COMMUNITY OWN RESOURCES

by Altiero Spinelli

SUMMARY: The Parliament approved Spinelli's report, presented on behalf of the Committe on Budgets, on Community own resources.

The report had been discussed by the Assembly on 14 January 1981. "Speeches in European Parliament, 1976-1986", Pier Virgilio Dastoli Editor. (EP, 9 April 1981)

Mr President, Members of the Commission and Council, ladies and gentlemen, and above all you, egregious empty benches - who unfortunately do not vote, but who are at least obliged to listen - without wishing to resume now the debate on the problem of the Community's own resources, I would like simply to make a few remarks on some of the more important and decisive amendments tabled.

I would like to point out first that the need for a Parliament resolution on own resources was felt as early as September 1979 - I repeat, September 1979 - and in October 1979 it was decided to set up a working group to that end within the Committee on Budgets. The working group worked diligently and in April 1980 submitted the technical work it had done to the Committee. In May 1980 the Committee discussed it in a number of sittings, with all the documents available. Those who had an interest in tabling amendments took great care not to do so, so that by November only a few amendments had been tabled, and account was taken of them. The motion for a resolution was debated in January, rather belatedly since the point of this proposal was to show the new Commission what Parliament intended to do, whereas in fact the debate took place after the new Commission had presented its programme. Strangely, when this debate took place - and it was fairly complex - suddenly a number of Members woke up unexpectedly and de

cided that they had to table about 70 amendments. Well and good. We discussed and examined them in the Committee on Budgets. I now submit to you the results - the proposals and suggestions of the Committee on Budgets.

I cannot conceal my regret at the fact that, when dealing with a problem of such importance, Parliament has moved with a slowness worthy of other institutions of the Community. Clearly Parliament, too, is learning to act in the same way.

The number of amendments tabled is about seventy. At the time of the vote I shall tell you the Committee's position - for or against - on each of these amendments.

Many of these amendments involve only a detail change, slightly improving or slightly worsening the text, depending on whether you support or oppose them. Whether this or that amendment is accepted or not, the basic characteristics of the resolution do not change. On the other hand, there are a few others - five or six, or perhaps even less - the adoption of which would give the text a rather different meaning, and would therefore tend to influence voting behaviour in the final vote.

I would like to say something about one amendment, for those who will be able to take account of it - I don't know how those who are not present here will manage, given that tomorrow the 'Rainbow Edition' will give only the original version of my speech, so that those who do not know Italian will understand nothing of what I have said. I refer to Amendment No 27, tabled by Mr Baillot, Mr Sarre and others, which proposes to eliminate everything and say that the Community must have no new tax, no parafiscal levy, and that there must be no transfer of national policies. It is obvious that this completely changes the sense of the resolution, so there is no need to dwell on it. The Committee on Budgets rejected it.

Amendment No 35, tabled by the Socialist Group, concerns various clauses in the preamble, of which three were accepted by the Committee. One is rather in ity revenue will important - it says that any increase 'the sources of Commun' be unacceptable until there is a commitment to make structural changes to the budget.

You all know the old argument, used for 20 years, according to which Parliament could not be elected because it had no powers, but no powers could be given to Parliament because it had not been elected. It is clear that with the present resources serious structural changes cannot be made, given that we can reasonably hope to improve agricultural expenditure, and that we must not think we can substantially reduce agricultural expenditure in order to increase expenditure in other sectors. Structural changes presuppose larger resources. This commitment is therefore unacceptable. If a formula of this kind were accepted, it would mean that the whole resolution would no longer have much point.

Another amendment, No 38, also by the Socialist Group, calls for further harmonization of VAT rates in the context of existing taxes. This is a commitment which has been made by the Community and not yet implemented. Harmonization of rates is also necessary to remove fully any control of intraCommunity trade and turn the common market into a really unified market instead of merely a partially unified one.

For reasons which I do not understand, the Socialist Group has proposed to delete this invitation to carry out further harmonization. This amendment was accepted by the Committee by 14 votes in favour, 13 against and 3 abstentions. You will realize that, on its acceptance or non-acceptance depends a rather important change in the demands we are putting to the Commission and the Council.

Amendment No 1 by Mr Visentini urges the Commission to regard loans not only as an intermediary function but also as a means of financing Community investments in response to exceptional needs. It seems to me quite a reasonable proposal. The Committee on Budgets showed considerable uncertainty, since it rejected it by four votes in favour, seven against and 15 abstentions. I think it is rather important for Parliament to take a definite view on this point.

I now come to the basic point - Paragraph 22 of the motion for a resolution - which is the problem of increasing the VAT ceiling. Amendment No 15 by the European Progressive Democrats Group, tabled by Mr Ansquer and others, calls for its deletion. The amendment was rejected by the committee with 20 votes against. An amendment by the Socialist Group, which was also rejected, called for the VAT ceiling to be increased only if and when necessary in order to carry out political tasks. Once more I draw your attention to the fact that to accept this amendment would change the nature of the resolution substantially.

On VAT, we do not confine ourselves to saying that it is advisable to provide for it, but state formally that the Commission should make proposals to eliminate the ceilling. On this point we have Admendment No 16, by Mr Ansquer, for the European Progressive Democrats Group, and an amendment by the Socialist Group, both of which call for its deletion. The committee accepted its deletion by 18 votes to 12. Its deletion would mean that the resolution would be asking for virtually nothing from the Commission on VAT. So bear that in mind.

The last amendment, rejected by 12 votes to 11, and tabled by Mr Ansquer and Mr Flanagan, relates to paragraph 27 and is intended to delete the paragraph, in which it is stated that it is necessary in the medium term to try to introduce slightly more progressive forms in Community taxation, since in the medium term we cannot remain bound only to the types of resources which have hitherto been approved.

Similarly, the amendment relating to the subsequent paragraph, which talks of the importance of the tax on companies, and the deletion of which has been asked for by the same group, was rejected by 10 votes to 11.

These are the points on which I think Parliament should reflect, for its decisions will determine the character of the resolution. At the time of the vote I shall remind you precisely of the attitude taken by the Committee on each point. I therefore ask you to concentrate on these points, which are crucial.