Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-19-Speech-4-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090219.3.4-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This report on reduced VAT rates has been on quite a journey. In actual fact, there is no report left, because the two other big groups, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, failed to show up to the vote on my report in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and, without any warning, voted against beforehand because they did not like the rejection or adoption of one amendment or another.
By doing so, they have put the support for this important Commission proposal at serious risk. I regret this deeply because it has created completely the wrong impression about the European Parliament's position. Fortunately, they have backtracked and have now indicated that the Commission’s proposal can count on their full support. We agreed that we would no longer bicker about these amendments during the plenary, but would instead accept Commissioner Kovács’ proposal with a resounding ‘yes’.
Unfortunately, Mrs Lulling nevertheless laboured under the misapprehension that she had to retable her rejected amendments, even though this is not really consistent with the text of the legislative resolution or the procedure we are following. There is apparently here in this Parliament a variation on the Latin saying
what is legitimate for Mrs Lulling, is not legitimate for an ordinary MEP. Without taking anything away from her divine status, I would urge you not to be distracted by this and to vote emphatically in favour of the legislative resolution during the roll-call vote at the end. This is what this is all about, after all. Together with the Commissioner, I count on your support and I assume that Mrs Lulling will realise that if she withholds her support from this resolution because things have not gone her way, she will be much worse off and will create the wrong impression that she is opposed to a reduced VAT rate.
This Parliament, and I am very proud of this, has a long tradition of supporting proposals for applying a reduced VAT rate for labour-intensive services. What is more, this Parliament has taken it upon itself, on the initiative of one of my predecessors, Mr van Velzen, during the employment summit in Luxembourg in 1997, to launch the proposal to use this low VAT rate as an incentive for employment by making these services cheaper, increasing the volume, and also by bridging the gap between illegal and legal working. This employment target is, to my mind, very important again at this point in time. It is my firm belief that the experiment has proven its effect beyond any doubt.
The previous Commissioner, Mr Bolkestein, was less convinced and was, like a number of Member States, sceptical. He did not want to use employment as a target for tax policy. He took the view that tax policy was not intended for this purpose. Fortunately, the present Commissioner realises that this should be seen in a wider context, and I am delighted that he is now giving this experiment a structural dimension.
I would like to add a brief comment about the current situation. In all honesty, I cannot imagine the Council, in the current situation, not giving its unanimous support to this proposal. After all, it is keen to do something about this tragic job situation and the recovery of the European economy. Tax measures, including a reduction in VAT, for example, in the building and renovation industry, in making homes and our cultural heritage more energy-efficient, and all kinds of other things, could give an incentive to the housing market, which is now very much at a stalemate.
At the risk of labouring the obvious, it is not the amendment tabled by the PPE-DE Group within the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection that puts the stress on energy efficiency. This was already in the Commission proposal. It was deleted in Amendment 6 and re-introduced in Amendment 7. This can only create confusion. It is, however, clear that Parliament is very much in favour of energy efficiency. We therefore hope that the Council will embrace the proposal by Commissioner Kovács and that this important vote today does not degenerate into internal squabbling."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples