4. Supports the Commission’s idea of shifting the tax burden away from labour towards energy and environmental taxation; believes, however, that in many sectors a tax on mineral resources is not an adequate fiscal tool for increasing resource efficiency; welcomes the intention to encourage Member States to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS) more quickly by preparing plans and timetables and to report on those as part of their National Reform Programmes; notes that this should be achieved in a way that does not harm the EU’s competitiveness or increase the risk of carbon leakage; urges the Member States to promote new t ...[+++]echnologies and sustainable growth by, inter alia, ensuring that their public procurement policies better reflect resource efficiency; believes that activities aimed at developing criteria and promoting the uptake of those criteria by public authorities should be strengthened;

In addition, when designing this fiscal instrument, provision should be made to ensure that the financial sector makes a contribution to help repair the damage to the real economy and cover the expenditure and cost of stabilising the banking system.

As the Portuguese memorandum on Article 299(2) of the Treaty concerning the outermost regions emphasised, taxation is the only instrument able to offer a commercial future to these products.

The EU needed to seek a permanent solution, involving the adoption of structural measures, rather than resort to a tax instrument.

In my opinion, the prerequisites for devising tax instruments and tax legislation differ very considerably from one EU country to the next.

However, Member States may uphold reservations on Article 2 of the 1990 Convention in respect of the confiscation of the proceeds from tax offences for the sole purpose of their being able to confiscate such proceeds, both nationally and through international cooperation, under national, Community and international tax-debt recovery legislation.