Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-14-Speech-2-289"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061114.37.2-289"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I would like to inform honourable Members that on 8 September 2006 the Commission adopted a proposal to adapt the minimum rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages to take account of inflation since 1993, when the current rates were established. This proposal was inspired by a call made unanimously by the Council on 12 April 2005.
The proposal provides for the proposed increases to come into force from 1 January 2008. However, in order to ease the difficulties that some Member States may have in increasing their national rates to meet the revalorised minimum, transitional periods have been proposed until 1 January 2011.
The inflationary increase is 31%, based on Eurostat data and the harmonised index of consumer prices. For beer this means that the current minimum rate of 74.8 euro cents per hectolitre per degree will rise to 98 euro cents. In other words, the current minimum duty based on half a litre of beer of an alcoholic strength of 5% will rise from 4.5 euro cents to 6 euro cents, an increase of some 1.5 euro cents.
The majority of Member States are not affected by this proposal, as their national rates are already above the proposed revalorised minimum. However, the impact on those Member States that are affected will clearly depend on the level of their current national rates. Germany, for instance, will need to increase its national rate on beer by 24.5% in order to meet the revalorised minimum. This equates to a duty increase on half a litre of beer of just over 1 euro cent. Furthermore, under the transition period proposed, Germany will have until 1 January 2011 to make the necessary increase. Honourable Members will see that the impact of the proposed adaptation to inflation will be rather modest and does not justify the outcry in some Member States.
In response to the specific question asked by Mr Paleckis, the Commission points out that the purpose of the minimum rates is to limit distortions of the internal market through different tax levels being set by Member States. Therefore, the minimum rate should be the same across the European Union.
In the Commission’s view it makes no sense to have different minimum rates depending on the point in time one or the other Member State joined the European Union. As mentioned above, the Commission’s proposal contains appropriate transition periods.
Finally, I would like to add that the proposal is currently the subject of discussions in the Council. These are proving to be more difficult than one would have expected considering that the proposal sets out a purely mathematical adaptation, which has only a marginal effect in some Member States.
I want to inform honourable Members that on 7 November, just a week ago, when we discussed it for the first time in the Ecofin Council, three Member States – Germany, the Czech Republic and Lithuania – opposed the proposal. It did not, therefore, gain the unanimous support requested, so we postponed the final decision and debate to the next Ecofin meeting which is due on 28 November. As honourable Members are certainly aware, it will also be the subject of discussions in Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples