Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-05-Speech-2-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020205.4.2-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, the new report brings the positions of the Commission and Parliament closer to each other and I welcome the efforts made by Mr Katiforis in that respect. His report now proposes to approve the Commission proposal subject to two amendments.
The first amendment concerns the taxation of cigarettes and offers Member States a choice between two taxation systems. The Commission is, however, of the opinion that this will lead to less rather than more harmonisation of tobacco taxation. The option proposed would not oblige any Member State to change its level of taxation and would even make it possible for a number of Member States, including Member States applying relatively low tax levels, to lower their rates. This would be in clear contradiction to health policy objectives, as has been pointed out by Mrs Honeyball this morning.
For this reason, the Commission cannot accept this first amendment. Moreover, it feels that one of the reasons why it is proposed – in particular the need to conserve the balance between specific and percentage taxation – is already taken into account in its proposal. As I explained previously, Member States affected by the introduction of the fixed amount in euro retain the flexibility they enjoy at present to determine the proportion of the specific and ad valorem components of cigarette taxation.
To justify the amendment, the report also points to the situation of candidate countries, for which the minimum duty level should be an achievable objective. But offering them a choice between two taxation systems after accession would leave us with a wide gap between their tax and price levels and the tax and price levels of the present Member States, resulting in substantial revenue loss for present Member States. The Commission is aware that achieving the amounts in euro will require a significant effort from most candidate countries and has therefore proposed to the Council that limited transitional periods should be granted to candidate countries to reach the minimum rate of taxation.
The second amendment rejects the change in the definition of cigars and cigarillos. However, the Commission remains of the view that products having the characteristics of cigarettes should also be taxed as cigarettes. That change was requested by a number of Member States and has the unanimous support of all the others. It has also received substantial support from the cigars and cigarillo industry.
I would also like to comment upon the two other amendments adopted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The first one suggests adding a new recital, calling upon the Commission to submit proposals to eliminate fraud and smuggling. The Commission shares the view that rate harmonisation in itself will not eliminate fraud and also that other measures are required to combat fraud and smuggling. However, this does not need to be re-emphasised. A number of initiatives to combat fraud in the sector of excise products, have already been launched following the 1996 report of a High Level Group on fraud in the alcohol and tobacco sector. The most recent example is the Commission proposal of 19 October 2001 for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council on computerising the movement and surveillance of excise products. It will be more appropriate to discuss the issue of fraud, which is a general issue relevant to all excise products, within the context of this proposal.
The second amendment concerns the upper limit of the euro amount proposed by the Commission and suggests lowering the amount from EUR 100 to EUR 85. The motivation of the amendment is that EUR 85 is easier to achieve than EUR 100 for the applicant countries, which today apply excise duty levels between EUR 6 and EUR 24. I would point out that this upper limit is not relevant to applicant countries. It is only relevant for Member States already applying a very high amount of duty but which, in spite of this, do not meet the 57% minimum.
In conclusion, I can say that the Commission sees this report as a step forward in comparison with the first report, as it endorses the need for enhanced approximation of rates of excise duty."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples