Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-274"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.6.3-274"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, firstly I should like to say that this proposal was introduced earlier this year by the Commission under the procedure without debate. Had it not been for the initiative of one of my colleagues, Mr Helmer, in overturning that procedure, this House would not have had the opportunity to discuss it.
Let me make it very clear to the House at the outset that, recognising their ultra-peripheral status, I have no problem with special treatment for the Canary Islands, – my goodness, I would quite like it for my own region, but that is not very likely. This was accepted at the time of Spain's accession to the European Union and special tax arrangements were put in place to assist local industries. But those derogations from the rules of the single market were intended to be temporary and to be phased out. Far from phasing out these measures, the Commission's proposal effectively doubles the level of protection for a wide range of goods, impacting especially heavily on spirits and tobacco. The large tourist industry of the Canary Islands is an important outlet for these products.
The proposed measures will impact negatively on liquor and cigarette manufacturers in many Member States. By raising consumer prices in the Canaries they may even damage the island's tourist trade. In particular they will damage Gallaghers in my own constituency and Imperial Tobacco in Nottingham, to name but two. Bizarrely, as I understand it, the proposals will protect an American cigarette manufacturer in the Canaries.
The rapporteur says that jobs have been lost in cigarette factories in the Canaries, but they have also been lost in cigarette factories across the European Union. With changes in consumption and improvements in productivity, we all have industries in our own regions that suffer from overseas competition, but in the single market we do not raise protectionist taxes. The original intention was to phase out these measures. The Commission's proposal is to double them. I put it to the House that a reasonable compromise is to leave the levels as they were in 2001, and I call on colleagues to support the amendments to this effect and reject the Commission's proposed increases."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples