Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031117.9.1-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately I cannot share the Commission’s view that the time is ripe for this proposal, which aims at full harmonisation of excise duties for commercial diesel. My criticism mainly concerns the following matters.
I will start with the reasoning behind the proposal: is there really a problem? The Commission mentions two primary reasons for its proposal: protection of the environment and fair competition in the Internal Market. Whilst being a staunch supporter of both these aspects, I have my doubts as to whether the proposal as drafted will have the desired effects.
First, the environmental effects should be seen in a wider context. It is questionable whether the proposal will have any environmental benefit worth mentioning. The Commission, citing evidence which can best be described as anecdotal, contends that trucks make unnecessary detours to fill up their sizeable tanks in countries where excise duties, and hence prices at the pump, are lower. The proposal contains a reference to a 1997 OECD report, which concluded that ‘gasoline tourism’ accounted for 20% of sales in Switzerland, for example. Even if one accepted this figure, there is no way of knowing whether this is a real substitution – that truckers are not filling up before departing from the country of origin – or whether this is a result of drivers making detours in order to fill up in certain countries. I wonder whether this really is a problem of such magnitude as to merit such a far-reaching measure, total harmonisation, as proposed by the Commission.
Neither am I at all convinced that it is even desirable to eliminate differences in excise duty between Member States. I am of the opinion that an element of tax competition is very healthy, especially as the proposed harmonisation drive would result in higher taxes in most Member States.
Finally, coming as I do from a peripheral region of the Union, I would say that I consider that regional aspects must also be taken into account. Scandinavian truckers are unlikely to be affected by gasoline tourism in the same way as German or Belgian haulage companies allegedly are in the congested regions of the Union.
I believe that this proposal has been tabled outside its proper context. Although there are a number of references to the ongoing debate on a new transport policy framework and the proposal to introduce a charge on infrastructure use, there has been no real discussion of the interaction between these two initiatives. The Commission has presented concrete proposals on infrastructure charges and taxes, so it would have been better if these measures had been proposed simultaneously. Otherwise, there is a clear risk that an excessive burden will be placed on the transport sector in the form of increased diesel taxes and raised infrastructure charges. While it is true that the proposed Article 8(e) makes reference to this problem, it only applies during the transitional period, and only to trucks weighing less than 16 tonnes.
How, moreover, will this proposal affect the new Member States, some of which at present apply taxes that are significantly lower than those in force in the EU at the moment? Is it, as the Commission suggests, realistic to expect a harmonised tax rate to apply to all 25 Member States by 2012? I fear that massive price hikes in several new Member States would place such tremendous burdens on them – quite apart from increasing inflation at a time when they are striving to bring down their inflation levels to qualify for EMU membership – that this development is not politically possible. Besides, the candidate countries have already done a lot to adapt to the current minimum tax rate and already the relatively modest increase foreseen in the Directive on energy tax may pose difficulties for some countries.
One of the Commission’s reasons for tabling this rather complex proposal is to bring the tax rate for passenger cars rapidly in line with the rate for unleaded petrol. The Commission justifies this sort of tax treatment from the environmental point of view. We have to consider what impact the harmonisation of these tax rates would have, for example, on R[amp]D for diesel engines. We must also bear in mind that at the moment, in a competitive market, European manufacturers are market leaders in the area of diesel technology. We must also consider what impact this will have on the petroleum industry and oil refineries as, with the proposal, diesel consumption is likely to decline.
Finally, I want to say that before the summer recess I tried to make some amendments to this proposal, to make it possible for Parliament to adopt it. I only received verbal assurances from the Commission, however, that the change Parliament desires will in fact be what the Commission pushes for in the Council. It is very unsatisfactory that the consultation procedure in Parliament will either have to reject the proposal or give the Commission
in its negotiations with the Council. I therefore hope that in future a new constitutional agreement will allow the use of the codecision procedure and qualified majority decision-making in matters of taxation, making it much easier for Parliament to adopt a Commission proposal with certain amendments and return to the issue at second reading."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples