How to finance pensions, the health system and social assistance, at a time of budget discussions? In “L’Evénement” on Thursday November 20, 2025, Gabriel Attal, former Prime Minister and president of the EPR group in the National Assembly, was interviewed by Caroline Roux.
This text corresponds to part of the transcription of the interview above. Click on the video to watch it in full.
Caroline Roux: In this budgetary debate, which is undoubtedly a little confusing for the people watching us this evening and which never ends, what is at stake is nothing other than the social pact between the French and the State, it is essential. The revenue side of the finance bill will be put to a vote in the National Assembly, apparently in a few days. Will Renaissance vote for it? Patrick Martin says it’s a suicidal budget. Would you use these terms again? And he talks about 53 billion in tax increases for businesses.
Gabriel Attal, former Prime Minister and president of the EPR group in the National Assembly: A first version of the budget, I’m not going to go into parliamentary technique, but there is a first reading in the National Assembly, it then goes to the Senate, it can come back, etc. What is certain is that this first copy resulting from the first reading in the National Assembly, I say, is difficult to vote on, because all these taxes, all these additional taxes which have been added by France Insoumise and the National Rally pose a serious risk for the French economy.
Nevertheless, we need a budget, Mr. Attal. Finally, wouldn’t the good old 49.3 suit everyone? We would then have a budget without you having to get your hands dirty, without you having to vote for this budget…
I want us to have a budget. I have said it from the beginning, I believe that to have a budget, you have to reach a compromise. And I pleaded so that this compromise could be made before we even examine the budget, even before a government is appointed. I pleaded for the “what” before the “who”, so that we sit around the table and agree on the main lines of the budget with some of the oppositions, so that the debate can then be easier. Because you can clearly see the situation we are in today: for some of the oppositions, opposition to the government leads to a form of automatic opposition to the budget which is discussed in the National Assembly. So we will do everything to reach a compromise so that the country can have a budget.
The Prime Minister basically said that the greatest danger for the country is not having a budget. You are still part of the central bloc…. As it stands, this budget is not voteable?
It is at first reading and once again the budget will continue to travel, as they say, to the Senate and return to the National Assembly. But you know, I want us to have a budget, I’ve been saying that for several months now. But having a budget for stability cannot be achieved at the cost of the explosion of unemployment in France. That’s the equation today when we see this first copy, saying to ourselves that we need a budget. Yes, you need a budget. But if in order to have a budget, you accept measures which will lead to an explosion of unemployment in France, then the equation does not work.
I grew up hearing that mass unemployment was inevitable in France. And among the positive points of recent years, there is the fact that we have emerged from mass unemployment. There are still plenty of problems. There are working people who don’t earn enough from their work. Working should always pay more than not working. But finally, we have emerged from mass unemployment. If we accept that there are suddenly tens of billions of euros in taxes falling on our businesses…
But there was a debate in Parliament. Compromises had to be found. It is the Lecornu method, in fact, that you are calling into question…
I proposed a method, once again, which was not accepted. I do with the method that is before us. Today, we are having a parliamentary discussion and with the deputies of my group, with the Renaissance deputies, we have obviously been open to compromise since the start of this examination.
We are currently asking the French to make efforts because our accounts are in the red. I’m going to show you a front page that you’ve probably seen, it’s a front page of the newspaper The Point with “Emmanuel Macron, the man with 1,000 billion debts”. You were Prime Minister, you were Minister of Public Accounts during the Borne reform, the pension reform. Is this 1,000 billion also yours? Do you assume your share of responsibility, Gabriel Attal?
All those who have been in charge in recent years and, I would like to add, in recent decades, because the last balanced budget voted in France dates from the early 1970s, obviously have a responsibility. Afterwards, in this debt, you remember, there is a significant part which comes from the choices which were made at the time of the Covid crisis to protect our economy, to protect the work of the French, to protect the purchasing power of the French, and then from the measures which were taken, which were costly. It must be said. I think that the main thing today is to put our country back on a path of reducing deficits.
Axel de Tarlé: Aid that was disconnected too late… If it had to be done again, would the energy check, should the tariff shield have been withdrawn before?
It’s always easy looking back. What I know is that when I was appointed Prime Minister at Matignon, the first thing I did was make difficult decisions to establish our accounts. We need to talk about energy aid. I am appointed Prime Minister in January 2024. The first thing we are doing with my government is putting an end to the energy tariff shield. It wasn’t popular. In February, then, I issue a decree to cancel 10 billion euros of budgetary credit during the year. That has never been done. Many of my ministers at the time were angry with me. I took responsibility for this decision. Then, I assumed to take a measure on medical franchises to freeze 17 billion euros of credit. What means, and this is little emphasized, it is INSEE which says it, that in 2024, for the first time in 15 years, the State spent less than the previous year. The deficit increased due to social spending on pensions, of course, because pensions cost us a lot, and state spending fell. So it’s possible.
Caroline Roux: But you were Prime Minister at the time Bruno Le Maire alerted the Head of State, we learned that he had done so by a letter dated April 6, 2024. Were you aware of these alerts? When the Minister of Public Accounts writes to the President of the Republic and undoubtedly perhaps to the Prime Minister to say be careful, the accounts go to the wall.
Of course, but you know, all the decisions that I have just mentioned, that I had to take as Prime Minister, that I had to announce as Prime Minister, I obviously announced them in full consultation with Bruno Le Maire. All measures that were proposed at that time have been taken. There was a debate about having what is called a supplementary finance bill. And the debate that was resolved was to say that there was no need to make the savings that I have just mentioned, which were made. That was my opinion. There was no need for an amending finance bill to make the savings that I have just described, to cancel 10 billion euros of credit during the year, to put an end to the energy tariff shield, to take measures on social spending, to “freeze”, as they say, 17 billion euros of credit to be able to cancel them at the end of the year. You don’t need texts for that.
Besides, sorry, I add, Bruno Le Maire said it himself in an interview or in a commission of inquiry, he said that this choice to make an amending finance bill or not, it was a pure political choice to alert the French, but that the measures he wanted to put in, we had been able to take them.
Do you, from time to time, put yourself in the place of the French who are once again witnessing this debate which is often confusing? We discovered last week that there were 10 billion euros in VAT revenue that had not been returned to the coffers. In 2023 and 2024 it was the same except that it was 20 billion each time. When you are asked the question “is the State a good manager?”, what do you answer? Once again, you went to Bercy. Seen from here, we say to ourselves that Bercy no longer knows how to make forecasts. Some say it’s a state lie.
This is what Jean-Philippe Tanguy says. Yes, it is the National Rally which always seeks to do state affairs everywhere. All of this is transparent. Besides, we talk about it here. I interact with the French every day. Obviously all this raises a lot of questions, a lot of concerns. When you have a growth forecast and the growth turns out to be lower than expected, you inevitably have less revenue. When you have less consumption than expected, also because you have political instability – and at the moment, the French, I think they say to themselves that it is better to save than to consume, because we do not know where we are going with this political instability – you have less income than expected.
It’s not the thickness of the line, sorry?
It’s not the thickness of the line at all, but you know, that shouldn’t distract us from the real issue which is still that of reducing our expenses. We can ask ourselves all the questions we want about the recipes we want. The reality is that we spend too much and we need to save money. I gave a number of steps that I had to take. There are others that are possible. We are proposing it with the deputies of my group as part of the budgetary debate.
You brush aside what Jean-Philippe Tanguy says. He clearly says that it is a state lie. He wishes to submit a certain number of reports to the Paris public prosecutor to denounce the responsibility of Bruno Le Maire, of Élisabeth Borne, of you, saying that we cannot say that no one is responsible.
There were two commissions of inquiry on this subject, in the National Assembly and in the Senate. These two commissions of inquiry produced reports; it was opposition figures who chaired them or who reported them. They did not speak like Jean-Philippe Tanguy does. So there you have it, once again, all of this is a lot of political politics, but it doesn’t indicate a dysfunction.
This text corresponds to part of the transcription of the interview above. Click on the video to watch it in full.
