Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-337"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.19.2-337"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, this matter concerns the phasing-out of Sweden’s derogation from the internal market’s rules concerning imports of alcohol and tobacco. It may appear as an insignificant detail, given the number of rules governing the internal market, but Swedish alcohol policy has proved itself to be successful in combating harm caused by alcohol. The policy is founded partly (not solely, but partly) upon high taxes, which entail high consumer prices. It is also founded upon a State monopoly on sales and upon active efforts to protect certain areas, such as road use, from all forms of alcohol consumption.
In spite of the fact that Sweden belongs to the so-called vodka belt, with its special pattern of consumption, and in spite of the presence of illicit distilling and smuggling, the low overall consumption of alcohol means less overall harm caused by alcohol and lower social costs due to alcohol, if we include everything from accidents on and off the road to alcohol-related illnesses and deaths.
This policy will, of course, become more difficult to implement without the protection of import restrictions, which is the reason why Sweden has wished either to retain the derogation on a permanent basis or, as the Swedish Government has now agreed with the Commission, at least to be given a number of additional years in which to phase out the derogation. Quite simply, time is needed to prepare new features of alcohol policy which may reduce the risks entailed in the abolition of import restrictions. In the long run, it would probably not, in fact, be possible to isolate Sweden from the rest of Europe in this area. We are now already seeing a lot of private imports from Denmark and Germany, which is likely to increase further now that the Öresund Bridge is being opened and is creating a fixed land link to the European continent and now that the Danish Government is announcing reduced alcohol taxes as a result of competition in Germany. There is also alarming intelligence about illicit distilling, smuggling etc.
Even if taxes on alcohol are decided at national level, which ought to remain the case, it would probably be impossible, in the long term, to maintain such large differences as there are today in the level of tax between neighbouring countries without this creating problems.
One of the consequences of the high taxes in Sweden is to create difficulties for Swedish producers and vendors of beer, wine and spirits, as well as for the serious hotel and restaurant trade. Against that background, I see it as indispensable for Sweden now gradually to reduce its taxes on alcohol. It is not certain that there is a need to go right down to those levels which prevail on the European continent, but it will probably become necessary to take a few steps in that direction. In quite a few EU countries, no tax at all is paid on beer and wine, something which is also controversial from a public health point of view. In these countries, these products ought perhaps to be taxed instead.
I am nonetheless pleased that the rapporteur, Mr Maaten, is taking the problem of public health seriously and does not, like so many others, see alcohol merely as a problem for the internal market. Excessive alcohol consumption is a public health problem to which attention also needs to be paid at European level. For the Scandinavian countries, there is, of course, the risk that a sudden change in the patterns of consumption might lead to many people’s also adopting European patterns of beer and wine consumption on top of the old tradition of schnapps drinking, with serious health problems as a consequence.
The two forthcoming holders of the presidency, France and Sweden, have indicated that they intend jointly to take up this issue and to propose common public health initiatives which will also deal with the role of alcohol, a development I find gratifying and an important initiative.
How, then, is the Swedish Government to deal with the problem, now that the borders are gradually being opened so as to permit imports of larger quantities of alcohol than ever before, and at the same time as taxes are likely to be reduced? I believe in a vigorous long-term campaign to provide information, influence attitudes and promote education in schools, within the health care sector and among road users, and I believe especially in the public education carried out by national campaigning organisations etc. All this is necessary and needs to be worked out energetically and with a view to the long term.
Against this background, I therefore agree with the rapporteur’s conclusion to the effect that Parliament ought to approve the agreement between the Swedish Government and the Commission which came about at the request of the ECOFIN ministers. According to this, Sweden should be given time, between now and the end of 2003, to reduce import restrictions to the level which otherwise applies within the internal market. In that way, we should in fact achieve the double aim of, firstly, adapting to the rules of the internal market and, secondly, preventing any harm this might entail by obtaining the time to provide Sweden with a more aggressive alcohol policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples