Mr President, the progress that was made in the domain of European fiscal policy at the EU Summit in Nice was totally unsatisfactory. Indeed, the position of fiscal sovereignty as symbol of national sovereignty seems to have been further strengthened by the introduction of the euro. Yet we are all aware now that unfettered fiscal competition is detrimental to every one of us. By offering short-term location incentives, a government damages the economies of neighbouring Member States. The idea of a European fiscal policy is not about levying Community taxes or harmonising tax regimes. It is about the coordination of taxes with a view to avoiding fiscal competition and establishing legal certainty, transparency and efficiency. This makes the siege mentality that prevailed in Nice all the more regrettable. EU fiscal policy remains governed by the consensus principle. This has to change if the single market is to function smoothly. We are already familiar with the problems in the domains of VAT and energy taxes. It will soon become apparent that the European capital market also requires coordination and harmonisation if the financial action plan is to stand even the slightest chance of being implemented. Let me now turn to the three proposals from the Commission and its communication. My group endorses the rapporteurs' conclusions. It is extremely regrettable that a framework directive on the taxation of energy products has not been adopted to this day. Perhaps, as a first step, agreement should be reached on a sort of code of conduct to encourage the use of fiscal instruments in the cause of energy saving and environmental protection. Positive discrimination in favour of air transport must be abolished. This, however, presupposes an international regime – and I entirely agree with the rapporteur here – otherwise it would unduly impair the competitiveness of the European airlines. Consequently, it would be very fitting indeed if the Commission were to present us with reports which included analyses of the relationship between taxation on the one hand and actual energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions on the other. Secondly, with regard to the period of applicability of the minimum standard rate, it is sadly obvious that we still await any sign of progress towards a definitive VAT system based on the country of origin, despite the euro having brought price transparency to the internal market. So we have no option but to welcome the Commission's attempt to introduce a wide range of new rules in order to improve the present system, which is too complex, bureaucratic, and open to evasion. Members of the European Parliament have never been able to understand why governments are prepared to go on tolerating the leakage of billions of euros in tax revenue under the current system. It is high time the Commission gathered the various VAT directives into a single regulation so that the VAT regime can at least be uniformly applied. That has to be said here. There is always a chance, of course, that we might yet receive a Christmas present. As far as the VAT arrangements applicable to certain services supplied by electronic means are concerned, the Commission proposal and the rapporteur merit our support. It is unacceptable that European companies should be at a competitive disadvantage in relation to non-EU companies in the realm of e-commerce because they are liable for VAT in respect of their transactions in the world at large as well as those within the internal market. It is also important that e-commerce is not subject to heavier or lighter taxation than conventional business transactions. Registration in a single country is the appropriate, simple and efficient way to achieve this aim. However, on account of the wide range of VAT rates, it will be necessary, as our rapporteur rightly proposes, to distribute VAT revenue fairly among the Member States by means of a clearing system.

Political group: PSE