Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040310.9.3-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, so here we are again, and I am again trying to get this House to realise the importance of changing the current rules on value added tax exemption on postal services. The committee and plenary rejected my proposal a few months ago, so now Mrs Lulling and I are back with a list of amendments to appease our critical fellow Members. I would, as the Commissioner says, have preferred that the Commission proposals had been adopted straight off, but there was no majority for doing so.
The market is being liberalised at both European and national level. Several old government postal and telephone companies have been converted to public limited companies. They need different rules. The current unequal tax treatment not only hampers the development of open markets, and thus the deregulation of the postal services, but it also distorts competition and makes it more difficult for both the public and private operators to compete. The economic impact on consumers would be negligible. It is the famous increase of a penny per stamp, or no increase at all. There can even be a price reduction if the Member States use a reduced rate. Those postal operators mentioned by the Commissioner are subject to VAT. They will also be able to reclaim input VAT paid, thus lowering their overall costs. This is good for new investment and the modernisation of old monopoly companies. I should like to emphasise this.
We have made some amendments since the last reading. It is proposed that the weight limit for the reduced rate for standard mail be raised from 2 kg to 10 kg. This is one of the weight limits set by the International Postal Union (IPU). In this way, important pieces of standard mail would be included in the reduced rate range. This includes newspapers, weeklies and other parcels.
The entry into force of the directive is postponed until 2007. This will give enough time to the Member States and postal operators to adapt to the new provisions of the directive. This also fits in with the different liberalisation stages envisaged for the postal market.
It is also recommended that the Member States which, on 1 January 2003, applied a super-reduced rate might continue to apply that super reduced rate to postal services. We also have suggestions regarding various organisations that deal with gifts and the like.
I hope that these compromises are sufficient. It would be unfortunate if nothing were to happen at all. The biggest issue that has been dealt with recently is the case of Royal Mail. Other providers of postal services, according also to the Commissioner, support this proposal. The industry approves. Data from the national regulator, Postcomm in Great Britain prove that removing the VAT exemption for public operators would not result in price increases for users. It would, on the contrary, create a level-playing field ultimately leading to increased competition, greater choice for postal users and lower prices.
I spoke to a leading employee of Postcomm who told me that there was no reason for Royal Mail to retain this VAT exemption as it was not needed to protect either Royal Mail or the users. Rather, the opposite is the case.
It is a shame that I have been unable to convince so many intelligent fellow MEPs such as Mr Goebbels, Mr Skinner and Mrs Villiers, and particularly my own party colleague Mr Huhne, to adopt a sensible line of thinking. This is regrettable, and I can but state that if Parliament rejects my proposal again tomorrow – as, unfortunately, there is much to indicate that it will – then I have failed horribly. Maybe we can live with this, as I myself can live with it, but it is however Europe’s consumers who have lost. They are the big losers. I hope that my fellow Members can consider this, if only overnight before the vote tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples