COMMUNITY LOANS POLICY

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: This is a new phase in the development of the Community loans policy and of Spinelli's work as rapporteur for the Committee on Budgets in this sphere. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 11 March 1980)

Mr President, on 16 October 1978 the Council adopted a decision empowering the Commission to contract loans of up to 1 000 million EUA, to be activated tranche by tranche in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Council and applied by the Commission.

For the benefit of those who were not members of the European Parliament at the time, I should like to recall that the decision was the subject of lively debate in the House, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and livened up relations with both Council and Commission. Now that is over and done with and the decision approved, and I should like to congratulate my friend Vice-President Frangois Ortoli, on my own behalf as well as that of the committee, on the determination he showed in following up the idea and putting it into effect. The Community has, as a result, been provided with an instrument which goes further than the ECSC or Euratom loans and, properly applied and developed, enables it to conduct a policy of loan-based intervention which can influence Community policy as a whole.

On 14 May 1979 the Council authorized an initial tranche of 500 million EUA to be opened and laid down the infrastructure and energy sectors as the Community's priorities. As in the case of the previous decisions, Parliament contributed to the preparation of this decision and, as important financial decisions were involved, availed itself of the conciliation procedure. Parliament would have liked the Commission to be given greater freedom of action, thus increasing the degree of supervision by Parliament which readily accepted activation by tranches but not the ponderous requirement of a fresh decision by the Council one each and every occasion. However, that is the procedure now applied and this is why we are faced with a decision regarding the implementation of a decision which has already been debated and was, as I said, the subject of considerable controversy.

In 1979 the Commission entered into commitments amounting to 277 million EUA and at the beginning of this year, other projects were in an advanced stage of preparation (and, I imagine, are in an even more advanced stage by now), with the result that commitments will soon reach a total of 498 million EUA, which means that almost the whole of the first tranche will be used up. The Commission is quite right, therefore, in asking now for a second tranche to be opened for another 500 million EUA. In doing so, it proposes that the new tranche should be applied for the same purposes, namely, infrastructures and energy. At the same time it is interesting to note that, as a result of experience gained and in view of the desirability of enlarging the scope of -the new instrument, the Commission is formally seeking a more liberal interpretation of the concept of infrastructure, in the belief that these loans can also be used for on-lending funds for the execution of projects in priority regions and in areas hardhit by

the crisis, with special reference to urban renewal projects, particularly in connection with the financing of housing and advance factories.

These projects are to be submitted to the Commission by the national authorities as part of a better coordinated development of the regions in difficulty. We believe that this wider interpretation of 'infrastructures' is correct and accords with the efforts being made by Commission and Parliament to ensure that action by the Community is decreasingly identified with particular sectoral purposes, chosen almost at random, and is based on a wider perspective. A broader interpretation is consistent with an approach which Parliament can have no hesitation in approving and, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, I ask the House to endorse both the general policy and the specific purpose recommended by the Commission since, in our view, the new Community instrument is essential for the further development of Community policy. In giving our approval, we shall at the same time reiterate certain conditions mentioned earlier, the first of which is Parliament's demand that all loans, including this one, shall be shown i

n the budget and, in consequence, submitted for approval under the budgetary procedure. This must be kept in mind because, in the context of adoption of the 1980 budget, the question remains open.

Furthermore, we ask the Commission to keep us properly informed about the operations undertaken under each tranche. Parliament made the Committee on Budgets responsible for monitoring the way in which the financial operations were carried out and, if this was not done, we ourselves are partly to blame, myself in particular. The reason is that, although I had not been formally entrusted with the task by Parliament, I was previously dealing with the matter on behalf of the Committee on Budgets. As you know, however, the committee was overwhelmed by other things which prevented it from dealing with this one. Nevertheless, we should lose no time in getting the required information by making careful inquiries with the help of Commissioner Ortoli.

Although the Commission refers to it in its document, I must reiterate our conviction that, as soon as the invested capital reaches the equivalent Of 800 million and in any case not later than 16 October 1980, the Commission must submit a comprehensive appraisal with a view to making this new, almost experimental, Community investment instrument, the 'Ortoli Facility', a permanent feature of Community policy. We attach equal importance to being kept accurately informed about the new type of investment which the Commission wishes to embark upon and about participation in what are termed integrated operations'. As you know, Mr President, Parliament is very much in favour of these 'integrated operations' and supports the Commission in its initiative; we have not yet received any information on this aspect because no projects have been carried out. We are, therefore, still awaiting information on a subject which interests us in terms both of regional policy and policy on investments.

We should also like to have information on the number of cases where loans contracted under the facility have benefited from the rebate of interest granted to certain Member States under the European Monetary System. This will give us some idea of how the Community's various financial schemes are working.

Such are the reasons why the Committee on Budgets is asking Parliament to adopt the Commission's proposal. It trusts that the Council will take an early decision but, as the proposal has major financial implications, the committee gives notice that it will invoke the conciliation procedure if the Council is unable to accept Parliament's opinion in favour of the proposal.