence will add up to new challenges that we will have to face in near future. I invite you to reflect: how highly effective can we be in the fight against fraud, or in defending our fundamental rights and wellness, or in dealing with artificial intelligence if there are no sufficient funds to pay, for instance, for institutions, heating bills or for buying adequate equipment or to have the high profile experts to do the job? We don’t request anything special or inadequate: the approach to the estimates is very modest. The money is for contractual obligations — that is primarily salaries and utility bills – not for new posts, with certain justified exemptions: the Committee of Regions for cyber security, the EDPS should get the requested experts because of new tasks connected to artificial intelligence, and the European External Action Service, because our Union is facing already two wars at our borders and needs to be reinforced. Our House, the European Parliament, has been highly frugal in its own estimates as well, and we must consider that 2024 is a crucial and an extraordinary year for Parliament due to the European elections. Moreover, the Member States decided to add 15 new members to join the House after the elections, which corresponds to additional expenses. We didn’t request any new posts and stayed strictly below the three-percent threshold for the non-salary and non-contractual obligations, showing responsibility and readiness to share the financial burden. With our estimates, this plenary will send a clear message about the limits of what is possible and the respect we all need vis-à-vis the way the European taxpayers’ money should be spent. I believe this year’s approach by Parliament, when we talk about EP estimates, will serve as a very good basis for further trilogues and conciliation.

Madam President, dear colleagues, in this House I represent Latvian voters who live at the border region of Latgale, bordering both Russia and Belarus. European money is crucial for the people of Latgale because – and I know it very well – they face more social and economic hardships these days than an absolute majority of other European regions. The stability, prosperity and security of Europe is equally depending both on what is going on in Brussels, Berlin and Paris and what is happening in cities like Daugavpils or Rēzekne in Latgale. The MFF revision is about our ability to provide the Union with the tools we need to overcome crises. In our case, our major tool is money – thank God not weapons or the lives of our soldiers. The MFF revision is also about our ability to adopt and implement heavily complicated decisions, and this ability is what is making us a functional Union which is based on values.

Madam President, Secretary of State, Commissioner, colleagues, over the last two years, inflation in general and increasing energy prices in particular have put extraordinary pressure both on budgets of Europeans and their households and on the budgets of the European institutions. On the one hand, we must provide our colleagues across the institutions with adequate resources to fulfil their functions and to protect the interests of Europeans. You cannot expect excellent work performance of, for instance, the External Action Service or Court of Auditors if these institutions cannot pay for the rent or electricity. On the other hand, we must keep in mind that European families that do not have enough money to pay for their own energy bills or rent might be pretty critical to any argument that the Union has to spend more money on its administration, especially taking into account that in absolute figures, the Union’s administrative expenditure is equal to the budgets of some small-sized Member States – it is roughly the same as what my country spends in the year, including all European co-financing. The Committee on Budgets and I, as the rapporteur, cut the estimates of the European Parliament’s budget, prepared by the EP Bureau, by EUR 12 million and did not request any new posts. At the same time, there is a considerable difference between targeted cuts and the lawn-mower principle applied by the Commission with respect to reducing the estimates of both institutions in order to please the Council. I fully understand the concerns by the Commission or by any Member State. It is always sad to spend money because of inflation or an increase in gas prices. But institutions’ budgets mainly consist of statutory or contractual obligations. The Committee of the Regions cannot avoid paying its bills. The Court of Justice cannot either. In addition, we request institutions to fulfil more tasks and obligations, and to meet new deadlines, like the European Data Protection Supervisor, who must cope with the work on the new Artificial Intelligence Regulation or, for instance, the European External Action Service regarding Ukraine. And let us not forget that there will be European Parliament elections next year, and this obviously implies inevitable additional expenditure. Distinguished Secretary of State, as the rapporteur together with shadows, we use the same approach to the estimates of both institutions, including the European Parliament. Contractual obligations must be paid. If new tasks like cybersecurity are introduced, necessary resources must be provided both in terms of finances and posts. Europeans do not like us spending more money on the EU administration. That is absolutely true. But if someone wants to decrease expenditure on the administration, you have to launch a comprehensive reform. Not giving money for heating in the offices of European institutions is definitely not the approach we should go for. And this will not make Europeans happier or better off. Therefore, we are all looking forward to receiving an amending letter from the Commission regarding the new estimates.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Colleagues, the Latvian media recently reported about a renovation project of a leading hospital in Riga that will be financed by Next Generation EU. EUR 37 million are planned to be spent on full reconstruction of historical premises, as well as buying heavily needed modern medical equipment. Spending European money to upgrade a hospital in order to cope with the crisis resulting from a pandemic, that is a fantastic example of a European programme that is both highly demanded and effectively implemented. But we are already facing a new crisis which is incomparable in its magnitude and social consequence neither to the pandemic nor any other crisis of the last decades. This time we will have to provide direct support to our citizens and help them to pay for heating, but also to buy food. Hospital renovation will look like a luxury type of support, comparing to much greater challenges we will be facing in the next years. It’s not a question of social solidarity or fairness only, it’s a question of avoiding widening the dangerous gap between the East and West European Union. The western part of the EU has much higher capacities to provide help to its citizens, while in the eastern part, people literally will have to choose either paying for their heating or for their food. This winter, like in my home country, Latvia, we need to upscale the MFF to the levels that will allow us to establish Next Generation EU 2.0 and help Europeans directly.

Madam President, I would like to talk today about the European Parliament’s buildings policy. We see these days more and more kids all across Europe, from Latvia to Belgium, from Sweden to Portugal, many thousands of them coming to school with either empty lunchboxes or no money to buy themselves lunch in the school canteen. That’s because their parents have to make a choice between paying their heating bills and paying for their children’s food. It’s a hard choice, actually. At the same time, this House keeps moving forward with the plans to tear down the iconic European Parliament Spaak building in Brussels, because it’s 30 years old and is not energy efficient enough. Erecting new premises is already estimated to cost at least EUR 500 million. Taking into account skyrocketing prices, we can easily imagine that the final cost will be around EUR 1 billion. With EUR 1 billion, you can actually heat the Spaak building for roughly one century, irrespective of the level of energy efficiency in this building. My country, Latvia, recently celebrated the arrival of the first Next Generation EU payment – EUR 200 million. It’s roughly 20% of the price of one planned new European Parliament building – one of many EP buildings. The European Union budget is not only about money and lines; it’s about values. And what kind of values are we promoting, when we discuss spending EUR 1 billion on the new EP house in Brussels during the deepest crisis in recent history? What kind of message are we sending to European citizens during the first wartime winter, when we discuss creating a new hotel for MEPs in Strasbourg instead of the Madariaga building and new offices for MEPs and administration in the Osmose building via, frankly speaking, I would say a not-extremely-transparent deal with the private sector. Are we indeed talking about European values now? Therefore, I urge you to vote in favour of the amendment that calls for reconsideration of the Spaak building project and a stop to the Osmose project.

Mr President, dear colleagues, there are roughly five to seven million Russians or Russian speakers who live right now in Europe. In countries like Latvia, absolute majority of them are Latvian citizens, that is citizens of the European Union. And that’s exactly why, stronger than ever, we must support enhancing, or in some cases establishing, European identity of Russian—speaking residents of our Union. European Union has to think outside the box, demonstrate strong leadership and provide support for European media in Russian language. Moreover, we have to support cultural and educational activities in Russian, various integration programmes. We should not rely at this moment on national governments in their capacities only. Support must come from the European Union and must be provided across the continent. Millions of pro—European—minded Russians can certainly become another powerful tool to cope with propaganda from Russia and probably to cope with propaganda in Russia itself.