mr president perhaps if i were mrs lulling living in luxembourg i might feel as strongly about not having indicative limits
unfortunately i live on an island where there is a lot of smuggling and much of the alcohol and tobacco which people think that they can use for their own particular purposes is in fact later sold on to other people through commercial resale
i am afraid that anything we do to end the indicative limits would send a signal and a message to those smugglers who look for the resale of alcohol and cigarettes
indicative limits may not seem like a safe guide for consumers but they are a safe guide for children children who often end up taking the alcohol and cigarettes sold by bootleggers and smugglers who bring them into my region in the south-east and sell them in the streets on the back streets and on the estates for small change one or two cigarettes at a time perhaps but enough to get kids started
it is this trade which needs to be controlled and can only be controlled by setting indicative limits so that we can get to the source of the people who are trying to do this and trying to smuggle it past our police and customs officers
that is why i believe that indicative limits should stay
it is not as i say an end to the integration of the single markets but it certainly does bring about a better idea of social cohesion and social behaviour and in the united kingdom the customs and excise officers and the police officers asked for this
they asked for it because it gives good guidance as to what people would be expected to bring back for their own personal use
tobacco has a life of only six months so when you stop vans packed to the ceiling with cigarettes you have to ask the question is that really for personal use or is it going elsewhere for resale and often to children
