Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-350"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011114.13.3-350"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the rapporteur is proposing rejection of the Commission's proposal. We, in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, are rather reluctant to do this without telling the Commission why, at least without giving the Commission a written explanation. However, in conclusion it has to be said that the directive cannot remain as it is. In its opinion, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market also made a number of comments. It confined its comments to its particular field. The issue of health protection undoubtedly has a role to play in this proposal for a directive. However, this is not an issue for our committee. The question of whether the minimum excise duty should be EUR 140, 120, 100, 80 or 60 is also undoubtedly significant in connection with health protection, but not for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. For us, it was exclusively legal considerations that mattered. In this respect, the directive would appear to have two essential weaknesses, which mean that it does not stand up to scrutiny against reasonable internal market considerations.
Firstly, the system of having a minimum incidence of excise duty comes under pressure from the fact that value added tax is imposed on top of this minimum rate. If I take a country where the rate of excise duty is the bare minimum required and the rate of value added tax is also very low, then I have to conclude that there are distortions of competition if I compare it with a country where the rate of excise duty perhaps exceeds the minimum and there is a relatively high rate of value added tax. That is why we think that in the future, instead of requiring a minimum incidence of excise duty exclusive of value added tax, it would be appropriate to work on the basis of a system which provides for a minimum rate of excise duty inclusive of the applicable value added tax.
The second point concerns Article 3(1). We think that this proposal no longer draws a proper distinction between cigarettes and cigarillos or cigars. The proposal tries to give the impression that cigarillos with filters are cigarettes with dark-coloured wrappers and that they should be taxed accordingly, like cigarettes. We believe that this is wrong. The health effects of filters can certainly be disputed, but it ought to be indisputable that a cigarillo with a filter is in any case slightly more healthy than a cigarillo without a filter. If, however, I treat cigarillos with filters as equivalent to cigarettes for tax purposes – and I am not a cigarillo smoker! – then I penalise the fundamentally healthier product by taxing it like a cigarette. That is why I think that improvements also need to be made here. We agree with the conclusion that the proposal should be rejected. Even if it sounds harsh, technical improvements are necessary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples