SUPPLEMENTARY AND AMENDING BUDGET FOR 1977

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The Parliament considers the Commission's draft supplementary budget for the financial Year 1977. As usually occurs in the Community, the budgetary authority is forced each year to review its financial forecasts as a result of increased agricultural expenditure. For 1977 the increase proposed by the Commission is 15 % of the amount of the budget adopted at the end of 1976. In "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 5 July 1977)

Mr President, it can happen in any community of any country that the budget estimate does not suffice and recourse has to be had to supplementary budgets. Hence I am not surprised that supplementary rectifying budgets may be necessitated by political events, various monetary problems or new policies.

However, when we see in the summary that the budget is being increased immediately by 781 million u.a. for the Commission, with a total increase of 786 million, or 8-9% of the total budget, thete is cause for concern and for thinking that there is something rotten not in Denmark, but in the Community. And if we go into the det ails, we find that the increase in expenditure is not 786 million u.a. but, in fact, under Chapters 6 and 7 - agricultural policy - 934 million u. a., an increase over the estimate of around 1 5 %. During the financial year the budget required supplementary expenditure on this item of more than 15 % of the estimate. All other items of expenditure are at a relatively reasonable and controllable level.

I therefore believe that Lord Bruce is absolutely right in saying that this policy is obviously out of control and that we no longer have any ideal when drawing up the budget, what will actually happen.

The rapporteur, Lord Bruce, firmly stated that this is the last time, since from now on we will be able to call on own resources. However, this does not influence the way in which expenditure is determined. As long as we have regulations on agricultural products and regulations affecting agriculture, the budget appropriations will be totally fictitious.

I have seen this from the inside: in drawing up the budgets, it is recognized that expenditure is open-ended. Whether it is a question of own resources or of contributions from the Member States, the fact remains that these regulations present us with expenditure which we have accepted. By adopting these regulations we have blindly adopted this policy, whatever its results.

I should like you to consider, for example, that this year there is likely to be an enormous grain harvest, which for Europe and the European Community will mean vast expenditure on refunds and repayments and a new budget chapter requiring more supplementary budgets.

We must therefore consider the fact that, even with own resources, a misguided agricultural policy leads to misguided expenditure. I feel that Mr Aigner is wrong when he says that the effects of price increases are relatively unimportant because they are of a monetary nature. For example, as regards dairy products, almost 500 million u.a. of expenditure is due to the fact that certain guaranteed prices were fixed regardless of the effect on the market. Furthermore, monetary compensatory amounts, if considered as a temporary measure, may be attributed to inflation, but if they are now a structural component of our agricultural policies - as they are then they are one of the elements which make these policies bad ones. We know how the Commission has struggled in vain to reduce them. This miguided agricultural policy, as I have already said, is the cause of this supplementary budget.

I am fully aware that at this particular moment Parliament cannot reject this supplementary budget. Nevertheless, Parliament, thank Heaven, needs unanimity, and I think it right that someone should say no to this budget, even though it is based on commitments which have to be met.

For this reason we will vote against.