Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-04-Speech-1-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060904.18.1-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, firstly I should like to thank the rapporteur and those MEPs who supported the abolition of registration taxes, the establishment of refund systems for car taxes and the application of fiscal measures to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and improve fuel economy.
The Commission does not support amendment 20, which requests that a study be carried out by the end of 2006. That is an unrealistic time period within which to carry out such a study. The Commission cannot support amendments 33, 35, 38, 39 or 40, either.
I should like to express my thanks to the rapporteur and to Parliament for the support and efforts to conciliate and strike a balance, taking into account the complexity of the issue of passenger car taxation.
The latter implements the third-pillar measures provided for by the Community strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars endorsed by the Council in 1996. It is the only pillar of the three that make up the strategy that has not yet been implemented at Community level.
I should like to stress once again that the proposal of the Commission does not involve any kind of harmonisation and certainly would not touch the rates of car taxation. It would only propose the harmonisation of the
of car taxation, certainly not the rate.
I have taken note of the Parliament’s amendments. The Commission could accept 15 amendments in principle – amendments 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31 and 32 – which reinforce and clarify the proposal. We will do our utmost to take on board as many of them as possible during the forthcoming discussions in the Council. However, at this stage in the legislative procedure, the Commission will not formally revise its proposal.
I now turn to the group of amendments suggesting that car tax differentiation should be based not only on carbon dioxide emissions but also on other pollutants – in particular amendments 1, 2, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 36. In principle the Commission encourages Member States to apply coordinated fiscal incentives under certain conditions – for example, to expedite the placing on the market of passenger cars satisfying future requirements. However, mixing the objectives on carbon dioxide emissions covered by the Kyoto Protocol with those on pollutant emissions covered by the Sixth Environmental Action Programme would lead to increased internal market fragmentation in the area of passenger cars and endanger the whole compromise in the Council.
As far as the Commission is concerned, it is not necessary to include fuel consumption or fuel efficiency, because CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency are directly linked.
Some of you suggested that the transitional period – which in the proposal we set at between five and ten years – be fixed at ten years. That is acceptable to the Commission in the spirit of the compromise because it would certainly facilitate the smooth transition that we very much support.
On the question of linear or progressive taxation, the Commission does not express any preference in the proposal. We want to keep it open for each Member State to decide.
Amendment 4 refers to double taxation, while amendments 13 and 22 ask for a one-stop online solution in order to calculate registration taxes. Amendments 34 and 37 ask for the scope to be extended to cover light duty vehicles. The Commission, although sympathetic, considers that those measures would be difficult to adopt, mainly for reasons of subsidiarity of an economic or technical nature, or because they are beyond the scope of the proposed directive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"structure"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples