Giuseppe Maria Morganti (Libera) spoke on item 21 of the Grand and General Council‘s agenda, dedicated to the adjustment of the state and public entities’ budget forecast for the 2026 financial year. His full remarks follow.
Giuseppe Maria Morganti (Libera): The government has kept its promise to monitor the adjustment budget without making the kind of interventions we may have been accustomed to in the past. Objectively, we now find ourselves facing a second reading very similar to the first, and this has also helped councillors gain a full picture of the state’s substantive accounts.
There are a few figures worth highlighting — not many, to be honest. On one hand, we have seen higher revenue from direct taxes, which means our economy is performing well.
I believe this is linked to an increase of perhaps slightly under 5%, which means that taxed income has followed this trend within our country. I think this is a fairly significant figure, even when compared with the economies of other Western countries.
On the other hand, we have achieved another important result: a sharp reduction in the interest payable on public debt, on foreign debt, because objective conditions have emerged that have made the Republic more creditworthy on the markets, allowing it to benefit from substantial reductions in interest rates.
This is another extremely significant and important figure. The combination of these two notable results leads to an improvement in the state budget of around 14-15 million euros, which, however, ultimately translates — unfortunately, I would say — into just under 6 million, in the sense that the projected deficit is 6 million lower than what had been forecast in the first reading.
We should understand the reasons behind this difference, but on the whole I would say this shift carries a positive meaning that absolutely deserves to be underlined.
I have heard some rather troubling remarks regarding the fate of Cassa di Risparmio’s irredeemable bonds. The government has decided not to proceed with a further 50 million reduction in the irredeemable amount, which would have had to be covered through the issuance of additional government securities.
I believe this was a carefully weighed decision, likely made with input from public administration technicians, based on the trend in interest rates and the feasibility of placing public debt securities. It is by no means certain that such placements would succeed, particularly in this case, where reliance would have had to be exclusively on the domestic market.
If this necessity did not arise, I don’t see that there have been any real changes as a result.
Some have even suggested that this translates into a different approach to spending. There is no spending-related element whatsoever in these accounts: these are balance-sheet entries concerning one type of debt versus another, and they have no particular bearing on the income statement — if we were talking about a business.
The statements made, particularly by one councillor on this specific point, should therefore be considerably toned down.
Fundamentally, however, we must acknowledge that the issue of gradually reducing the debt remains on the table and must be tackled with greater resolve. After making a series of positive statements regarding the figures presented, I want to add this critical note so that we may proceed with greater determination precisely on this front.
Why? Because with the state having more resources available, including in terms of liquidity — and we haven’t analyzed those figures, but they appear to be more positive as well — a government may end up with somewhat looser reins when it comes to general spending.
Frankly, this could give rise to some concern, which we must absolutely dispel, because it is essential that the best results coming from public budget management be channeled into savings — in our case, into reducing the debt.
My final observation concerns the 2 million euros that must be set aside to cover the costs of the arbitration. Honestly, this is a boulder weighing on our heads because of wrong assessments and wrong choices.
I too find it painful to see this figure necessarily included within the state budget.
I hope different solutions can be found, so that this arbitration does not involve further stages, because the risk of spending just as much again — perhaps even more — is right around the corner.
