Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-13-Speech-4-005"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000413.1.4-005"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing here today a subject of an extremely technical nature, of the type which, at first sight, appears to refer purely to issues involving the adoption and transposal of procedures and terminology within the European Union, which is the political framework to which they are to be adapted, as is the case with certain instruments in the statistical field.
Finally, I would also like to stress that, consistent with our opinion that the Commission proposal is more an amendment than a clarification and that, moreover, it affects basic concepts, instead of using the procedures under Article 2(2) of Council Regulation 2236/96 of 25 June 1996, for the adoption of changes to the methodology intended to clarify and improve the content of ESA 95, use should instead be made of the introduction procedure set out in Annex A of that regulation.
We are all aware, or at least I think we are, that it is important that statistical data is not only reliable, that is, obtained scientifically and rigorously, but also, above all, comparable. This is particularly true with regard to the shaping of the European single market, a context in which we require statistical data which is comparable and equivalent between the different Member States. I would even go so far as to say that this is even truer, if that is possible, in view of the enlargement of the European Union, a process in which the availability and comparability of information, particularly statistical and economic information, must be treated as absolutely crucial.
I do not intend to dwell on the qualities of ESA 95 – the European System of Integrated Economic Accounts – nor on the progress which it represented in relation to the previous 1979 system, an issue which I spoke about in the House at the time of my report on the proposed Council Regulation amending the Regulation on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure. What should really be underlined is that, in my view, we must firmly support a Commission proposal which, essentially with regard to an issue as serious as the budgets of the Member States, is inclined to give priority to the revenue actually collected rather than criteria such as the amounts due in the field of taxes and social contributions. It is common knowledge, or should be common knowledge, that there are occasions when administrations may record, as due, amounts which they will never collect, however many analyses of collectability are made, and this therefore leads to what is tantamount to a concealed falsification of the public deficit.
This is a serious issue which has been debated. We should remember that in the Parliament of a Member State there was also a great argument between one of the candidates for the presidency and his opponent, and current President, in which the candidate, Mr Borrell, rightly condemned widespread use of the criterion of income which, since it had not been duly corrected, in reality amounted to a concealment of the deficit in the public accounts.
Ending this type of practice requires clear principles, as the Commission proposes, which in addition allow, very correctly in my judgement, for the calculation of income with the option of using amounts collected or the amounts recorded in a tax document.
This course of action by the Commission, which some people attack because in short they believe it does not once and for all end the practices of concealing deficit, in no way intends to distort the assessment of the amounts in the national accounts but, on the contrary, to arrive at the same figure in two different ways. One, in my view the more correct way, or at least the more academic way, is the criterion of income, with the corresponding provision concerning collectability, set out in paragraph (a) of Article 3 proposed by the Commission, and the other, set out in paragraph (b) of Article 3, is the criterion of cash receipts adjusted to take account of the time difference between the activity and the cash tax receipt at the end of the financial year. Both calculation procedures should inevitably lead us to the same figure, which will be the outcome of the tax in that financial year. I would also add that there is no other accounting method which would correctly record revenue in a budget. On the other hand, it is obvious that the option to use either of the two methods offers the advantage of a speedier adaptation on the part of those who choose one or other of the systems.
Therefore, I consider that the Commission proposal regarding the treatment of taxes and social contributions in the accounts is both the most correct one and, from every point of view, is effective in view of the possibility that it can be applied immediately. Nevertheless, we believe that, in order to encourage Member States to gather statistical data, even aggregated data, concerning taxes on products, Article 3 of the Commission proposal should deal with this issue by establishing a similar mechanism for recording and adjusting such taxation.
I therefore take a favourable view of the proposal and I congratulate the Commission. I would like to repeat that the proposal rightly stresses that we should give priority to the revenue actually collected rather than the taxes and social contributions due in the Member States, and allows these two methods of calculation, which make it possible for the systems used by the Member States to be adapted.
A study of the Commission proposal shows that the treatment of taxes and social contributions should indeed follow the two proposed methods."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples