Thus, for example, compared with the figures budgeted in 2019, real investment by the State is expected to rise by 47% in 2021 (equivalent to 0.2 pp of GDP), expenditure on civil research, development and innovation by 70% (0.4 pp of GDP) and expenditure on infrastructures by 52% (0.3 pp of GDP), while expenditure on education would increase by 80% (0.2 pp of GDP) and health expenditure by 71% (0.3 pp of GDP). As I have indicated, given the magnitude of these increases and the possible delays in the process, there is a risk that they may not materialise in full. In any event, independently of the volume of the European funds mobilised in 2021, I wish to insist on the importance of the quality of management of these funds. As I have said, it is essential they be assigned to new public investment projects with a high multiplier effect on economic growth potential. In addition, considering the temporary nature of these European funds, they should not be used to defray permanent increases in expenditure, as this would simply drive up our already high structural deficit. 19  These will clearly be the key aspects to be assessed in the coming quarters, as more details of the specific projects to benefit from the NGEU programme become known. My second comments refer to the forecasts contained in the Draft Budget for certain expenditure items that have been severely hit by the management of the pandemic in 2020.
I am well aware that it raises substantial questions, for banks themselves – for their governance, their brands, their relationships with customers – as well as for deposit guarantee schemes. On this latter issue, the current legislative framework needs to be revised in order to remove the strict limitations on the transfer of past contributions to the new DGS in the case of a branchification. These questions are all the more reasons to seriously investigate this option with the banking industry, as soon as possible. 2. Finding alternatives to EDIS.On the “third pillar” of the Banking Union, we must acknowledge the intractable oppositions to a fully-fledged EDIS, and adopt a more realistic 2/4  BIS central bankers' speeches  approach. By changing the name and the content, perhaps we could regain momentum and willingness to make progress together. We could call it the “Common deposit mechanism”. It would combine a well-known idea with a new one: (i) the well-known idea of a liquidity support system between national DGSs, – and obviously ensuring that each of them is funded as expected – combined with (ii) a renewed approach, in which foreign subsidiaries would be affiliated to the home DGS. The first leg of this new tool would already provide increased funding possibilities. The second leg would provide a serious safeguard to host countries, as they would not bear the cost in the event of an idiosyncratic crisis. 3. Completing the resolution framework. The third pillar – deposits – has been excessively polarising discussions for years.