Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-136"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031117.9.1-136"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, this directive will not be transposed as quickly as the Commission imagines. We are dealing here, of course, with a typical case for mainstreaming. I very much wish the traditional transport sector were as keen on proper Europe-wide regulation as it is on combating distortions of competition. It is simply that certain things have to be considered as a whole; I mention this just by way of introduction.
Fundamentally speaking, Commissioner, I do of course share the Commission’s view that harmonising indirect taxes makes sense as a means of guaranteeing the proper functioning of the internal market. Arguments based on fair competition and the protection of the environment always go down well with the public. In this instance, though, the subject matter has to be seen in a more nuanced light. On the one hand, we are dealing with what I would almost call the Commission’s inability to fashion a more comprehensive policy for the public in the transport sector, and, on the other hand, the finance ministers want to raise more money by increasing duties on diesel fuel.
The way in which road and rail interact demonstrates a policy of isolation rather than one of integration. In the same way that we need a comprehensive transport concept for Europe, so we also need an overall concept for all taxes on motor vehicles, tolls and the transport infrastructure costs directive. It has to be seen as a whole, as a single package. Only in this context would the alignment of diesel tax be sensible and feasible.
In the proposal for a directive, the Commission has also referred to the sharp increase in the number of privately owned diesel cars and regretted the revenue lost to the Member States’ budgets. It describes this as an error in need of correction. It is regrettable that it had nothing further to say about the owners of these vehicles, which are as a rule cheaper and use less fuel, who have, up until now, been able to drive more economically with diesel. It is worth examining more closely the question of who drives these vehicles. As a rule, their drivers are workers who are obliged to travel to work by car every day because no other options are available. In some states, these vehicles make up over 50% of private cars.
European tax policy meant that it was precisely this factor that had a decisive effect on the car market, and environmental concerns have eventually resulted in improved technology in this sector. It is, I believe, precisely in this context that this issue needs to be considered more fully. I do not think that the underlying thinking is wrong or bad, but simply that the proposal needs to be revised or reworked. As it stands at present, it is not exactly in line with our thinking. My group recommends that the Commission should submit a new proposal, and advocates the rejection of the one put before us."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples