1979 BUDGET PROCEDURE: GENERAL ORIENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The European Parliament considers its attitudes to the 1980 budget, adding a preliminary phase to those making up the procedure for preparation of the Community budget as provided for in the EEC Treaty (see introductory note to Spinelli's speech of 7 July 1977).

It should be noted that in this phase the Assembly is preparing the ground for the European Parliament to be elected in June. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 16 March 1979)

Mr President, in presenting this report on budgetary guidelines, we had the choice of adopting a high profile or a low profile. This is the last time that the present Parliament will have the opportunity to put forward its ideas on the budget, a field in which, moreover, Parliament has generally worked successfully and which represents one of the key chapters in the history of the European Parliament, in view of the progressive achievement of a certain degree of control and effective power and the contribution which Parliament has made to the adjustment of the budget itself to certain general policy requirements.

In this situation, therefore, there was a case for offering a testimony. The Latin world testamentum means both last will and testimony. We wished to offer this testimony on the kind of budget we would have liked to see in the coming year, specifically to provide some meaningful information for the directly elected Members, which might have benefited from a clear statement of views by those who have by now acquired some experience in this matter.

However, the Committee on Budgets - including Mr Bangemann, in ageecmerit with the majority opinion in the committee - preferred to keep a low profile by presenting a somewhat insignificant report. A significant report would have been one which did not merely consist - as this one does - of a list of existing problems which, as Lord Bruce has rightly pointed out, are repeated year after year, but a report which, after rapidly referring to those problems, indicated one or two of the main points on which to base a frontal attack to improve the structure of the budget, and made it clear that, without satisfaction on this issue, Parliament would be unable to approve the budget.

That is the way to launch a strategy as part of a process for the development and formulation of any policy, including the budgetary policy of the Community. The latest report, on the other hand, is not like that at all. Taken individually, all the points it raises are acceptable, but there is nothing to hold it together, or any indication of the budgetary policy advocated by Parliament.

In view of important recent events, which may now be moving towards a conclusion which is basically satisfactory for Parliament thanks to the determination which it has displayed, we should call upon the Commission to present the budget in a different way from hitherto. A proper budget must always be based on a coherent policy of revenue and expenditure, and an appreciation of the likely volume of revenue and the required level of expenditure.

We have long been used to expenditure budgets from the Commission guided by the criterion of the expenditure which the Commission thinks should be effected by the Community. The resulting total determines how much we request for the rate of VAT needed to cover the expenditure, by way of contributions from the Member States, in line with past practice.

In my view, the Commission should submit an analysis of ways of developing Community revenue, showing the volume which the Community budget must attain if it is to affect the lives of our peoples. This is not something that can be achieved overnight. However, this is the direction in which we should be moving, and the reason why the Commission should outline the general economic situation, indicate the overall tax burden borne by Community citizens today, and propose a possible redistribution, so that next year, for example, we may be able to count on a given level of development and establish an overall order of mangitude which will, in turn, help us to establish the order of magnitude of expenditure.

That is the proper way of dealing with the problem, which has been inaccurately defined by the Council. The Council believes that we must establish at the outset the maximum rate of increase which must be subsequently adhered to. But it is not possible to fix the maximum rate at the beginning of the process: this is forbidden by logic, regulations and the Treaty. The maximum rate must be fixed at the end, with the joint agreement of Parliament and the Council, and not by a unilateral decision.

It is therefore necessary to have an overall view of the financial possibilities available, for the additional reason that Parliament does not accept the accusation - which is unjustified, but inevitable given the logic of the present system - of wishing to spend too much and not caring about who has to pay or how. I am not saying that the Bangemann report should have provited an answer to this question, but it should at least have requested the Commission to move in this direction, thereby increasing the significance of the report itself.

In addition, speaking of the various Community policies, Mr Bangemann points out that this list does not reflect any consistent criterion. That is not the way to go about things. We should have emphasized the fundamental problems which the Community must tackle, such as the combating of unemployment, economic recovery, industrial reorganization and conversion, and called for solutions to these problems, indicating shortcomings or gaps at policy and planning level.

That is the manner in which the budgetary guidelines should have been presented to Parliament, and which would have reflected, moreover, the ideas expressed by almost all the political groups. We shall not propose amendments because Parliament's intention to keep a very low profile has also been confirmed by the decision to hold this debate on a Friday, when many Members are absent and the Council representative and even the Commissioner responsible - the very person we should be addressing - are not present in the House. We shall therefore abstain.