Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-275"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.6.3-275"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, thank you for giving me the floor on this important matter. I shall begin by saying that this Commission proposal represents the implementation, in the tax field, of Article 299(2) of the Treaty. That article recognises the specific nature of the outermost regions, which include the Canary Islands, and it provides for specific measures to be adopted, particularly in taxation, to take into account the special characteristics and constraints of those regions.
Amendments Nos 15, 16, 17 and 18, which were introduced at a late stage, propose rates of 5% and 10% for products and 15% for tobacco and are not acceptable to the Commission.
The 5%, 15% and 25% rates proposed by the Commission correspond globally to the rates allowed under the previous regime, the purpose being to focus on the products for which the measures are most needed.
I would now like to reply to some of the comments made this evening. First of all, I agree with Mr Medina Ortega, who said that the AIEM equals the APIM plus the special tariff. These two latter taxes were amalgamated in the 1991 regulation, so once again I agree with the analysis, which was shared by Mr Sánchez García. Both Members of Parliament have the Commission on their side as regards that analysis.
Mr Fernández Martín then said that maintaining local industry maintains local employment and activities other than tourism. Of course, he is right and the Commission would like to express its agreement with that statement.
I have already replied to Mr Nicholson on tobacco products, stating that local production is decreasing in spite of the fiscal advantages. That apparently ensued from Amendments Nos 16 to 19 put forward by Mr Helmer. The reduction of the exemptions is not acceptable to the Commission since it would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise.
Lastly, I was struck by the vivacious nature of the comments, questions and remarks by Mrs Lulling. I can assure her in the case of rum that there is indeed traditional local production. I can testify to that myself, having been at various times to the Canary Islands. I have even seen the plants. If Mrs Lulling does not believe me, I suggest that the two of us visit the Canary Islands and look at the plants and on our trip we can also discuss the possibility of excise taxes on wine.
On the basis of a memorandum and notifications from Spain, the Commission proposed a Community framework for a tax known as "
", or the AIEM tax, which would apply to the Canary Islands from 1 January 2002.
As has been remarked by many Members of this Parliament, a number of handicaps affecting local manufacturing firms were identified, and this justifies the introduction of a specific measure to encourage industrial production and increase its share in the Canary Islands' gross domestic product through exemption or rates reductions granted to local products. For that reason a Community framework has been proposed which selectively authorises maximum tax rates of 5% and 15% for various sensitive products to which Spain may apply exemptions in the light of the need to promote local production activities.
The rates applicable to tobacco products is fixed at 25% because local production of tobacco products has significantly diminished in the Canary Islands in recent years. Mr Nicholson referred to the exemption, or, rather, the maximum rate applicable to tobacco products; it was 15% in the past; 25% is now proposed. Local production is still being lost, so there does not appear to be a link between the lower tariff that has been applied in the past and the level of local production.
The rates and exemptions contained in the Community framework must be seen as options subject to ceilings which the national and regional authorities may use in combination with the support needed for local production. This decision is to be applied for a period of ten years. It will nevertheless be necessary to evaluate the proposed system after five years. An evaluation is therefore to be made of the arrangements and, if necessary, the decision can be adapted on the basis of this evaluation.
The Commission is very pleased that this proposal has been welcomed by the European Parliament. I would in particular like to welcome the positive contribution of the rapporteur for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, Mr Marques, as well as the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Committee on Fisheries. Examination of this proposal is ongoing in the Council, and the Commission very much wants to address this issue in a timely manner. The most appropriate course of action at this time is for the Commission not to formally accept the amendments put forward by Parliament, but to endeavour to take them on board as far as possible with a view to adoption of the proposal by the Council.
This applies to Amendment No 1, which proposes to introduce a reference to the Commission report of March 2000 on the measures to implement Article 299(2) of the Treaty.
This also applies to Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, which propose basing the European framework of this AIEM tax on the limitation of maximum exemptions instead of the tax itself, Amendment No 8, proposing introduction of a recital to justify the date of application of the proposals, and Amendments Nos 10, 12, 13 and 14, which are purely formal.
On the other hand, the Commission does not agree with Amendments 7 and 11, which allow the extension of the list of products concerned by the fiscal exemptions under a comitology procedure. Since those exemptions constitute fiscal discrimination, the content of such provisions must be decided by the Council itself."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Arbitrio sobre las Importaciones y Entregas de Mercancías en las islas Canarias"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples