COMMUNITY LOANS POLICY

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The Parliament considers the Commission's draft decision on the creation of a new financial instrument for the Community (the so called "Ortoli facilities", named after the Commissioner responsible for economic and monetary policy), which is designed to stimulate investments in a number of specific economic sectors (energy, infrastructure, etc.).

The new instrument supplements and reinforces those already in existence (E.I.B., regional fund and social fund). In "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 11 April 1978)

Mr President, I would like to draw the attention of the European Parliament - and I am sorry that this debate is taking place at a time when most members are dining - to the importance of this debate and of the decisions we take.

The importance derives from the fact that this time we are not simply expressing an opinion of which the Council will take greater or less account but a position which should lead to a conciliation procedure of a legislative nature. When we consider subjects with substantial financial implication, whose adoption is not required by existing acts, and which have wideranging effects, and when the Commission states that the act in question may be subject to the conciliation procedure, the Council cannot simply decide on the Commssion's proposal but must embark on a conciliation procedure with Parliament and reach a decision only when the positions of the two institutions are sufficiently close.

The importance of this debate leads me first of all to stress, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, that the Commission, in drawing up this proposal, has failed to honour a commitment made to Parliament, which was stressed in the following terms by Mr Jenkins, on 8 February last year:

The Commission will send no proposal to tbe Council without seriously and systematically considering whetber it is likely to receive the support of a majority of Parliament.

Mr Jenkins rightly said that he thus intended to strengthen the traditional partnership between Parliament and Commission to reinforce Parliament's authority before direct elections.

It is true that when we raised this problem in the Committee on Budgets, Mr Ortoli reminded us that on a number of occasions he had informed Parliament of proposals being drawn up for submission to the Council, but it is also true that it was inevitable that the Commission, when presenting its own proposals to the Council, would necessarily meet with a certain amount of resistance and reluctance. It was therefore in its own interest to present its proposals with the full support of Parliament, since the Council knew that, in the last analysis, it would have to take account of Parliament's views and seek a basis of agreement. It would therefore have been valuable if in the preparation of this whole project, Parliament had been involved in the manner indicated by Mr Jenkins, particularly as the Commission's proposals touch on matters very sensitive to Parliament, such as Parliament's prerogatives etc.

However, this is all water under the bridge, and we must hope that these problems do not arise again. To come now to the substance of the proposal, I would point out that the Commission proposes that it be authorized to contract loans up to a maximum amount of 1 000 million EUA, for lending out to public and private enterprise to encourage investment in energy, industry and infrastructures. The Committee on Budgets supports this proposal as it is in line with the development of the Community and - if properly implemented - could constitute an important step forward in the progressive convergence and progressive revival of our economics. It therefore proposes that Parliament approve the proposal provided that a number of distortions are eliminated, for if they remained the proposal would certainly become wholly meaningless.

Firstly, it should be made clear that the financial instruments available to the Community must be part of a policy for reviving the Community ideal and reviving economic convergence. It is clear that in this context we are not debating the content of this policy. However, there should be a specific commitment to devise the policy in the manner I have mentioned, otherwise we would not have a financial instrument; we would have merely a banking instrument with no political content. If this were the case it would be pointless introducing this machinery and it would be sufficient for the EIB to continue the work it has done so far; it would be sufficient to increase the Bank's investment capital and thus allow it to expand its activities. The fact of proposing an increase in the capital of the European Investment Bank demonstrates once more that the Community wishes to introduce a policy going beyond what has hitherto been the policy of the European Investment Bank and contributing to the economic revival. We m

ust therefore bear in mind that both the decision for raising loans and the conditions for granting loans should conform to this aim. As regards the decision on the raising of loans, the Commission, in Article 2 of the proposal, states that the overall amount of loans is fixed at 1 000 million EUA, spread over an indefinite period, and activated in successive operations. It is for the Council to authorize operations and lay down general objectives for their use.

We believe that in this case the Commission has neglected what are, in the last analysis, powers shared by Parliament. If these are Community loans, they must have a Community guarantee - and must therefore receive the agreement of the European Parliament. This agreement should not be binding, nor indeed should the agreement of the Council. The Commission should be left room for manoeuvre, to act effectively, and for this reason we have proposed a formula which can be summarized in the following manner: each individual loan should be decided on in the budget procedure, on a proposal by the Commission. At the same time, the Council should decide by a majority, after conciliation with Parliament, on the objectives to be laid down. In this way each loan will have its own financial characteristics and content. We could accept, for the first year a ceiling of a thousand million on loans.