Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-03-12-Speech-3-360"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080312.24.3-360"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, Commissioner, the fact that taxes at EU level are a sensitive subject is demonstrated by the work on this report. I thought that the broad consensus on the need to do something radical in order to cope with the demands of climate change would make it easier to gain sympathy for some really tough proposals. That was not how things turned out.
Besides, I would add that many of the old Member States merit criticism since they have not followed decisions on tax increases taken previously. Purchasing power and inflation considerations have also been taken into account in the committee’s conclusions.
The price of oil is currently hitting new records. I last heard on the news that it was close to 110 dollars a barrel.
Now there is broad agreement on gradual tax convergence which I also hope the Commissioner sees – at least in the committee – and I hope to get the support of my colleagues in the House tomorrow, broad support so that we can get a report that can serve as a basis for further work.
Of course I can understand Mrs Rühle’s criticism of the level of ambition, but at the same time the work in our Parliament focuses on reaching reasonable compromises – something the Commissioner also mentioned – which can be implemented throughout our Union. Here I yielded to arguments regarding both the scale of the tax increases and the period of implementation.
Excellent cooperation from my colleagues, Mr Becsey and Mr Rosati, led me to realise that, if we were to get a report through at all, I had to adjust the level without the purpose of my original proposals being entirely frustrated. The Commission’s proposal was rejected in its entirety. I did not gain everything, but nor did I lose everything. Navigating between the rocks of Luxembourg and the Greens was not an altogether simple matter.
Emissions from transport are increasing substantially. We must do something about that. The fact that the EU Member States are competing with different levels of tax on diesel is therefore neither reasonable nor right, as the Commissioner correctly indicates. No one can think that it is good for the internal market that giant lorries should make long detours in order to fill up with cheap diesel in places such as Luxembourg. This so-called fuel tourism is not only bad for the environment, it distorts competition as well. Besides, it leads to losses of tax revenue. Moreover, there is no reason to have separate taxes on unleaded petrol and diesel.
So a compromise was reached here, which got more or less unanimous support in the committee. The minimum taxes on diesel are raised more slowly than proposed by the Commission, from 302 euros per 1 000 litres at present to the same level as the tax on unleaded petrol, 359 euros per 1 000 litres, by 2015. The Commission wanted to see an increase already in 2012.
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania would be given until 1 January 2016 to introduce the higher minimum tax. The Commission wants to raise the minimum tax to 380 euros per 1 000 litres by 2014. In order to avoid further distortion of competition, the committee considers that those countries which have tax rates of over 400 euros per 1 000 litres on diesel and 500 euros per 1 000 litres on unleaded petrol should not raise their tax rates on these fuels before 2015.
Mr President, Commissioner, clearly this is a very sensitive question, in particular having regard to subsidiarity. Nevertheless it is a possible way forward towards increased convergence of tax levels. At the same time, we know that inevitable environmental demands will exert an influence on future assessments of the use of financial controls.
To those who do not think I have been sufficiently tough in my demands and that I have chipped away at the level of ambition I will say: in substance, I am with you. We should have agreed on higher levels and shorter implementation periods, as the Commission and the Commissioner have said, but the EU today is not the same EU as it was only five years ago – happily, I would add.
The economic preconditions for harmonising taxes are not the same as they were. If we are to tackle cross-border emissions, we must find reasonable compromises with which everyone can live. We must all realise that."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples