Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-13-Speech-2-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000613.8.2-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, with regard to tobacco, many wonder what business it is of the European Parliament, the European Commission or our Health Ministers. Tobacco is a natural stimulant. You are supposed to enjoy it and politicians should not spoil this enjoyment. But, Mr President, this is not how it is of course. Needless to say, the element of freedom of choice and personal responsibility should be retained. This is based on the premise that the decision is taken by an adult who knows all the facts, and therein lies the difficulty.
I believe that smokers are ill-informed on the effects of using tobacco and that they do not give their environment sufficient consideration.
is our business. And rightly so!
With a directive of this kind, the health aspects will inevitably be the focus of attention. However, we are principally dealing with an internal market directive, which is why Article 95 of the Treaty has been taken as a legal basis. There is doubt about this within the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, and their rapporteur has expressed this hesitation quite openly to us in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. This doubt is probably exacerbated by fact that the tobacco advertising directive case is now before the Court in Luxembourg. I, however, do not share this doubt at all. If it had been a public health directive, then other measures would have been proposed. Then, we would have discussed points of sale, smoking at work, smoking in public places, possibly minimum age, which I personally do not support in any case. We would certainly have mentioned the most effective policy against tobacco, namely a price policy. We only need to look at the British and Swedish examples to see that this policy works.
What we are talking about here is the amalgamation and updating of three existing directives, two of which have already been assessed by the Court, where the legal basis was not commented on. This draft directive has far too little in common with the one currently under discussion in Luxembourg to warrant a fair comparison.
However, we need to harmonise the internal market for tobacco products as a matter of urgency. At the moment, we are entangled in national rules, which leads to barriers to trade and legal inequality among consumers. Harmonisation, therefore, will benefit industry and public health. For example, our discussions have led to the development of common testing methods and a positive list of additives, as is already in place in France, Germany and Belgium. I would have liked to propose a list of this kind myself, but I believe that, at the moment, there is too much uncertainty surrounding such a list, to warrant such a proposal. But the proposals made by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection could mean that such a list could be a reality as early as 2004.
In addition, this test procedure will bring about more openness regarding ingredients and additives, as well as prescribe conditions for the import to, sale within and of course – logically – the export from the European Union. We, however, are keeping an open mind with regard to the problems which European industry could face in this respect, and so the committee has embraced the possibility of postponement until 2006.
We want to provide consumers with free choice based on more extensive information. The best means of communication is the packet itself. It has transpired that the current warnings which cover 4% of the front and back of the packet are completely ineffective and insultingly simplistic. First and foremost, the information is misleading. The terms ‘light’, ‘ultra light’, ‘low-tar’ and such like, are incorrect. But indicating the different tar, nicotine and probably carbon monoxide yields also creates a false illusion – and young women, in particular, fall into the trap that certain cigarettes are less harmful than others. This terminology should be withdrawn.
But in addition to this, we need more useful information, and this is what smokers want too. They know that smoking is not good for you but they know precious little else. I have tabled an amendment that tidies up the proposals made by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection in this respect. The message on the packet should take up more space and should ideally be illustrated. How much space, you may ask? Well, enough space. According to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, it should take up 40% or 50%. I suggested 35% or 45% in a proposal which I re-submitted via my group. But in any case, messages should not take up less than 30% of space on the packets, which is the proportion currently specified in Poland. This is why, in my opinion, the 25% suggested by the European Commission is insufficient, although it is a huge step forward.
Finally, I would like to thank the delegates for their remarkable cooperation and I am also grateful to the European Commission and the President-in-Office of the Council. This is bound to result in better policy. Similarly, the dialogue with the health organisations and industry has been a positive step. This Parliament has freedom of choice too and can now use it. A choice between tinkering at the edges or taking forceful measures. I call on Parliament to display the courage it takes to go far, because this will be to everyone’s benefit."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"This"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples