Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031117.9.1-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"The English text says that 'the Council shall establish measures'. The word 'shall' indicates that the Council has no choice but to harmonise the excise duties insofar as they are an obstacle to the internal market. So do not tell the Commission that this is anything to do with fiscal sovereignty. Article 93 of the Treaty says that the Council must harmonise excise taxes if they are an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market.
The question is then raised as to whether there is an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market. Mr Blokland said that he did not think it logical for lorries and cars to go out of their way to go to Luxembourg to fill up with diesel. Let me give you some figures. These figures pertain to diesel sales per head of population. They run as follows: 610 litres for Belgium, 531 for Denmark, 424 for Spain and 536 for France. These figures are all in the area of 400 to 500 to 600 litres per head of population. Then there is Luxembourg. Where the amounts in all other Member States do not go over 640 – this is the figure for Austria – in Luxembourg the figure is 3 106.
Now why should that be the case? It is quite simply because the excise duties in Luxembourg are dreadfully low, and therefore it is an open and shut case that there is a distortion of the internal market here. There is not a shadow of a doubt about that. If Mr Blokland says that is not very logical then I am afraid I cannot follow the logic of Mr Blokland. In my view it is perfectly logical that lorries and cars go out of their way to line up in Luxembourg. If you travel to Luxembourg you will see the long line of lorries all trying to fill up with that cheap diesel. So there is no doubt that there is a distortion of the internal market here. That is one of the reasons why the Commission is making this proposal, which is to be considered by the Council after Parliament has given its opinion.
The second reason – and Mr Jonckheer was very eloquent in pointing this out – is that the implementation of this proposal will lead to a general reduction in emissions of pollutants, such as NOx, volatile organic compounds, SO2 and particulates. There will also be a reduction in CO2 emissions. That is the reason that the environmental NGOs support this proposal. Mr Jonckheer is quite right in pointing this out to his colleagues. He ended his speech by saying that his support will probably not be sufficient. I am not so pessimistic. I think that after this debate many Members of Parliament will realise that there is a distortion of competition, that harmonising excise duties on diesel is good for the environment, and that Article 93 lays the obligation – not the choice – on the Council to do it. That is also what the Commission is trying to do.
Furthermore, it is far from the intention of the Commission to go for an increase in taxes. That is the last thing the Commission would like to do. Member States are perfectly free to cut their taxes elsewhere if they have to increase the excise taxes on diesel. So do not think that the Commission wants to do that. It is certainly not the case.
As regards the situation of the future Member States, may I stress that during the enlargement negotiations, all the future Member States agreed to apply the current minimum rates on motor fuels as of 1 May 2004, the date on which they will become Member States. Most of them, except the Baltic States, are already at levels above those rates.
Mr Blokland asked me what my reaction would be if Parliament were to reject this proposal. Once again, this is not something I expect. However, if that were the case, then, in accordance with the arrangements between Parliament and the Commission, I shall raise the issue in the College of Commissioners in order to consider carefully the Commission's position under those circumstances.
Lastly, on the amendments, as I have already said, the Commission could accept the creation of an indexed fluctuation band for excise duties applicable to commercial diesel as a second-best solution. It could also accept the alignment of the present proposal with the terms of the energy tax directive, in particular as far as the definition of commercial diesel and tax rates are concerned. Therefore, the Commission agrees in principle with Amendments 1, 3 to 12 and 14 to 16. Amendments 2 and 13 are acceptable in part, subject to some rewording when they refer to establishing a connection between this directive and the directive on infrastructure charging. The Commission does not support Amendment 17 because the proposed rates are not consistent with the energy tax directive.
The proposal may look complicated but it is dead simple. It is beneficial to the environment. It goes against the distortion of the internal market as it has to in accordance with Article 93 of the Treaty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples