 Now, dear members, we will, first of all, let me thank for your understanding and cooperation managing the works. Thank you so much for your understanding. We will go now to the debate on the midterm review of the multi-animal financial framework, the regional and local viewpoint. With us, we have the honor and the pleasure to welcome Commissioner for Budget and Administration Johannes Hahn. Thank you so much for taking the time to be with us and to give us your insights about this issue. Dear members, dear members, Commissioner Hahn, you have the floor for 10 minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vasco, for inviting me. It's a good moment because we have met only more than 10 years ago in my previous capacity as Commissioner for Regional Policy and in your capacity as President of their source, and it's good to have this take up again. Indeed, I would like to share with you our ideas, our considerations concerning the MFF midterm review. I think it's important that you are well informed because, finally, we are at the beginning of negotiations between the Council on the one side and the European Parliament on the other side. You are very influential in your countries, and it's important to pass the message if you agree with our proposals, with our ideas, that this is a necessary exercise. Because as you know, we have the seven-year budget, which is now from 21 to 27. And when we negotiated, when we drafted the budget, it was before 2020. It was adopted in 2020. It was not really foreseeable what would be the impact of the pandemic. Nobody was knowing. Some maybe thought it would be a possibility. But now we have for almost 500 days a war in Ukraine. And all this has triggered developments which are more or less costly. I don't have to recall all the issues which are affecting you, affecting all our citizens, its inflation, energy costs, you name it. And therefore, it was necessary to propose a very targeted revision of our current MFF. What are the issues? First, I think it's important for you to understand and to know. We excluded from the onset cohesion and agriculture from this midterm review in order to avoid any kind of discussions about these policies. Because these are usually the policies which take most of the time also amongst member states. This time, we had two months to prepare the midterm review. And we have actually two months, three months to negotiate it. The MFF usually is more than two years prepared and more than two years negotiated. This time, it's really time is of the essence and therefore we had to have a very targeted proposal. The first is, of course, the war in Ukraine. Here the particular challenge for us was and is, as we are talking about the remaining four years from 24 to 27, to find the right, let's say, mixture between a support to Ukraine as long as Ukraine is in a war situation and then already to prepare for a situation which hopefully comes sooner than later, that there is at least a truce, there is a peace. And on the basis of this, of course, under the assumption of regaining of territorial sovereignty, we can start reconstruction of Ukraine. And therefore we have proposed a Ukraine facility of altogether 50 billions, split into 33 billion loans, macro financial assistance and 70 billion grants mainly for the preparation of a possible reconstruction whenever the time is ripe. This is the first main political priority. Second, of course, there are consequences stemming from the war, meaning that we have to support countries like Moldova, we also have to support the western Balkans, we have an issue in Africa, we have issues concerning migration and for all this we have to cater and therefore our idea is to make a long story short, to have another 15 billion reinforcement for policies dealing with this issue. Second political priority, third political priority, competitiveness. It's not only the war, we have a very changed global political landscape, you follow all these discussions between China, the U.S. and we have to see where we are, the Europeans in all this. We are very much committed to multi, not only multi-linguism, but also to a global order which is based on, sorry, I'm missing this term, but you know what I mean, thank you, multilateralism, there are so many notions. It's about the world order which is based on contracts, agreements, which are respected, and in case there are breaches, of course, the decisions and decisions are finally decisions by courts, et cetera, arbitrary courts are respected and therefore we have to see how we can be placed in this global competition and we are just in a period where technology wise important developments are undergoing and therefore we propose reinforcement of several programs which are dealing with certain areas, technological areas, business areas which we consider important for the competitiveness of Europe, where we believe we have to be now and in the future first mover and not first or second supplier. This is green technologies, green tech industry, this is deep tech, everything which is related to microelectronics, et cetera, quantum computing, quantum technology, but also biotech and all together we think reinforcement of 10 billion would be sufficient in order based on the experience we have already with this kind of existing programs, we can trigger up to 110 billion on investment effects, so there's a multiplier of 10. Similarly on this we have also proposed a certain flexibility in the use of structural funds, particular for less developed regions and for countries where the national GDP is below the EU average, so below 100%, where this kind of industries can be founded and substituted with structural fund money. Using this opportunity based on an already existing allocation it could trigger additional up to 50 billion Euro. So these are the three main political priorities, again the war in Ukraine, the consequences stemming from it plus migration and certainly competitiveness. And there are two other technical issues of relevance, the one is what we are all facing individually, but also as representatives of public administrations, the search of interests since spring last year, when we budgetized next generation EU in 2020, our assumption was like by everybody there will be interest costs of let's say zero plus, meanwhile we are at the range of three plus and this has a huge impact, therefore we are running out of this budget line and the reinforcement is necessary in the magnitude of plus minus 19 billion. And then of course we propose an additional flexibility of around not around precisely 3 billion, because as we have seen in the past there are so many unforeseeable events that we have also to cater ourselves for such unforeseeable developments and finally this is also an issue I don't want to shy away, of course we are affected by inflation, so on the expenditure side for all the European institutions in terms of administrative costs for those of salaries we also face constraints, different international households, we suffer the same at the area of expenditures, but in terms of revenues we don't have the same pattern like public national households where you are benefiting from the inflation, at the European level we have a legally binding automatic annual deflate of 2%. So every year the budget is nominally increased by 2%, which was somehow good in the past when the inflation was always below 2%, but nowadays with this high inflation 5 and even more percent and it will not go away very soon there are constraints. I don't want to bother you with any further details, if you have questions it's around 1.9 billion. So all together we are talking about let's say fresh money in the magnitude of 65.9 billion euro for the remaining 4 years and on top this 33 billion of potential loans to Ukraine. This is the situation, this is what we have tabled and this we have also proposed to our member states and now negotiations are starting and really I count on your support because you are the ones who experience the consequences of all this so to say immediately. Thank you so much Commissioner. Now I would like to give the floor for 3 minutes to our member Habermann is the rapporteur in our opinion about the MFF review. Member Habermann you have the floor for 3 minutes. Thank you very much President dear colleagues and in particular dear Commissioner Hahn. Thank you very much for having joined us today. We're really delighted. So thanks for your introduction and we do understand that the EU in a lot of areas needs money that was not foreseeable. The global challenges call for that. I'd like to express thanks to you that when it comes to the mid-term review you've undertaken or suggested a full review of the MFF. So I think we have a good basis for discussion. I welcome that the Ukraine facility has been established and that there's got investment foreseen also private investment along the grants and the loans and when it comes to the local authorities regional authorities are going to be playing a key role. So when it comes to this approach to use new tasks and new resources and when it comes to our migration policies that there's going to be more money available for that and also more money for emergencies. Unfortunately when it comes for this step that a cohesion resources can be used. Ms. von der Leyen in her speech mentioned some funds where the cohesion fund has money but not the projects and others it's the opposite case but that comment by her was not appreciated by us. Cohesion policy not only has a lot of projects but these are vital for all our citizens in companies in municipalities and cities so that's a vital part of what the EU can do. So we have a real problem with the complexity of the procedures. So cohesion resources shouldn't be used for other purposes. Dear commissioner allow me to say something general about the MFF. We want something future proof EU and this can be achieved through regulations. The EU as a union of safety and the EU as a union and geared to the interests of the citizens. All of our citizens when it comes to those who established the EU should be in favor of fostering it along all of the national policies the EU must make clear what it is contributing and at all local regional and national levels and our citizens have to see what a positive impact the EU institutions have in what they're doing for their daily life. So we need projects geared to the future. That's the only way we can foster that development on the part of people. There's a lot of people that have a lot of development on the part of people. There's a lot of criticism in a number of member states about the what the European Union and then when it comes to providing additional funds people are against that and you end up with under financing and that's a real danger. So that is why I think that it's inappropriate to cut funds not to say that it's fatal. Please commissioner please take that into account. I give the floor to our chair of the co-chair commission our member Emil Bok you had the floor for three minutes. Thank you Mr. President and commissioner Han. Thank you so much for being present with us. I'm going straight forward to the subject to our assessment. Firstly the multi-financial framework midterm revision largely confirms the European Committee of the Regents call that new task need new financial resources to respond to crisis but also shows the limitations of the current multi-financial framework system. The Ukraine facility proposal it's a step in the right direction and in line with the COR proposals the Ukraine facility includes the support for decentralization and local government. Secondly the inclusion of additional own resources for the sound financial management of the EU budget it's also to be welcomed as long as they do not burden citizens and SMEs. We can no longer continue to under financing the European Committee of the Regents if we want to strengthen democracy in every corner of the European Union and to have a successful green and digital transition so dear commissioner we count on you for this support. Thirdly the revision proposal also follows the CR invitation to examine how existing funds could be used in the most efficient way. The strategic technologies for Europe platform step reflects the importance of supporting strategic technologies in Europe so that our industry remains a frontrunner. However the economic social and territorial impact of the combination of the step proposal to gather the recent relaxation on state aid rules is not addressed in the Commission proposal. Also once again the use cohesion policy funds to tackle other challenges worries me and many other local and regional representatives and this is something that the European Commission needs to tackle into consideration. For the past two years we observed that cohesion policy was used as a banking machine as a deposit money for different kind of emergencies. We need to deal with emergencies but we need also to keep the cohesion money for the initial purpose in the treaty. Dear commission dear ladies and gentlemen as a reporter on the future of cohesion policy I would like to mention and to emphasize that cohesion policy is the solution not the course of our problems of poverty or deep regional disparities in the European Union. We the local and regional authorities have cohesion projects in every corner of the European Union to meet the objectives of cohesion policy. We need more money, more money allocated directly to citizens and regions and less bureaucracy on the ground in the process of the implementation of European funds. Working together with you with the European Commission we can achieve the best absorption of European funds as let's not forget that cohesion policy is the glue that holds European Union together. Thank you. Thank you. Member Sari Rausio you have the floor for two minutes. Thank you chair. Dear Commissioner Hahn on behalf of the EPP group I would like to welcome you to the core plenary session and let me start by stating the obvious yet somehow forgotten to or overlooked by EU decision makers today across Europe the 280 regions and 90,000 municipalities play a key role in the implementation of the green and digital transitions, sustainable urban development, lifelong skills and education, health and care provision. Indeed local and regional authorities channel 50% to 60% of the EU's budget in areas of public interest. So the change is done near people in mine and your region. Dear Commissioner ladies and gentlemen regional and local administrations not only implement 50 to 60% of EU's budget but also are responsible for the collection of taxes and duties which depending on the decree of decentralization go directly to national budgets. This means in return that EU budget is likewise made up of contributions deriving from regional and local level. That's why we firmly believe that bigger attention must be paid to the regional and local needs by the EU decision making as it is in case until now. This is in the essence of the active subsidiarity principle as well as a functional vibrant EU democracy. To put it in other words could we have a stable European house without proper foundations being our regions and cities. Dear Commissioner let me give you one example. More than half of the necessary investments for the twin green and digital transition have to be made at local and regional level and if you speak to regional and local governments you will soon find out that we are committed to the twin transition which has to be done in just fair and successful way by leaving no one behind. But more than half of the necessary investments are simply missing to reach our objectives. Thank you. Thank you. You have the floor for two minutes. Dear Commissioner and I also am happy to take the floor on behalf of the EPP and you know very well the importance of the local and regional authorities in the issue we are discussing. And you ask also to count on our support for the work here in the Committee of the Regions in your speech and I have to admit that we are very disappointed with the reply letter we received from you on the Committee of the Regions 2024 budget estimate. Day after day we probe or add value by the budget of the European Commission disagree this. We are the European Union's political assembly of regions and cities constantly receive new requests from different European Commission services and participate in and or contribute to different new activities, projects without receiving the necessary resources to carry out the task. For example the action plan with Commission service under former Commission Gabriel, the engagement and management of the RIG hub network of the core as a part of the fit for the future platform, the wish of European Commission to receive more territorial impact assessment, the role of the core as promoter of the EGTC platform and as European registry for the European Grouping of Territorial and Cooperation is laid down in the ETC's regulation. And we fully understand that the resources are limited but local and regional authorities are not Brussels bubble's institutions. We collect taxes, we are contributors to the EU budget and we say within existing administrative resources and no extra money from the taxpayer we can do a better job. We have also proposed how we can increase and make the input from the Committee of the Regions much more in the future. So I urge you to listen to the Committee of the Regions and give us the resources needed for supporting you in your work. Thank you. I now give you the floor for two minutes. Mr. Ribeiro. Mr. President, dear colleagues, many thanks for organizing this important debate today. My name is José Manuel Ribeiro and I am the Mayor of Vellung Municipality in Portugal. In the European Committee of the Regions I work in the COTER Commission and I was appointed the new core rapporteur for replying to the European Commission's proposal on the MFF revision. I would like to thank the former MFF rapporteur Thomas Abermann for preparing the outlook opinion on the MFF and I am looking forward to working with all colleagues to formulate the European Committee of the Regions reply to the commissioners proposal. Dear Commissioner Hahn, let me already give you some first thoughts on the different proposals. We very much welcome that the European Commission recognized our call that new tasks need new resources. We welcome the establishment of the Ukraine facility but we will have significant requests for improvement including in terms of budget. My colleague Dario Nardella is the designated core rapporteur on the Ukraine facility who will formulate these concerns. When it comes to the other parts of the MFF revision we really welcome the European Commission's attempt to adjust the budgetary ceilings and provide fresh money. We also welcome the proposed new own resources but we see considerable problems with the STEP proposal. We certainly welcome the proposal to support clean technologies, biotechnology and renewable energies but the method used for these is the wrong one. Again, Member States are invited to redeploy existing funds for these. The reshuffling of money from Cohesion Policy and other programs must stop. We certainly see your good intentions but new and enforced priorities cannot be financed at the expense of cities and regions. I am looking forward to working with you on these Mr Hahn. Thank you very much. Thank you Member Balas Torres. The floor is yours for two minutes. Yes, thank you very much President and thank you Commissioner. I'd like to stress what my colleague Mr Ribeiro has just said. Funds from the Cohesion Policy shouldn't be sent to other programs. Indeed the European Committee of the Region has always called for shared management and a territorial approach with multi-level governance and association and partnerships. That's what decentralization is about and rather decentralization can't be the solution. Cohesion Policy is clearly an excellent policy to apply European priorities in territories but we can't lose sight of the major role that Cohesion Policy can play in changing our societies. Of course there are policies, there are funds but when it comes to the work of the European Commission and their changing the rules well that makes things challenging for regional authorities. Now on the one hand changing operational programs makes things much more complicated on the administrative level for regions but we also need to think about how we can move funds from the Cohesion Fund from the European Regional Development Fund or the European Social Plus Fund to centralized approaches. Indeed there's a risk that this could have negative ramifications for the long-term aims of Cohesion Policy and indeed could undermine it. Cohesion Policy has been the most analyzed European policy but if we truly wish to see outcomes for Europe, for our citizens, for all of our territories well we'll need to make sure that we work to simplify this and that's what we're asking for in the future. Having a robust, ambitious MFF, thank you. Fini, you have the floor for three minutes. Thank you President and welcome Commissioner Hahn. First on behalf of Renew Europe we welcome the revision of the MFF particularly considering the pandemic and the EU's efforts in and with Ukraine and this was necessary and I think it holds promise for mitigating the impact of the changing external landscape and ensuring a more stable and prosperous future. We also welcome the establishment of STEP and we appreciate that you did not create a new fund but instead proposed to boost and find better synergies within existing ones. I want to emphasize the urgent need to address migration challenges and prioritize sufficient resources for both the short-term integration and the long-term inclusion of people who have made Europe their home but who too often find themselves on the fringes of our societies. In Renew we have worked hard to change the narrative on migration but without adequate funding for local and regional assemblies it becomes challenging to showcase the positive aspects. Prioritizing integration is not only better for our towns and cities it is better for our citizens. Insufficient integration budgets hinder our ability to provide necessary services for refugees such as healthcare education and transport and we should be looking at direct funding opportunities for local and regional authorities to develop local programs relevant to their needs under existing funds such as ESF+. Finally, Commissioner Hahn, you are aware of the financial position of this institution and I would like to address the matter of Cinderella as many of my colleagues have and I find it extremely regretful that for the second time in as many days we have had members of other institutions come here to tell us what a good job we are doing how important our work is or to put it in your words we are the ones who experience the consequences. But those words Commissioner ring hollow when our requests for sufficient resources not just to merely function but to add more value to the European project are ignored. There are 90,000 municipalities in the European Union 1.2 million local and regional representatives and 50% of public investment in Europe is through local and regional authorities more so citizens have more trust in local and regional politicians than any other group of politicians. In short, Commissioner, we are an underutilised asset and we can be more than just voices to get the good word out. For example, through a properly funded European councillors network which is proposed under Cinderella the core can help EU decision makers receive evidence of how the union is functioning on the ground in a way that no other institution can but that requires proper resources. Right now the EU is depriving the core and itself of that evidence on the ground and this is just one example. Commissioner, I urge you to re-engage on this issue. Thank you. Thank you so much. Member, Marcilio, you have the floor for two and a half minutes. Thank you very much, Commissioner. The ECR very much welcomes the proposal to revise the EU's seven-year financial framework to finance new strategic partnerships with North African countries while providing adequate resources. We know that this new focus on the external dimension of migration policy is due to the impetus of the chair of the Conservatives group the head of the Italian government, Giorgio Miloni, and we're very proud of this. These partnerships with Mediterranean countries of origin and transit will be crucial to stop human traffickers and once and for all put an end to illegal immigration flows. We need to make it clear that while we're ready to shelter those who actually are fleeing conflicts we cannot possibly think we could accommodate all economic migrants who arrive illegally on our shores and therefore they need to be returned. I would like to seize this opportunity to express on behalf of the ECR group our firm condemnation for the violence and vandalism that have taken place in France over the past few days and to express our full support for the mayors who are on the front line of the effort to restore law and order. Clearly these incidents are the result of failed European migration policies. This is also why we Conservatives know that greater such efforts must be rolled out the Union must increase its funding to protect its external borders and perhaps should even support physical barriers. Member States monitoring Europe's borders expect adequate support for their major ongoing efforts which we are pleased are finally being recognized. The European Conservatives and Reformers Group also welcomes the proposal to establish a platform strategic technologies for Europe, the STEP program. If used appropriately this initiative could help to defend European technological sovereignty in the field of critical digital technologies. By strengthening the Union's strategic autonomy European regions will also be able to maximize the potential of strategic technologies to promote greater economic growth. I hope that this is the first step towards a European sovereignty fund which is a key tool for adequately addressing future challenges such as the green and digital transitions with appropriate resources. However I must reiterate that the proposed measures such as the possibility of greater flexibility and how existing resources are used should not reduce the scope of cohesion policy funding which plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between the territories of the Union. Thank you. It's to Kiran Makarty for two minutes. Thank you Mr President. Bavallum claimed us. I would like to speak in Irish. On behalf of the European Alliance we would like to express our gratitude to you for speaking to us here today. It's clear that in order to have effective expenditure it's often necessary to invest at the level of municipalities and regions but always at the level of the member state. I wish to reiterate the narrative that the world has changed since the current MFF was conceived but in particular the impact on the operational costs of local and regional government has been significant since its introduction of the MFF in this term but revenue streams still recovering from the pandemic and high energy costs and that's where our battle is at. And the COVID-19 pandemic pushed the EU to yes to formulate the recovery and resilience fund but the process of fast tracking that left many regions and cities noting that they weren't even consulted by their respective member state and what was needed. In essence we reiterate our points at the next generation EU as well as new funds such as the social climate fund and the Just Transition Fund to name but a few need to be bottom up, have less admin burden and ultimately create opportunities in our villages, our cities and in our rural communities. Last week Commissioner the incredible honour of being elected Lord Mayor of Cork City in the south of Ireland and in my acceptance speech I highlighted a myriad of opportunities for my city including a list of EU initiatives which deliver a hope for tomorrow and I placed a particular focus on my city's attempts towards climate neutrality and our involvement in three of the horizon mission programs one of which comprises to be part of 112 cities to be climate neutral for 2020-30. That particular project is absolutely fantastic but needs the brokering of finance from public and private sectors and the brokering of new financial investment opportunities. Commissioner with such a horizon mission and the other four missions local and regional government can really and practically deliver the aims of the European Green Deal at local level and the EU could actually potentially stand very tall and proud if this actually was initiated. So I would call new commissioner cabinet to look at the needs of local and regional governments to look at the challenges, lawyer and a lot of opportunities. Thank you. Member Ufuk Kaya you have the floor for two minutes. Yes. Thank you Mr. President. In Europe we are facing many challenges to war in Ukraine as mentioned the inflation, high energy prices, crisis that were not foreseen when the European in the beginning of this European budget period. It is therefore the right of the European Commission indicates that the current MFF does not provide sufficient resources to deal with all these challenges. I think that's a midterm review is being looked at but one of the great things that we did was creating next gen EU which made us agile and made it possible for us to also tackle the issues and provide impact for our citizens also in the regional level but I also want to use my time to respond on my dear colleague from the ECR and I want to quote Martin Luther King who said our riot is the language of those unheard. And I think it's important that we ask the question moving forward with so many challenges and disruptions in this world how are we going to create a stronger Europe in which the unheard in our cities and regions will be heard in which we can provide a vibrant social and political dialogue in which we don't only condemn and try to close the borders and push people out but how can we with love and compassion embrace all Europeans whatever their story may be to give them a place in our future together which hopefully will be green and social. Thank you. Thank you. Now the floor goes to our first Vice President Apostolos Cicicostas for four minutes. Thank you Mr. President. Dear Commissioner, the multiple crisis that we are currently experiencing have not only changed our political priorities over the last years but they will also affect the years to come. Resilience, health, defence, inflation, enlargement were not our main priorities when shaping the current financial framework at least not in the terms that we are experiencing today this is why we have used flexibility in order to overcome these challenges often too often cohesion policy has provided the necessary reserve margins to overcome the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic the sheltering of refugees, the inflation. However, cohesion policy is still needed as we all need to plan long term strategic investments and we need to do it from the bottom up. Therefore we cannot longer accept attempts to divert cohesion funds to finance new policies that may be necessary but they are very far from the original purpose. The act in support of ammunition production for instance is the latest initiative that in my opinion deviates from the intended scope. Similarly, I hope that your valuable proposal to set up a strategic technologies for your platform step aiming at building European strategic sovereignty will not turn into a further step in the wrong direction as it may risk diverting again useful funds that are planned for sustainable territorial development. Strategic sovereignty requires more than synergies and leftovers it deserves a fully fledged new fund. The point is that cohesion is actually performing as we make full use of it to be more resilient to adapt our territories to the climate changes and challenges to progress it in the digital transition. However, the time has come for a reform to simplify cohesion policy and to make sure that it responds to real needs of the citizens. The overlap with the recovery and resilient facilities creating a delay in the implementation which is true but this must not become an excuse for those seeking to diminish the share of cohesion after 2027. Furthermore, the modality used to plan projects during the emergency has undermined the principle of partnership with the risk of running projects in time but lacking territorial impact assessments. I see a similar dynamic in the midterm revision. The revision is the gateway for the future of the MFF which is why we need to stay vigilant not only in terms of the volume of the EU budget but also in terms of its governance. We must prevent cohesion policy from becoming a drying river right before our eyes. Dear Commissioner, the solution does not only lie in greater flexibility but in increased resources. This necessitates a change in the existing ceilings and I welcome your proposal to deploy new-owned resources as we need to make the EU budget more independent from Member States' contributions. The midterm revision is indeed realistic though we need today to be more than pragmatic. We need a long-term vision empowering local and regional authorities to tackle current and future challenges. And we also need today more than ever the House of Regents and Cities of Europe, the Committee of the Regents to be able to function, perform and successfully complete its task for the citizens of Europe by securing that we have the adequate means to do so. We count on you, Commissioner. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Apostolos. Now the floor goes to Commissioner Hahn to final remarks because Commissioner has to leave and then we'll continue with our debate. Commissioner, you have the floor for four minutes. Thank you very much. First I would like to thank you for your interest in the debate because beside votes I have never seen so many people in the hemicycle Second, I fully understand your issues but I suppose many of you, some of you are financial councillors at the regional or the city level and probably you are in the same position like I am. There is a cake and the cake is 100 and I have to propose a draft for an annual budget for all European institutions, not only for the Commissioner for you for all European institutions. And there I have to apply if I like it or not certain rules and my biggest constrain is, as I told you, these two percent and therefore I had to cut all the proposals which went beyond the two percent. The biggest cut faced the external action service more than 20 percent with big implications if we are not all together successful in our MFF review negotiations. So once we are jointly successful, again we can discuss how to redistribute a bigger cake to the different institutions according to the needs. This is simply where I have limitations which I cannot ignore. Second on your issue concerning the step. I think I am grateful for all your comments and concerns because it gives me the opportunity to make some clarifications. I understand your concerns and I discussed it already with the President that the offer of additional flexibility could be seen as a future danger for the principles of cohesion policy. But the idea now is not to take any money from cohesion but simply to offer certain regions under certain conditions to use additionally cohesion money which is already allocated to region for the subsidizing of the creation or setup or enforcement of industries. Usually industries or industrial capacities cannot be subsidized by cohesion funds. But for these specific purposes there is now the proposal for offering this opportunity again limited to less developed regions or to countries where the federal GDP is below the European average. This is along the spirit of cohesion policy. So once again there is no intention, there is no proposal to take money from cohesion to other funds. It is simply an opportunity under certain conditions to use the existing allocation for additional purposes. This is what I wanted to share. Last point also this is something I would like you to pass this message also to your citizens but also in discussions with federal representatives. Don't forget the European budget is only 1% of the European GDP. National budgets are between 30 and 40% of the respective national GDP. And out of this 1% 2.3, let's say 0.6, 0.7 are reallocated to the national level, to regions, to municipalities. Only 0.3% is the real if you like European budget. And with this we try to steer political priorities. We try to address needs which has popped up in the very recent past and of course we try to anticipate developments in the future. Some member states in the first reaction have asked us to look how we can if we cannot reallocate money. And some had the idea to do it from cohesion. I said good luck. I have never experienced that any kind of any member state or any region has given back a part of its money, let's say to the European level. We have already stretched our possibilities to the extent possible since the outbreak we have reallocated up to 30 billions, but now we have reached limits. And that's why if we want to be jointly successful we need a targeted reinforcement to do what we consider necessary. I think I have outlined what are the political priorities. It's very focused, very targeted. So it should really enable us to have speedy but also result oriented negotiations on the midterm review in order to use the result already for the annual budget 24. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. And don't forget in 24 we have at the European level a transitional period. The last meeting of the European Parliament will be in April and I think only in autumn 24 we can start discussions, negotiations with the newly elected parliament. So we have to seize the opportunity, the window in order to make things possible and let's say in the interest of our citizens. And then if we are successful we can see how to redistribute additional financial support also to the regions and municipalities. Thank you again for your interest and be reassured. As a former commissioner for regional and urban policy I have not forgotten what I have sort of say pushed what I have I think initiated. We made this reform between 2010-2014 and I am one of the biggest defender and advocate of cohesion policy and as long as I'm there don't be afraid that this policy might be at the disposal of anybody. Quite the opposite. Thank you very much. Member Turk you have the floor for one minute. Member Florian Schultz you have the floor for one minute. President, thank you. Developments in the European Union and in the local and regional authorities have faced many challenges in the recent year. We have been equal to these challenges and we welcome that. It's important that the funding is targeted to where it is most needed and where it can deliver the greatest added value in the regions and local authorities of Europe. We need investment, we need regional investment and we have to have it targeted through the appropriate instruments. So let's try to focus on a green golden rule for investment so that we can implement the European Green Deal proposals effectively. Secondly, we need to have greater certainty in the funding going forward and we need to have a clearer structure and clearer principles so that we know where we are. Thank you. Member Gotthard, you have the floor for one minute. President, Commissioner Hahn. Commissioner Hahn, President, looking at the crisis over the past three years what they've shown is that we've entered a new era. MFF, this is a major task now, the midterm review of the MFF. You've reacted to the crisis and I'm grateful to Thomas Hermann, the repertory for the honest account on the MFF and this diagnosis. And I think together we can tackle this crisis with the money that's available. We have to see to it that cohesion remains powerful. It makes Europe visible, it works and it testifies to our citizens that there's a Europe that delivers and that's what we need, a Europe that delivers. Mr. Psybilski, you have the floor for one minute. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, during the review of the multi-annual financial framework we want the prolongation of the possibility of using the means of the next generation EU up to 2029. The current financial frameworks for this fund is only foreseen up to 2026 and this is a main source of financing for transformation, just transformation processes in Europe. So we would like to be able to have the money focused well from this fund and this will be difficult in such a short period. That's why we should reconsider this and reconsider the time we have left to spend them. At the beginning of this year, mining regions such as Lower Silesia have written a petition to the European Commission asking for prolongation of the spending period up to 2029 and we are waiting for your response. Mr. Psybilski, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. I understand Commissioner Hahn's reasoning and I think his summing up was very good in terms of cohesion policy. It's absolutely true that the funding available is vital to all regions and member states in the European Union. It is important particularly of course for the less well-off regions but there are quite a number of them and there are quite a number of areas whose GDP is below the EU average. I am from a transition region and the cohesion money makes a huge difference to us. It can provide infrastructural investment but it can also enhance the circular economy and provide for digitalization, it can improve access to health and innovation and technology, it can help SMEs. So therefore in summary, it's an exceptionally important aspect of our funding and I would like a clear focus on support for less well-off regions in the future. You have the floor for one minute. My colleague, I would like to point out that during the trials of the multi-year financial framework Yes, thank you. When it comes to the mid-term review of the MFF, the commission should look into more decentralization at the national level especially in those member states that haven't undertaken decentralization. So there should be a redistribution of the resources to the regions in particular as said where countries that haven't evolved. So there are all these national obstacles that should be overcome when it comes to funding. And there's administrative barriers and that really undermines the impact that the cohesion and other funds can have. I fully respect the partnership principle. The regional and local authorities are responsible for implementing most of the European policies on the ground. Strengthening the MFF alone without strengthening sub-national finances at the same time would not help to deliver. It should be considered whether it would be more effective and more efficient to allocate a share of the new revenues directly to the level responsible for implementing the European policies. Development disparities among regions within EU hamper the implementation of the EU policies and goals. The less disparities, the better implementation. Strengthening the cohesion fund and just transition fund is just must. The EU committed to spend at least 20% of its previous budget on climate action. For the new budget, this figure has increased to 30%, about 87 billion per year. This amount is less than 10% of the total investment needed to reach the 2030 targets. So increase it. Thank you. Thank you, Member Karkava Garcia. You have the floor for one minute. Thank you very much, Chair. I simply wish to share my hope with you all. I hope we seize this opportunity. I hope that these reforms are the first step for rethinking various issues, both strategic and operational. Now, operationally speaking, we need to address some technical gaps that affect regions. For example, national treatment of financial funds that we need to co-fund our work, plus removing red tape when it comes to managing resources. So one quick simple request on the strategic front in light of the extreme extremism that is raging across Europe. Let us not take any steps backwards. Let us protect our human-centered policies that focus on their rights and well-being. Thank you. You have the floor for one minute. Thank you. We in Brunberg welcome the fact that the Commission is going to be reviewing the MFF. And we were glad to hear that the cohesion money would not be used for other purposes and that there would be a one-year extension. We appreciate the Commission's policy of making for more flexibility in the cohesion funding to boost co-competitiveness. So that's something very important when it comes to global competitiveness of Europe. We'll have to see whether the cohesion fund via a step can actually boost development in Brunberg. So we need less red tape and more flexibility. That's the basis. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Youngman, you have the floor for one minute. Mr. Vetsnikar, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll speak on creation. When we take into account all the changes that happened in 2021, it is evident we have to change the MFF. But we have to do it by consulting global and regionally. We have to do it by consulting global and regionally. It is evident we have to change the MFF. But we have to do it by consulting global and regional authorities that are the main beneficiaries of the funds from the cohesion fund. And I would like to stress that there are fiscally less developed units that have to face new forms of financing of local authorities done by the state. And the result is mostly less financing for the co-financing of European projects in Croatia. The EU funds are the only possibility to realize projects in smaller towns. That is why we need to have a stronger cohesion policy. Thank you very much. The propaganda is being exploited in order to drive a wedge between the EU and the people. We must remember that the cities and the regions of our EU need funding, the need support, that's how we have a successful EU. Thank you. Member Vekapera, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you very much. In the European Union, we need to concentrate on strengthening agriculture money and also cohesion funds. We are fulfilling the green transition. We are digitalizing services and we need to make this possible on a local level. And cohesion funds are necessary and we must focus on this. The role of regional authorities should be strengthened. And we also need to have a longer timeframe for using cohesion funds. Thank you. Isil da Gomš, one minute. Yes, thank you very much, President. I just wish to underscore the following. As far as I'm concerned, cohesion is one of the cornerstones of the EU. Cohesion funds guarantee that Europe has more solidarity and is stronger. And when we're talking about allocation of funds with the chair of the committee, well, the commission, I was a bit concerned. And I was concerned because one of the budget lines seems to imply that maritime policy and agriculture is seeing less funds. And the European Fund for Agricultural Development is affected here. But we all know that many less developed regions need more support. And there also we need agricultural support. And so decreasing this budget line is, of course, of concern. Thank you. The floor for one minute. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Mr. Commissioner, I will not come back to the essential obligations regarding the reconstruction of Ukraine. I heard the commissioner, when it comes to industry, there's got to be a political will. That's the only way forward. But that's got to be the money that has to follow up on the policies. And there's areas where we won't be able to enhance our commercial means. So investment, we need foreign advancement and we need to put together tomorrow's industrial champions. So when it comes to the cohesion funding, we have to see to it that this can't be just used as a top-up. The cohesion funding is at the heart of what Europe is about, what our region is about. And I would have appreciated our commissioner talking about a common fund with the African continent. There's no point talking about the environment and migration if we're not willing to enter into a joint future with that continent. For final remarks, I give the floor to the rapporteur for 20 seconds. Thank you very much. Have no fear. I will be a guarantor of cohesion policy and I will support it. I will hold commissioner Ham to account on this and I will insist that he stands by his guarantee and that he continues to support the member states, local and regional authorities in terms of receiving cohesion funding. Thank you. Have in this opinion.