1979 BUDGET PROCEDURE: FIRST READING IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The European Parliament approves the budget for 1979 at the first reading, amending the draft adopted by the Council and discussed at the sitting on 12 September 1978.

Spinelli refers to the changes in the political and financial situation resulting from the decisions adopted by the European Council at Bremen regarding the EMS and the parallel measurcs of structural policy, and to the European Parliament's requcsts (disregarded by the Council) that account should be taken of the Bremen decisions in the adoption of the 1979 budget. In view of the silence on the part of the Council and of the Commission, which in such circumstances is an accomplice of the national Governments, the Europcan Parliament prepares to approve a number of amendments presented by Spinelli on behalf of the Communist Group which relate in particular to greater mtcrvention by an extension of the structural policics of the Community within the sphere of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Of Spinclli's disposals, the Assembly adopts those regarding the Regional Fund and the loans policy, but rejects those concerning reform of agricultural policy and cooperation with developing countries. In v

iew of that situation, Spinelli later announces to the House that the Communist Group will abstain. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 23 October 1978)

Mr President, I should first of all like to remind Parliament that the position which it adopted unanimously on the Commission's preliminary draft and the Council's draft was decidely negative. This dissatisfaction was expressed in an unusual way - for such measures are never used in the normal run of things by unanimously approving a document proposed by Mr Bangemann, which noted that both the Commission's preliminary draft budget and the Council's draft, because of their size, excessive caution and lack of initiative, failed to meet the needs of the Community.

Speaking on that occasion on behalf of the majority of our Group, I requested the Commission to submit and amending letter, seeing that that draft had been drawn up before the decisions in Bremen which had changed the situation.

The amending letter arrived punctually, but did not take account of the new political events. In fact, neither the Commission nor the Council replied to the European Parliament's request - which had been debated and voted as I have just described - or rather they disdainfully replied with total silence. In all our discussions in committee, we saw not the slightest attempt by the Commission or the Council to change that position one jot.

In these circumstances, we could have decided to refrain from any detailed examination of the draft budget and vote against it, and to ask Parliament to do likewise. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that the French members of my group, who did not take part in the work of the committee, will follow this line of action. However, the majority of our group has always pursued a different policy, that of seeking, above all, to cooperate with all groups or individual colleagues fired with European spirit, to improve whatever offers room for improvement; in this way we intend to give practical demonstration of our Involvement in the issues of today, and our ability to work side by side with all those share our objective.

Secondly, we wish to give a clear and unequivocal indication of the crucial points in respect of which it is necessary to change certain policies or introduce new ones, given that what is at stake is the future of a Community which wishes to progress; and we wish to do our utmost to tally the majority of Parliament to our point of view. That has always been our position in this Parliament for as long as Italian Communists have been members, and I personally believe that we should stick to this line in our forthcoming electoral campaign. This approach lies at the heart of the various amendments and modifications we have proposed. I shall not dwell on the less important ones which have either been adopted by the Committee on Budgets, and will therefore be defended by the rapporteur, or will be defended when we come to the various titles concerned. I shall merely consider four amendments which, in our opinion, would provide a different kind of budget from that presented by the Council, and at least an initial r

eply - which, even if inadequate, would have the virtue of clarity - to the disturbing questions which the European Parliament raised by voting the resolution tabled by Mr Bangemann.

Let us look briefly at these four amendments: the first concerns the Regional Fund and proposes to increase commitment appropriations to 1000 m EUA. After the Council's statement at Bremen on the need to speed up, concurrently with the achievement of the monetary system, the correction of regional imbalances, it was only natural to assume that the figures which had been a source of confrontation in the European Council, and which Parliament had accepted with the greatest reluctance, had been overtaken by events. We are gratified to note that this proposals has been adopted and tabled by Mr Bangemann, the Committee on Regional Policy, Regional Planning and Transport, the ChristianDemocratic Group and, finally, on a proposal from Mr Bangemann, by the Committee on Budgets. We trust that. it will receive Parliament's approval and firm support.

The second amendment concerns the following subject: faced with the growing need to make use of the loans mechanism, over and above the Community's own tax resources, and the consequent need to place this new revenue and expenditure under Parliament's political control, we disapprove of the Council's refusal to accept the second part of the budget proposed by the Commission. We have therefore proposed the reinstatement of the Commission proposal. This proposal is based on the assumption that the new Financial Regulation will be adopted - just as last year we took as our basis the European unit of account, and the whole budget was established on the assumption that the regulation on the European unit of account would be adopted by the stipulated date. If the new Financial Regulation was not adopted, and the existing regulation was still applied, it would still be necessary to vote the entry in the budget in another form, even if this would not make for greater clarity. We are pleased that this proposal too ha

s been accepted by the Committee on Budgets, and we trust that it will be adopted by Parliament.

Our third amendment proposes a remark under Titles 6 and 7 of the EAGGF's Guarantee Section which, last year, was approved by Parliament and deleted by the Council. We are proposing it again this year, in the same form as last year, but have prefaced it with certain considerations which should strengthen its importance. Firstly, we point out what the Commission has said to the Council and to Parliament concerning the overall assessment of budgetary problems, namely that a tighter rein should be kept on agricultural expenditure. Secondly, we refer to the Bangemann resolution unanimously adopted by Parliament in April, which calls for a batter balance between agricultural and other expcnditure. Thirdly, the amendment points out that the joint Council meeting of Ministers of Agriculture and Finance of April 1978 stressed that the ideas put forward in the Bangemann report should be taken into consideration. Finally, the amendment mentions the Council's request to the Commission, made in Bremen, to submit suggest

ions for reviewing the agricultural regulations by the end of the year.

Apart from this preamble, the text of the amendment is identical to that voted last year and calls upon the Commission and the Council to submit proposals and adopt decisions by the end of the year, with a view to fixing an effective rather than indicative ceiling on commitments under the EAGGF's Guarantee Section, modifying the procedure and criteria for fixing prices to enable the progressive reduction of the Guarantee Section, the simultaneous development of the Guidance Section, and the phasing out of compensatory amounts.

We are proposing this amendment once again because we consider it important that Parliament should have faith in itself and should affirm its ideas at a time when there is some evidence of change at agricultural policy level, and there is perhaps a hope that the Commission too is moving in this direction. As we are know how quickly all the champions of inactivity and the status quo mobilize their forces to forestall all those who wish to take action, I believe that Parliament would be failing in its duty if it abandoned Mr Gundelach to the mercy of those people, instead of supporting him with a clearly defined position.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I wish to say that this proposal of mine nothing to do with those tabled by Lord Bruce, the European Conservatives and others, which request a reduction of expenditure under such and such an item of the EAGGF's Guarantee Section: it has nothing to do with those proposals because, as the Commission has repeated umpteen times and as has been confirmed by Mr Klinker in his report, it is impossible to change commitments in the budget which we have assumed and which we cannot avoid.

I well remember how, when these things were being discussed by the Commission, first Mr Mansholt and then Mr Lardinois would say with an ironic smile:After all, we can put down whatever figures we wish, even low ones if that is what Parliament wants: later on, when we have to carry out this expenditure, we will ask for supplementary budgets.'

We must call for the amendment of the regulations, rather than expecting that the expenditure under those regulations will not be carried out.

Mr Klinker has said that if a ceiling was imposed, the principles of the agricultural policy would disappear. They would not: responsibility for expenditure above the ceiling level would simply be assumed by the producers themselves, rather than the Commission, in order to maintain certain prices. That is what needs to be done, precisely in order to maintain the principles of the agricultural policy.

I therefore wish to urge Mr Bangemann, who voted in favour of this amendment last year and who, this year, merely says resignedly that 'the Council has never accepted it', to be more resolute. Someone has to cast the first stone, Mr Bangemann! We must state and repeat what we consider necessary, even if there is opposition.

Finally, we are dealing here with a part of the budget which accounts for two-thirds of the total, even if this fact is dissimulated by saying that it represents only 60% of the entire budget. However, compared with the Commission's budget - which is used to implement policies, while the other budgets are merely operational - it represents over 70%, whereas the proportionate share of the Guidance Fund has fallen.

In my view, this is one of the points on which we should adopt a position, and I would ask all the groups to give detailed consideration to this problem. We must establish in all frankness whether there exists a majority opposed to change, or a majority in favour of change and progress.

I would mention here the amendment on aid to the developing countries. I note that whereas we are prepared to provide food aid to dispose of our surpluses, we are reluctant, if not opposed to supplying general aid to the developing countries.

As I have already said in this House on several occasions, we must realize that the question here is not to aid poor countries in difficulty, but to safeguard our very future, because the oft-repeated need to revive economies will not be met until we start developing consumption once again. We must work out an -approach which provides the basis - as has not been done up to now - for our development and that of the developing countries. We must not be a club for rich countries, but should take part in the creation of a new world order within which we must assume our responsibilities towards those countries and towards ourselves. It will be a long road, but we must embark upon it.

I see things somewhat differently. The Communist countries, with the exception of China, which is perhaps now beginning to face up to a different reality, are currently implementing a policy under which they themselves create obstacles to their development, owing to the emphasis which they lay on economic self-sufficiency in their approach to foreign policy.

A more important problem is that of our relations with the developing countries. For this reason, we have proposed a figure which at least represents a commitment of a similar order to our intended commitment in the Mediterranean. Not all these commitments will lead to expenditure in the current year, but they must nevertheless be provided for this year. If the Socialist Group wishes to propose a lower figure, we can then discuss it. The important thing is that we make a serious commitment.

A Commission official has recently said, on behalf of the Commission, that it would not be able to carry out this expenditure. I cannot accept that explanation. It is truly shameful to think that, faced with dramatic requests from developing countries and the vital need to relaunch our economics in a new direction, the Commission is able to say that this cannot be done; it must be done, if the means exist.

If these four amendments are adopted, we will vote in favour of the budget because, even if it is not satisfactory, it will at least look like a different budget which is moving in the direction requested by Parliament in September. If they are not adopted, we will have to abstain and pursue our attempt - for as long as necessary - to persuade our colleagues to support these positions.