Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-22-Speech-2-396"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070522.31.2-396"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, as you know, the Commission’s proposal under discussion follows the report presented by the Commission in May 2004 and the subsequent call by the Council of 12 April 2005 for the Commission to come forward with a proposal to revalorise the minimum rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages to compensate for inflation. Its sole purpose is to maintain the real value of the minimum rate; it is not a proposal aimed at harmonisation or convergence of rates.
I would like to begin by informing honourable Members of the discussions which took place in the Ecofin Council in November 2006. In the Council, there was strong resistance from a number of new Member States who claimed that they had had nothing to do with the point of departure for counting inflation of 1993, as they were not then part of the Community. I have some sympathy with this point of view and have therefore promoted a compromise, officially put forward by the Finnish Presidency, in the discussions with the Member States.
This compromise takes 1 May 2004, the date of accession of the 10 new Member States, as the point of departure, and results in a much lower rate of inflation. Instead of 31 %, the new proposed rate increase is only 4.5 %. Unfortunately, this compromise proposal was vetoed by one Member State, the Czech Republic – which, I might add, would be entirely unaffected by a 4.5 % revalorisation as the excise duty currently applied is higher. However, I am optimistic that, when the issue next returns to Council, the Czech position will have changed and that unanimity will be obtained.
Obviously, the impact of a 4.5 % revalorisation is minimal but, even so, transition periods will be available for the Member States affected. In the case of Bulgaria and Romania, whose accession took place on 1 January 2007, such transition periods will be very generous.
I would like to turn now to Mrs Lulling’s report, which certainly contains some fairly radical ideas. First, to repeat what I said at the very beginning, the Commission proposal is not aimed at harmonisation or convergence of rates, but is simply a revalorisation, which, under the compromise I mentioned, will take 2004 as the point of departure. Second, repealing the directive and abolishing minimum rates, as Mrs Lulling suggests, would have extreme consequences. For example, there would be no obligation at all for Member States to apply excise duties on alcohol, which in turn would create more distortion of the internal market. The abolition of minimum rates could also result in less freedom for travellers because Member States would press for tighter restrictions on the amount of alcohol that individuals could take from one Member State to another in order to stem the inevitable revenue leakage. I am definitely against re-establishing borders within the EU for alcoholic beverages and I am therefore also against abolishing minimum rates. It would also set a dangerous precedent for the other excises, such as tobacco and energy, which are also subject to minimum rates, and for other taxes such as VAT. Member States are required to respect certain rules in relation to tax rates. It could also raise health-related concerns.
I should also like to say something about the proposed Code of Conduct, which effectively introduces a positive rate of excise duty on wine. As you know, wine is currently subject to a minimum rate of zero, and this remains the case under the Commission proposal. However, under the proposed Code of Conduct, the 15 Member States that do not currently tax wine would not only need to introduce a positive rate, but would ultimately need to aim their trade towards the EU average, which is currently EUR 48 per hectolitre. I am convinced that the proposed increase in excise duty on wine would not be widely supported by citizens.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that honourable Members will reject the proposal made in the report and deliver an opinion supporting the Commission proposals, as amended, of course, by the Council compromise regarding in particular the date from which to start counting inflation, 1 May 2004, which would result in an increase of just 4.5 % in the minimum excise duty."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples