Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-04-Speech-1-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060904.18.1-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I apologise for being late. I flew out from Heathrow this morning. I have lost my luggage, so I have no clothes or make-up and look pale and ugly, but I hope that is alright! In London you have to take everything out of your bag.
Madam President, thank you for your contributions, and many thanks too on behalf of the Commissioner. We have already had a debate on this report and very much agree with the Commission’s proposal. I have to say that my country, Denmark, does not support the Commission’s proposal. I, for my part, do, however, even though I have amended it. I should like to thank the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for its considerable support. I should also like to thank you for your sound amendments and thank the large majority that has supported me.
I should like to discuss a number of points that I think it is important to emphasise before we vote tomorrow. Firstly, I should like to stress why this is a constructive proposal. It is constructive because it takes account of the environment. As is well known, the proposal is about abolishing registration taxes on passenger cars and instead introducing a new system involving an annual tax based on the car’s emissions of pollutants. In the committee, we have gone a step further than in the Commission’s original proposal, since the Commission only wanted an annual tax based on CO2 emissions. However, CO2 is not, of course, the only source of pollution. In my report I therefore recommend that the tax be based on all pollutants and particles detrimental to air quality. It is important to send a signal to the car industry to the effect that tax on cars depends on the level of pollution they cause. Hopefully, the proposal will therefore create an incentive for the car industry to produce cars that consume less petrol and cause less pollution.
The second important consideration – to which the Commissioner too attaches a lot of importance – is freedom of movement. At present there are 25 different tax systems with 25 different ways of calculating car taxes. Many systems are based on outmoded rules, and registration taxes can be an obstacle to freedom of movement. There is a risk of double taxation, and car owners often have to pay proportionately much more on their used cars when they transport them from one Member State to another. That is simply unacceptable.
It is also important from the committee’s point of view to emphasise that we want the proposal to be budget-neutral. It is very important that this change should not involve expenditure disadvantageous to the Member States - either in a transitional period or subsequently. Allow me to state, moreover, that the EU is not introducing a tax policy by means of this proposal. It is entirely up to the Member States themselves to decide how high the tax is to be and of what it is to be composed. I would therefore also call on the Council to vote in favour of this proposal, even though I know that it is on a sticky wicket in, for example, my own country and the United Kingdom. Consideration could of course be given to using the option offered by the Treaty of Nice of enhanced cooperation and allowing some Member States to go further than others.
Finally, there is a fourth important consideration, namely that there should be a long transitional period. It is important for the whole market, the industry, car owners and systems generally to be able to get themselves organised, and I therefore consider that a ten-year period is necessary for countries to be able to change their systems without incurring anything other than necessary costs. This will also ensure renewal of the stock of cars on the road.
These are, then, the four relevant points: a long transitional period, budget neutrality, freedom of movement and consideration for the environment. Finally, I just want to comment on the proposals from Mr Langen on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. I support these proposals, since I agree that there must be proportionality between the tax on cars and those cars’ emissions of pollutants. I also of course agree that we must protect veteran cars, and I therefore have nothing against veteran cars being exempt from the proposal. I do not myself own a veteran car, but I have every sympathy for owners of such vehicles.
I cannot recommend the amendments by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, since they are not in keeping with the overall thrust of the report, apart from anything else because an earlier entry into force would be unrealistic.
That was what I had to say. Mr President, and not Madam President - I can see there has been a change of President - once again, excuse me for being so late. I hope that you will bear with me, and I look forward to a constructive vote tomorrow."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples