Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-03-Speech-3-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031203.15.3-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in view of the Commissioner’s comments, I would ask the House’s Bureau to consider once again whether it might be more important to allow the rapporteur to speak first, since we are part of the legislative process and the Commission is merely making a proposal. I think this is a fundamental problem relating to parliamentary democracy, and one that we must address.
As regards the matter at hand, I would like to begin with the last point. This House has lobbied in favour of a reduced rate of VAT for labour-intensive services. Regrettably, this was not adopted as mandatory by the Finance Council but was merely introduced as an option, and some Member States have put it into practice. However, it has been implemented very tentatively, so we have very little experience on which to assess the impact of this reduced rate of VAT on work and the black economy. That means that after two years, we did not even know whether this provision would be extended for a year, and we are aware that many companies were not prepared to take the risk and therefore did not participate in the experiment at all.
So let me ask you this, Commissioner. If we take a simple service industry such as hairdressing, where we can see that there has been an increase in the number of employees and self-employed persons – thousands in Spain, and hundreds in Luxembourg and Belgium – should we not take this as a sign that what has been happening is something that we really must evaluate? Moreover, do you think it is right that after such a short time and based on such poor analyses by the Member States, you are nonetheless concluding that the reduced rates of VAT really have had no impact on employment, especially given that in some sectors, the figures tell a very different story from the ones in your reports? That is why I urge you to extend this provision – if not for ten years, then for six years, not six months – for otherwise, there will be no legal certainty for the companies involved and we will also be unable to determine whether there has been any change in behaviour on the part of the clients and the businesspeople themselves.
Let me turn now to the fundamental principle underlying your proposal. I am very sympathetic to the idea of a systematic approach to reduced rates of VAT, but I must ask you this, Commissioner: the whole point is to move towards a definitive VAT system based on the principle of taxation in the country of origin, so that we can introduce this and finally establish genuine and systematic clarity. We still have a long way to go before we reach that point. Indeed, we really cannot see how any progress on the issue of VAT is to be achieved at all. Therefore as one of the MEPs concerned, the question in my mind is this, and I put it to you on behalf of my committee and on behalf of this plenary as well: Do we need rules in areas where competition is not distorted and where the functioning of the internal market is not affected? You have mentioned children’s clothing and children’s shoes, but you yourself are listing children’s car seats for a reduced rate of VAT. I really do not understand the argument any longer, Commissioner. I also think it is very important to make it clear that in the European Union, it must be permissible to promote culture using different instruments and approaches. If some Member States choose to go down the tax rate route and others prefer direct subsidies, we must be saying to ourselves that this House is committed to the principle of subsidiarity, and only to the Community principle where there are actual distortions of competition. I cannot see that in the areas identified in our report, the functioning of the internal market is in any way impeded, and I also cannot see that consumers are being invited to cross borders in order to purchase products or services or distort the market. That really is not the case. That is why I believe that we are not yet at the stage of being able to implement your ideas. I ask you, too, to show understanding for citizens who want to treat the internal market as their home market. I therefore take the view that tax legislation must take account of these citizens’ interests. I think our report offers a promising approach for compromises that serve the interests of a well-functioning EU home market."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples