Enrico Carattoni (RF) spoke during item 21 of the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale) session, dedicated to the adjustment of the State and public entities’ budget forecast for the 2026 financial year. Below is his full remarks.
Enrico Carattoni (RF): I too have a few considerations. First, a note on procedure: in this budget adjustment, we chose not to propose a series of amendments that would otherwise have been warranted, wishing to extend a measure of trust — hopefully deserved — to the majority and the government.
This would have been our last opportunity to submit amendments under the old council regulations, well aware that, with the December budget law, the so-called “guillotine” mechanism introduced under the new council regulations will most likely come into play.
We nonetheless hope that there can be a constructive dialogue, as there was, at least in part — a small part, but a part nonetheless — last year, in an effort to also take into account requests coming from the opposition benches.
Having made this necessary preamble, I too need some clarification, because this budget has been presented to us as a purely technical document, when in fact there are more political issues emerging from it.
The first was already touched upon by Councillor Zonzini: in July, when the bill was tabled, the government had introduced the possibility — indeed, the obligation — of issuing an additional 50 million euros in debt on the markets, bringing the total from 450 to 500 million euros, clarifying in the accompanying report that those 50 million would go toward partially covering Cassa di Risparmio’s perpetual bond (titolo irredimibile).
Today, a few months after that first reading, the government has proposed an amendment that reverses this decision.
Since this is not a minor issue — and the secretary did address it in his report — I did not understand in concrete terms why we are now stepping back from this request.
This is not inherently positive or negative, but it does raise questions: is it because the additional 50 million would no longer yield the same returns they did at the time of the last issuance? Or because it would have been harder to place them on the market?
Or perhaps because the International Monetary Fund advised against it?
I doubt the latter, because the IMF has long been urging us to address the issue of the perpetual bond, which was meant to be a transitional, bridge measure, but which should have found a more or less permanent solution by now.
Second issue: higher tax revenues of more than 20 million euros have been calculated, along with an increase of roughly 8 million euros in revenue from taxes on petroleum products, on top of what was already included in the existing — already adjusted — budget.
So I ask: given this figure, which you yourself described as conservative, with 8 million euros flowing into state coffers as a result of rising fuel costs, could we not consider targeted measures — not simply the usual small intervention on SMAC — that would provide some real relief, some breathing room?
As we know, fuel costs here in San Marino, too, are now essentially out of control: diesel has well exceeded 2 euros per liter, and petrol is close behind, placing a very heavy additional burden on Sammarinese families and on everyone who, out of necessity, has to drive to work — something we know is extremely common in San Marino.
Yet on this issue there is, in fact, no trace of any measure — it is unclear how this additional 8 million euros will be used.
I don’t wish to turn this into a rhetorical battle over windfall revenues, which clearly isn’t comparable to our situation. We don’t have an ENI, we don’t have these large state-owned companies, and we certainly cannot describe 8 million euros as an extraordinary profit in the same sense.
But it is clear that, on our own modest scale, we could consider allocating these funds — money the State did not expect to collect, and which it is now collecting due to an unforeseeable market shift back in January — toward alleviating the very problems that price increase has caused.
We also see two or three other figures emerging from this adjustment that raise questions. For example, the Fund for Advanced Training Abroad, included in the 2026 budget approved last December, has been zeroed out.
This adjustment delivers the final blow, wiping it out entirely — this, too, flying in the face of investment in education and culture, at a time when we have just signed the Association Agreement.
What’s more — and this, in a supposedly technical budget — contributions to the economy are also being cut by 1.5 million euros, and housing contributions worth 600,000 euros have been eliminated altogether.
On the other hand, we see an increase of 530,000 euros in transfers to AASS for the purchase of vehicles, though it is unclear whether these are intended for SmUvi or for other needs. So, against the elimination of direct contributions supporting the economy — at a difficult time — and housing, amounting to 1.5 million plus 600,000 euros, we instead have 530,000 euros in transfers to AASS.
This is a picture that, if not outright bleak, is certainly not a positive one for the government that produced it.
There are, however, two further elements worth noting, because alongside these relatively small budget cuts, there are two matters that cannot go unnoticed. The first is the increase in the chapter on consultancy costs under the Congress of State, amounting to 2 million euros.
Listen carefully: 2 million euros which, according to Secretary Gatti, were deemed necessary to launch the pending arbitration proceedings in Washington following the well-known affair involving the Bulgarian group and Banca di San Marino. Secretary, I did not understand whether these allocated 2 million euros have already been paid out for consultancy work carried out at breakneck speed.
Let us remember that the arbitration notice was served a few months ago — I don’t recall exactly when — and Secretary Beccari told us there would be a dormant period. So, in essence, nothing concrete appears to have happened yet, and yet it seems we have already spent 2 million euros on this little exercise.
I also wonder who will foot this bill, because — regardless of whether we are ultimately found to be in the right or not — who will reimburse this money, which I imagine will not even be the only expense, for the direct damage caused to us?
There are also — and here I turn more to Secretary Canti — another 170,000 or 180,000 euros in transfers to the State Advocacy for damage compensation: I haven’t quite understood what damages these relate to. So, another 170,000 euros in additional spending, once again linked in some way to the justice sector, with very little clarification offered in this adjustment.
Yet this additional item remains.
I believe that, given these two items and the issues I raised earlier, it would be appropriate to provide a bit more clarity — rather than continually hiding behind convoluted phrases whose meaning is unclear — so that we can understand where the resources of the Sammarinese people are actually being spent.
We have seen that they are not being spent to provide relief on fuel prices, nor to support businesses or families with housing or mortgages, but rather on consultancy for arbitration proceedings and on legal expenses.
