Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.15.3-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to thank Mrs Honeyball for her well thought-out report. The fact that this is an explosive subject is something of which we have become aware in the course of the committee’s reading. For a number of my fellow MEPs, the word ‘tax’ appears to be enough to give rise to great indignation. We are concerned here with coordination, not harmonisation, so you do not need to be so frightened. The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party believes in the need to take great care with tax legislation at EU level. That is quite clear. We can, however, imagine a few exceptions, and one such is environmental tax, which is one of the things being indirectly proposed in this case.
It is also of course a question of simplifying matters for the individual citizen, of providing better basic conditions for people’s freedom of movement and of reducing costs, as in the case of Mr Vatanen’s example involving the hugely expensive car in Finland. There should in all likelihood be almost complete agreement in this House about creating greater mobility for individuals and less bureaucratic rules in the internal market.
Allow me to say a word or two about the environmental aspect. We know that road transport accounts for a very large proportion of carbon dioxide emissions. We also know that road transport, and thus the quantity of emissions, is on the increase. Matters cannot continue like this. That is something we ourselves have acknowledged. Through the Kyoto Protocol, the EU Member States have promised considerably to reduce, rather than increase, emissions. It is therefore probably a good strategy to devise simple and clear tax systems capable of benefiting the environment.
Those of us who legislate have significant opportunities to influence the behaviour of both producers and consumers. A premium must be placed upon environmental considerations. It is a question of encouraging those motor manufacturers which produce cleaner engines and those consumers who exchange their dirty old cars for cleaner ones. It is also a question of buying the cleanest form of fuel. I also believe that use, rather than ownership, should be taxed in the first place.
The issue of tax on diesel fuel is also interesting. Diesel engines have more efficient combustion and therefore release less carbon dioxide than petrol engines. Diesel, as a fuel, should not therefore be treated unfairly from a taxation point of view, as has also been pointed out in this House. These are important points of view.
The ELDR Group has tabled an amendment rejected by the committee. It is about being able to put safety into the equation, as Mr Vatanen mentioned. We know that 45 000 people are killed each year on EU roads, in addition to all those who are injured. All this means enormous human suffering and considerable financial costs to society. If we can produce safer cars through favourable taxation, that is something it should be possible to experiment with. I therefore hope that you are able to support Amendment 2."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples