Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-15-Speech-1-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031215.8.1-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Bolkestein was right to remind us that the Sixth Directive on Value Added Tax makes no provision for the payment of VAT on postal services. This applies to the traditional providers of postal services, namely the former monopolies, whilst private postal service providers already have to add VAT to their bills.
Some time ago, in order to make the internal market a reality in the postal services sector, we made a start on the sector’s progressive liberalisation, thus making it possible for private enterprise to operate in it to an ever-greater extent. The new private firms have to charge VAT, whereas the former monopolies are exempted from it, and distortions of competition will, sooner or later, be the result. For a start, the VAT is reflected in the price of the private firms’ end product, but not in that of the traditional postal operators, who – and this is my second point – cannot deduct the VAT that they have to pay on purchases and investments. I am given to understand, though, that the amount of VAT that would be deductible would be quite minimal, as almost 80% of the costs – in Luxembourg at any rate – are accounted for by wages, which are not subject to VAT in any case.
The rapporteur and I have joined in putting forward a solution, one that provides for a reduced rate of VAT on all postal services, although those Member States that already impose very much reduced rates to other products and services would also be able to apply these to postal services. This is a balanced solution, taking into account to the greatest possible degree the interests of all parties; it should also not result in increased prices for stamps.
In addition, the Commission has proposed a new definition of postal services, which has left me rather surprised. Ever since the 1997 Postal Directive, we have had a definition recognised by all participants in the market and used by them without problems. Any new definition would only make for legal uncertainty, as the parties involved would then be left wondering whether the postal services provided in accordance with the 1997 directive were the same as those that have now had tax imposed on them.
In order that we may avoid such legal uncertainty and the confusion that it would entail, the rapporteur and I have proposed that, when defining postal services, the VAT Directive should simply refer to the definition in the 1997 directive.
A final and important amendment deals with the point in time at which VAT is to be imposed on postal services. As we are dealing here, in essence, with a problem of potential distortion of competition, VAT should only be levied when such a problem actually becomes apparent. As things stand at present, some national markets are more liberalised than others. The amendment we are tabling provides for the introduction of VAT only when at least 50% of the national market has been liberalised.
It remains to me to thank the rapporteur for his excellent cooperation, and to appeal to those Members who, in the Committee, voted to reject the Commission proposal outright, to reconsider their position, for it would be inappropriate to reject it now. I appeal to our Socialist Members in particular. We have to take a constructive approach to this matter, for only then will we have a chance of our proposals getting a favourable reception from the Council and the Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples