Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-356"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.21.2-356"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Finland’s special regulations governing beer imports are naturally of great importance both for public health and for commerce. The problem is, of course, much more acute because of our proximity to third countries, that is to say Russia and Estonia. Clearly, special rules are also required when it comes to customs relations with these third countries.
As we saw in the previous debate on Swedish alcohol policy, Finland, like Sweden and Norway, has a quite distinctive policy in this area, based partly on high taxes in the belief that high consumer prices will also lead to reduced consumption. The fact is that, in Finland too, this policy has proved to be successful when it comes to combating the harm caused by alcohol. In spite of the special pattern of consumption traditionally to be found in countries like Finland and Sweden and in spite of there being a good deal of smuggling and illicit distilling, the relatively low overall level of alcohol consumption does in fact lead to less harm and lower social costs as a result of alcohol. Where this is concerned, I do in fact believe that there is convincing proof that the rapporteur, Mrs Lulling, is wrong when she states that high taxes do not lead to reduced consumption or that a restrictive policy would not be effective. On the contrary, there is a good deal of research to show that it is in fact effective. It is also now the case that the UN, for example, is recommending an alcohol policy based on the Scandinavian experience and is recommending other European countries too to go down the same road. However, this more restrictive policy is naturally more difficult to implement without the protection of import restrictions. That is the reason why Finland, in common with Sweden, has requested until the year 2003 to increase the quantities of beer imported from within the EU. Quite simply, time is needed to prepare the new alcohol policy and incorporate new features which may reduce the possible risks involved in abolishing import restrictions.
For Finland, the problems it shares with Sweden are exacerbated by its proximity to non-EU neighbours, especially Russia and Estonia, for these countries have quite different cost levels and quite different levels of prices and taxes than is the norm within the European Union. The proximity of southern Finland to Estonia and the enormous differences in prices and taxes have led to a situation in which Finland and the European Commission wish to retain the restrictions in connection with these countries for a further two years, that is to say until the year 2005, which I in actual fact think is reasonable. However, the rapporteur, Mrs Lulling, felt unable to accept this and is instead demanding that the same time limit apply in regard to third countries as applies to the internal market. Happily, the Committee nonetheless elected to follow the line taken by myself, the Finnish Government and the Commission who considered that these big differences in price and tax levels do in fact justify an additional two-year period of adjustment, as long as Estonia does not become a member of the EU before this period expires for, if it did, then it may only be right that the EU’s rules should also apply to Estonia. Of course, the risks concerned relate, above all, to public health problems but also to problems involving the national production and sale of beer in border areas.
Mrs Lulling has, above all, chosen to use her report to argue the case for reduced taxes on alcohol in Finland. I agree that high taxes are likely to be difficult to maintain in the longer term when more and more people are crossing borders and have the opportunity to import alcohol on a private basis. As Commissioner Bolkestein noted earlier, it is, however, in spite of everything, an important principle that this type of tax is an issue for individual nation States and
a subject for formal harmonisation in the context of the internal market.
Nonetheless, it will now probably become necessary for the Finnish Government to begin adjusting tax levels downwards so as to avoid major problems when the restrictions on private imports of beer are gradually reduced to that level which is to apply to the rest of the internal market.
It is nonetheless a little sad that the rapporteur, who is of course a well-known champion of the interests of wine producers, does not take the public health problems at all seriously but, unlike Mr Maaten (the rapporteur on the issue of Sweden’s restrictions on alcohol), only sees this as a tax problem and as a problem concerning the internal market, for it is in fact obvious that low-price imports into Finland from Estonia and Russia have already led to undeniable social and public health problems. It is therefore gratifying that the forthcoming presidencies will – as I understand it, during the coming year – in actual fact be taking up this issue in terms of public health initiatives concerning the role of alcohol. However, a whole range of new methods will certainly be required. Against this background, I nonetheless propose that we support the Committee’s proposal to approve the agreement between Finland and the EU."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples