Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Common Position we are discussing at the moment has a short but intense history. In 1998, this Parliament and the Council approved a programme designed to improve the operation of taxation systems within the internal market. Just one year ago, in 2001, an assessment was made of the three first years of operation of this system. I am happy to say that the development was satisfactory, and also that this programme was, in itself, subject to that assessment. This year we have been presented with a Commission proposal to extend the programme – which will expire on New Year’s Eve of this year – for a further five years, in other words, until 2007. I believe there are two innovative elements to the programme which is going to be in force for the next five years (Fiscalis 2007) in comparison with the previous one: it is being extended to include direct taxation – which is good news – and to include the needs of the candidate countries, which is even better news. I believe that the Fiscalis 2007 programme which we are now studying has three broad objectives. Firstly, it is proposed that the taxation systems of the Member States should function properly; secondly, that better operation should be achieved by means of cooperation between the tax administrations responsible for applying it, and thirdly, that the better operation resulting from cooperation should serve to eradicate fraud. With regard to the first idea, that is, that the taxation systems should function properly, with this programme it is not a question of taking a step further in terms of tax harmonisation – as the Commission and, explicitly, the Council have stated – although I would have liked to have seen a little more ambition, a more decisive step in the process of Community harmonisation. Secondly, cooperation is an idea that is repeated in all the Commission’s documents. Administrative cooperation was mentioned in the 1987 proposals to move towards VAT at source and the 1996 programme, the new 2000 VAT strategy, the Monti code for reform of direct taxes etc all have the same objective. ‘Cooperation’ is a magic word, a mantra which is repeated, and I would like to see it become more of a reality than it is at the moment. I could not agree more with these three objectives, but I must make a few comments on the specific objectives in relation to VAT and direct taxes. At first reading we presented certain amendments that we have not wanted to reproduce at second reading, in honour of the Commissioner. At the moment the urgent thing is that this programme be approved so that it is in force on 1 January 2003 – otherwise it would expire – and we have had to sacrifice certain legitimate aspirations that, nevertheless, I would like to mention now, since we will reproduce them at a later date. The Fiscalis 2007 programme, in relation to VAT, states that it is good to know how VAT works, and this enthusiasm for knowledge, cooperation and coordination sits well with the four objectives set in the VAT strategy for 2003: to simplify, modernise and apply the tax in the most uniform possible way and to increase cooperation between the different administrations. Nevertheless, Commissioner, I regret that this programme has not been used to take a further step forward in the process of transition towards VAT at source. All the Commission’s documents repeat ad nauseam that the internal market will only function well – or function better, if you prefer – with VAT at source. We are told that if we are not making progress towards VAT at source it is because the Member States do not have faith in the compensation system and the system for reallocating resources, which was initially based on the declarations of taxpayers and then on statistical data, but which has never satisfied the Member States. We should have moved forward with this programme in order to become aware of the information and the framework which, as well as making compensation possible, would also have made the desired transition to VAT at source possible. Nor in the field of direct taxes has the opportunity been taken – as the amendment we have not wanted to repeat says – to strengthen the relationship between taxation policy and other Community policies. It is well known that taxation policy is instrumental in terms of these other policies. I will give just three examples: the Commissioner is well aware that, in the financial services action plan, it was said that there had to be parallel progress in the liberalisation of the sector, in the monitoring and control rules – which are so well known now following the Enron case – and in the harmonisation of indirect taxes, so that the liberalisation should not lead to a centralisation of financial activities in climates and countries which are most favourable from a tax point of view. With regard to competition rules, there is a clear relationship – above all in relation to State aid – with taxation policy. The code of good conduct, which forms part of the Monti package, referred to the fiscal distortions that could alter the functioning of the internal market. Sustainable development – and we have held a debate on this issue – is closely linked to energy taxes. Our amendment therefore recommended that this programme of exchange of information, knowledge and training be used to make better knowledge between taxation policy and other Union policies possible. The Commission has not taken advantage of this journey to make progress on knowledge of the information which would have made the transition to VAT at source possible, which continues to be a paradise lost which we all want to reach, and has not taken the opportunity to promote knowledge and the interrelationship between taxation policy and other Community policies which it intends to serve. I would insist, however, that the broad objectives of the programme seem to me to be good ones: to understand the operation of the taxation systems and to cooperate between administrations in order to eradicate fraud. I think it is right that this programme should be implemented as soon as possible and therefore, Commissioner, we are giving you a vote of confidence by not reproducing the amendments we presented at first reading, in order to prevent a conciliation procedure and so that this programme – which I am sure the Commissioner will administrate very well – can be implemented as soon as possible. I reserve the right to raise other objectives on other occasions, but I believe that at this time prudence and urgency are more important than the value and the improvement of the programme. Commissioner, I wish you good luck in implementing it.

Political group: PPE-DE