Brussels, 21/09/2000 (Agence Europe) - The "special" Transport Council organised Wednesday evening in Luxembourg by the French Presidency to examine the impact of the rise in oil prices on transport policy, show significant divergences between Member States over the issue of fuel taxation, than their cohesion over a common problem. The Presidency was also unable, as wanted by the Minister Jean-Claude Gayssot, to open the debate on the social conditions in transport.
The "Presidency's conclusions" (and not those of the Council as such) reveal that the Members States noted "that it would be appropriate to find for shape of a sustainable dialogue between the (oil) producer and consumer countries", while recognising that "the price level of oil is not the only due to the oil producers, but also other professions taking part in the distribution of fuel". Thus the delegations are calling on the European Commission to ensure that the oil company cartels do not contribute to increasing the price of fuel. In the long-term, the Minister underlined the need to "increase the efforts" to develop means of transport more favourable to the environment and security, notably by rapidly completing the works on the "revitalisation of the railway sector". They are also inviting the Commission and Member States to put forward new initiatives to promote energy savings and the promote alternative fuels.
On the other hand, the Ministers were only able, after seven hours of talks, to reach a sibylline text on the issue of taxation. The Presidency's conclusions note that the delegations "are taking into account the terms of reference found during the informal meeting of economic and Finance Ministers in Versailles on 9 September" that they "debated over the importance of the fiscal issue in the price of fuel while underlining that this is part of the Ecofin competence".
The British, Irish, Danish, Swedish, Luxembourg and German delegations opposed a text that would have enshrined de facto the temporary tax breaks granted to hauliers by other Member States (France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands), even if some of them, such as France have a dispensation to the Directive on the harmonisation of fuel taxes until the end of this year. Ireland, the United Kingdom and Denmark even rejected a formulation that would have seemed to support the fiscal harmonisation in the EU. However Belgium called for specific tax exemption in favour of clean fuels and Italy for a flexible fiscal policy enabling to answer the time of crisis and adapt to the market.
To conclude, the Presidency's conclusions work to showing that "the Commission indicated that, without prejudice against the examination of national measures, in accordance with the Treaty, it would continue its examination, in the framework of Article 93, of indirect taxation on fuels, in accordance with the joint policies for transport and energy, in line with the draft Directive presently being discussed within the Ecofin Council".
Most of the Minister also refused to commit themselves to the debate on the harmonisation of working conditions in road transport, returning this debate to the Council of 2 October as initially foreseen. The Presidency's conclusions indicate that the delegations "favour the establishment of measures enabling to avoid distortions to competition in the internal market which could result in, among others, difference in working conditions, when also taking into account the competition in third countries. The issue of social harmonisation in the sector will be further examined during the Council of Minister on 2 October".
Finally, the Minister called for the creation of a "European forum" regrouping the head of industry and unions from the haulier sector, the loaders and experts from Member States so as to examine all the factors affecting the competitiveness of transport in the EU. The European Commissioner for Transport Loyola de Palacio undertook to establish it in the coming months.
"The results of the Council correspond to a special Council where it was especially a question of presenting points of view", commented Commissioner de Palacio Thursday before the press. She felt that either way, "it would have been preferable that this Council take place before some Member States do not grant concessions to certain sectors of transport". The Commission once more opposed the solutions that went through a reduction in fuel taxes, especially if they are granted under the under pressure from demonstrators. "The right to strike and to protest are important but free movement must be respected", she hammered home. Nonetheless, admitted the Commissioner, "the Council reached conclusions that will, I hope, give concrete results". She also said she hoped the conclusions of the Presidency will make it possible to make more rapid headway in Council on the question of rail travel and social dumping". Ms de Palacio trusts, in particular, that the Council on 2 October will come to a result on the directive to impose recruitment conditions similar for Community and non-Community drivers.