Monika Hohlemeir, a member of the European People's Party, has been in charge of the European Parliament's budget control committee for enough time, since 2019, to be able to compare and, despite the tense preparations, admit that the Spanish government has turned to serving them when, in February, they sent a mission to Madrid to supervise the deployment of the Recovery and Resilience Mechanism (MRR) funds, as Spain is the most advanced country in its implementation. “Although at first they were reluctant to our visit, they later decided to support it and collaborate. Nadia Calviño dedicated a lot of time to us, we spoke with the ministers Montero and Escrivá”.
Nothing to do, therefore, with the disdain with which they were treated in Italy, where they did not see anyone from the Government, or the hostile reception in the Czech Republic. “We are used to dealing with complicated situations, some even dangerous. In the Czech Republic we received death threats”, he recalls in an interview held last week in Brussels in which he denies that his comments prior to the trip, which raised doubts about the management of European funds in Spain, unduly heated the atmosphere.
His job, he says, is not to be liked by anyone and he laughs when asked about the epithet "men in black" that some Madrid media gave them. Although it is not very exact, Holhmeier does not dispute it ("they treat us as saviors, criminals... They have called me a pit bull") and seems to thoroughly enjoy his supervisory role. "Yes I like my work. I like to reinforce the democratic control of the MRR and improve its implementation. I like being able to make changes to make things better.”
His post-mission comments were much more positive than his pre-trip statements (“We are going to Spain because we don't know where the money is”, “The government doesn't tell us what it is doing with the funds”). Are you satisfied with the explanations received?
The atmosphere before the mission had to do with the situation created when the European Commission told us that it could not and would not give us information about specific projects or the deployment of the MRR in Spain. We had a big discussion, we did not accept that they told us that they had been given the money, period, without detailing the disbursements. Shortly before the mission, Vice President Calviño told us by letter that most of the funds had been transferred to the autonomous communities. In other words, the EC tells us that it has given it to Spain and Spain that it has given it to the regions... They told us that the EP did not have the right to request information about the projects or the beneficiaries and that is not the case, the MRR recognizes the oversight role of the EP and, in general, it is our duty to check how taxpayers' money is spent. It is true that some member states do not like us very much, the committee on budgetary control is not very popular because we ask difficult questions. But our duty is to make sure that taxpayers' money contributes to the general European welfare.
Didn't it go too far if everything comes from discrepancies over the supervision of the plan and with the EC?
Not at all. I know what I said, I can't control how it was written. But my statements were very clear: we want to know how the money is spent. The mission was decided at the coordinators' meeting, it was not decided by me. I am the president and yes, my job is to be a little unfriendly, because often from the member states we are told that everything is fine and when we go on mission we find problems, delays or even cases of fraud.
Did you see fraud in Spain?
No, but not because we haven't seen it, but because not enough money is being spent, there aren't many projects underway. When a lot of money is spent, criminals always appear trying to access it. We are used to it, it happens in all countries, so we have to control how it is used, see if it is reaching the real economy and SMEs, and if it is benefiting society. Our committee always asks for some level of transparency.
Why was she so determined to see the official who managed the recovery plan and resigned last year for personal reasons according to the Government?
That meeting is something that was missing from the visit and in the report we will mention that we were not able to see it. We are not asking the government why he resigned, but he was the person responsible for 2021 and we always insist on seeing the officials who have been responsible for management and supervision. They had told us that it was a time when there were many internal problems and seeing someone who couldn't explain what was going on is not worth it. In the end, the Ministry did not explain to us what problems there were with the Coffee in 2021 but we did not seek confrontation. It is now mostly operational. There is some technical problem, but it works and that's how we recognize it. If not, it wouldn't be fair. We criticize what seems wrong to us and we insist, but then we recognize if an effort has been made. I think that with our debate we contributed to that being the case, that is the way we work and let me say that it works. We are not here to attack anyone with our missions. We have governments of all political colors, it's not something I look at, if they are socialists, conservatives or liberals.
What problems did you detect during your visit to Spain?
Many affected told us that the calls are so complex that it is difficult to meet the conditions and deadlines. The government introduced us to the conflict of interest prevention system, Minerva, but users told us that its standards are very complex and abstract and delay tenders. It is necessary to speak with the EC to review those guidelines so that the controls are proportional and only linked to financial interests. There are other open questions, such as the need to improve transaction tracking. Now, the internal control system, Coffee, is already operational but before, when CE validated this milestone, it was not like that. Now it works, but I would recommend the government to improve its interoperability with other systems to avoid duplicating work. The MRR has a completely new programming system, with immediate disbursement of money. The EU made payments to Spain in 2021 and 2022 for projects to be made in 2025 and 2026. This is why the European Court of Auditors needs permanent access.
Do you question the new European financing model?
The MRR was designed as an instrument in times of crisis, but in the meantime the objective has changed. It is no longer just a crisis instrument, it is seen as a way of carrying out cohesion policy and improving competitiveness and it is not serving to spend money very quickly because not much has already reached the real economy. This does not have to be negative, spending just to spend is not a good idea. If the reason for the delays is to make sure the money is spent efficiently, that's fine. But it cannot be that the access processes are so complex and rigid that nobody has access to the money and the objectives are not met.
The MRR is the largest financial instrument ever approved by the EU, both the EC and the Council have a great interest in making it work. Do you think the EC is supervising it well? Do you think it can be a model for future aid programs, or would it be better to stay with the classic model of co-financing projects?
Normally we have good cooperation with the EC but we always put our finger on the sore, it is our duty. From the beginning, the EP viewed the MRR quite critically, because it does not foresee the possibility of us influencing the actual programming or the distribution of the money. In addition, it works through disbursements to the member states and this can have positive aspects because it allows faster progress but then you have to look at the administrative capacity of the states to do so. We are finding that they have a lot of problems because they are more used to the cohesion funds model. In the end, we will have to learn from experience. Reforms and investments should be made in less time, with shorter terms between one thing and another. And if this instrument was thought to be fast and efficient, reforms must be made so that the money reaches the real economy sooner, there is room for improvement, also in terms of transparency. I think that in the end we will go to a combination of how the payments work in the Cohesion Fund or the CAP and the disbursements of the RRF. The EC must learn to be more precise when designing and planning problems, programming some milestones seven years from now poses problems.
How do you see the role of the European regions in this new instrument? Some, like Catalunya, have complained about their lack of involvement in the design of the projects.
I think the MRR is too centralized. To respond to the problems of the regions, working with a centralized model is problematic. It is better to have a similar approach to cohesion policy, where the regions have an important role and have management experience. Personally, I think that it is not a good idea for the EU to finance 100% of the projects, that makes them less effective. I think we're going towards a mix of old and new elements. What the EP will never accept is that the final responsibility for the money is not clear at all levels. Right now it is not an easy moment for PE. With the crisis, new financial instruments were created with more money outside the budget than inside. I understand that many colleagues fear that democratic scrutiny is being diluted, this is a discussion that goes beyond the work of the budget control committee, it is something bigger.
