Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-354"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.21.2-354"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, in its 1995 accession treaty Finland obtained a derogation until 31 December 1996 to restrict beer imports from other Member States.
The real alcoholism and health problems which result can only be combated by information and education. High taxes do not stop serious drinkers from drinking, they just penalise the great majority that consume beer, wine and other alcoholic beverages in moderation, which is very well known and scientifically proven to have beneficial effects for health and for the prevention of diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s and cardiovascular illness. Let us put an end to hypocrisy, and let us give up on solutions that do not work.
Obviously, we all know that we cannot, and do not, wish to challenge the prerogative of Member States, in matters of fiscal policy, to set their own excise duty rates as they see fit. We at least hope, though, that Finland may be persuaded that reducing the gaps between its own excise duties and those implemented by the other Member States and neighbouring third countries would be the best means of preventing an increase in the cross-border trade which presents a problem, and that such a policy would have much more chance of success than maintaining and intensifying restrictions on quantities.
Commissioner, I deplore the Commission’s reticence on this subject, especially given that you use Article 93 of the Treaty as a legal basis, and this deals specifically with the harmonisation of indirect duties and taxes. Make of it what you will!
This derogation is an exemption to the fundamental right of Community citizens to carry goods purchased for their own consumption from one point in the Community to another without having to pay further duties. Finland obtained an extension of this derogation until 2003. At the same time, in order to comply with European legislation in force in the context of customs union, Finland was required to increase the quantity of beer that could be imported tax free from third countries from 2 to 15 litres.
Now, in the face of the massive amount of importation carried out by its citizens from Estonia and Russia, which primarily affects the livelihood of the many SMBs retailing beer in border regions, Finland has requested that the limit for residents’ beer imports from these two countries be reduced from 15 to 6 litres. Finland also mentions problems to do with health, public order and loss of income. In the meantime, such imports account for some 10% of Finland’s beer retail market. The reason for this is simply the vast price difference resulting from the exorbitant taxes on alcohol in Finland.
The Finnish population’s response to this situation is a perfect illustration of the truth of La Palice’s maxim according to which too much tax kills tax, because citizens react against what they consider to be excessive taxes.
In comparison with other Member States, Finnish excise duties on alcohol are the highest, and for beer, for example, they are 17 times those in Spain and 44% higher than those in Ireland which, in the hit-parade of excise duties, comes in second position behind Finland, which is the champion of the European Union, though, admittedly, it is beaten by Norway, which is not a member.
It is true that, due to Finland’s geographical position, imports by private individuals from other Member States are much less, and this is not, for example, the case in the United Kingdom and Denmark in particular, which have much higher excise duties on alcohol than their neighbouring Member States.
Given the seriousness of the situation, I recommended in my report that we should agree to this new 6 litre limit for beer from Russia and Estonia, but only until 2003 and not until 2006, principally due to the fact that Estonia is an accession candidate and that the traffic in goods, even the illegal traffic, will not cease after 2006 unless Finland decides to impose less stringent taxes on alcohol products, especially beer and wine.
The majority in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs did not agree with me on this. I persisted, and I even tabled an amendment, principally due to the review of the derogation on imports for personal use from other Member States. The amendment of the directive in question, which was referred to us at the same time, effectively envisages gradual liberalisation from the 15 litres currently allowed up to 64 litres in 2003, and then, as of 1 January 2004, the general regulations will come into force. This represents definite progress in relation to the current situation which may continue until 2003.
There was a great deal of controversy in committee regarding the problem of alcoholism. I still claim that the problem of alcoholism, especially the Scandinavian style of consuming alcohol for the purpose of getting drunk, cannot be solved by excessive taxation, quite the contrary, because it makes alcohol a luxury product, a sort of status symbol. I therefore dare to recommend that Finland take advantage of this new derogation period in order to reduce its high rates of taxation, particularly on alcoholic drinks such as beer and wine."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples