1982 BUDGET PROCEDURE: STRATEGY OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The European Parliament approves the motion for a resolution submitted by Spinelli on half of the Committee on Budgets on the strategy for preparation of the Community bbeudget for 1981. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 12 March 1981)

Mr. President, I thank Mr Lange for having reminded the Assembly that the report which I have had the honour to present is the report of the Committee on Budgets itself, which as such asks you to approve it. I am only its spokesman.

Without going into detail on the points which have been raised, I would like to answer the main questions, and particularly the critic' ISMS.

I am very sorry that Mr Tugendhat was not able to remain with us longer, but I would like to say to him that, in his answer, he stated that he agreed with everything, with the exception of the various details making up the whole! In fact, during his detailed examination of points with which he had already expressed his agreement, he at best gave evasive answers, and otherwise stated quite clearly that he could not agree or could not commit himself.

While we understand the difficulties which the Commission faces, we must stand firm on our demand for more effective interinstitutional collaboration during the drafting of the budget. Essentially, we want the Commission to give us some indication of the rough figures in order to know what exactly we are dealing with. It may be replied that the Commission said last year that they agreed to this, on condition that they could give these indications orally. But 'orally' means that we are forced to waste one or two days transcribing Mr Tugendhat's speech to the committee in order to extract the figures which interest us. If we had these figures directly, right from the beginning, we would undoubtedly save a lot of time. In fact, we only have the right to speak of 'priorities' when we are discussing figures, even though they are produced as guidelines only. The Commission must tell us: 'We believe that expenditure on this item must be increased by such and such an amount with regard to last year', or 'Expenditure

must remain as it is or must be cut'. Only then will 'priority' have any meaning.

We also wanted to know from Mr Tugendhat what was the relationship between our budget and national budgets, and whether the Commission was able to establish it. The Commissioner answered by saying that he would 'draw the attention of his colleague to this'. For God's sake, surely the members of the Commission had time to discuss this beforehand and to tell us whether it was not possible! This is why we have to insist on an answer. The Commission ought to realize that it must think of these things if it really wants to collaborate with us.

The various criticism in the speeches made have been given concrete form in a series of amendments. At the appropriate time I will give the opinion of the Committee on Budgets concerning each of these. Broadly speaking, I can say, however, that three or four amendments are aimed at adding certain clarifications or supplementary definitions to the list of priorities to be found in paragraph 8 of the motion for a resolution. I have nothing against this. However, we must remember that the more specific the definitions, the less important becomes the list of priorities. On the other hand, we must not give this list of priorities too much weight at this point, because it will only become important when it is attached, as a guide, to the pertinent figures. I repeat, however, that I have nothing against additions and further clarifications.

With regard to the request for the introduction of a new kind of tax, Mr Lange and I would like to ask the proposer, Mr de Ferranti, to withdraw this proposal. This had and has its own place in the debate on own resources, but it cannot be inserted like this at the last moment into a policy debate on the budget. Mr de Ferrantl wants to be able to enter this horse for the race too. I do not know very much about horse racing, but I don't think you can enter a horse at the last moment, just before the start, and that it why I am asking him again not to insist on this.

I would like to explain two further fundamental points which, if they are retained, give the report a certain character, but which, if eliminated change it completely.

Firstly, we ask for collaboration between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council in order finally to formulate a policy of agricultural pricing which will lead to clear and unambiguous financial commitments, and include mechanisms to cope with the expenditure if it should rise above the commitments, but with the proviso that the methods chosen should be outside the specific scope of the budget. We must say this quite clearly, as an invitation to ourselves and to others to plan this year's budget in such a way that each policy costs what it is stated to cost. We shall not escape the problem by refusing to adopt a clear position! This is the reason why we oppose the amendments aimed at quashing or changing this position which anyway we discussed in the committee stage.

It is likewise important that the Commission should present its proposals for increasing own resources. We know very well that this is not something which can be approved this year, but it must be done in order to break this vicious circle whereby there can be no new policies because there are no resources and inversely no additional resources because there are no new policies.

We have stated our desire to see the VAT rate raised to 2 %. We have said that only then can we begin to talk seriously about the policies that we wish to carry out. The Commission cannot answer that the time has not yet arrived, because in discussing the 1982 budget we will have to take into account the payment appropriations, while our resources will be reaching the 1 % VAT ceiling.

Added to this are the commitments and programmes for the following years. How can we carry them out? This is why the Commission must answer properly. There is a connection between these problems because if we give the wrong answer on agricultural prices, we will never be allocated new resources, because of the fear that they will end up in the deep well of indefinable agricultural expenditure; if, however, the problems are tackled together, we shall be able to control agricultural expenditure and to develop new policies with adequate means. We must start doing these things immediately; if we do not do so, we will lose the chance of using this debate to improve substantially the entire range of Community policies.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us concentrate on these essential problems! I do not doubt at all that there are other very important matters, but a debate on the Cornmunity budget is not the place for them.

For this reason I believe that we cannot vote for amendments which change the actual substance of the report, and this is why I am inviting you to approve in its present form the document which I have presented on behalf of the Committee on Budgets.