Madam President, the Scandinavian countries present us with a difficult problem with their repeated requests for derogations known as “Nordic derogations” regarding the importation of products subject to excise duties, particularly wine and beer. In this way, Sweden enjoys a derogation to this fundamental right, which we prize and which is one of the major rights acquired under the single market, enjoyed by the citizens of the Community, to carry goods bought for their own personal consumption from one point within the Community to another, without having to pay additional taxes. This derogation, which concerns alcoholic drinks and tobacco products, was extended until 30 June this year back in 1996, and will, according to the Commission’s proposal, have to be extended once again until 2003. If this were not to be the case, then, in exactly 17 days, European citizens resident in Sweden would find themselves on an equal footing with citizens in the majority of Member States, who can purchase alcohol and tobacco in another Member State up to a value of EUR 175, which is considered a reasonable amount if you have to prove that the goods are for personal use. I deplore this new derogation but, inasmuch as Finland and Denmark have been granted derogations until 2003, all we can do is go along with this new derogation granted to Sweden on the basis of the arrangements entered into with Finland. I do so, if I may say, with a heavy heart, because these continued derogations are not calculated – as events show – to solve the problem of alcoholism which these countries use as a reason not to reduce their exorbitant excise duties, particularly on wine and beer. These excise duties are the only reason why their citizens adopt a policy of importing from other Member States in order to achieve what I would call the citizens’ ‘legitimate defence’ against high taxation levels. Your problem, Mr Maaten, will not be solved by abolishing the zero tax rate on wine. In addition, Sweden has a monopoly on importing and a virtual monopoly on distribution, resulting in an price policy which penalises consumers, an area of activity in which Commissioner Monti could well let off some steam more usefully than in the matter of taxes on savings, for example. Matters being what they are, I should nonetheless like to ask the Commission the following questions. You base your proposal on Article 93, but you do not say a word about the problem of the harmonisation of excise duties to assist the operation of the single market. Why not? Apparently Commissioner Bolkestein was opposed to extending this derogation. Why have you changed your mind? What expectations do you have of Finland and Sweden in relation to the harmonisation of indirect taxes by 2003? Are you so reticent to intervene with respect to the level of excise duties in Sweden because, by rights, you ought to be making the same recommendations to the United Kingdom and Ireland, which are not covered by derogations, but which also implement a policy of exorbitant excise duties in order to prevent their peoples consuming wine, most of all, but also beer, in moderation, which is scientifically proven to have a preventative effect with regard to diseases which cost a lot in terms of social security. I could continue, Madam President, but my speaking time is running out. I shall conclude by saying that the solution to the problem of alcoholism in Scandinavia does not involve derogations to cater for the monopoly, but rather by reducing excise duties, particularly on wine and beer, by abolishing monopolies, and by means of an information and education policy which favours the moderate consumption of wine and beer, to make it beneficial to health and quality of life.

Political group: PPE-DE