Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-053"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001211.3.1-053"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities on the advertising of tobacco products, this report and proposal for an amended directive has been called into question from various points of view. There are also amendments that would discard the whole of Parliament's proposal.
We are of the opinion, however, that there are very significant differences between the issue of tobacco advertising and this directive. We feel it is self-evident that Article 95 should form the legal basis for this directive together with Article 133, as the committee are now proposing in Amendment No 1. The directive on which the proposal builds is based on Article 95 and the issue is, of course, directly concerned with the content of products on the internal market.
We have a positive opinion of the contents of the report and support its main points. It is particularly important to establish clear limit values for the hazardous substances contained in the smoke. Amendment No 2 concerning carbon monoxide is, therefore, particularly positive.
We can also support the proposals concerning the size and wording of the warning text. In this case, there is such a small difference between the different points of view that it should not be difficult to reach a compromise. We are also in favour of the ban on habit-forming additives.
As regards export from the European Union of cigarettes that are banned within the Union for health reasons, we consider that the only reasonable and consistent solution is to put a stop to this. There is no reason to provide special conditions and extended transitional periods where the export of cigarettes is concerned, as compared with their manufacture for use within the European Union.
The report also mentions special brands of cigarettes that are marketed as ‘mild’, ‘light’ and such like. This is a marketing strategy which is often misleading and which gives the false impression that these cigarettes do not carry the same risks as other cigarettes. We do not see any reason for allowing this type of marketing and regard the committee's present position in this area as being in danger of leading to far too many opportunities for exceptions.
Even if subsidies for tobacco-growing are not regulated by this report, it is impossible not to touch on the issue, which constitutes one of the absurdities of the European Union. It is unreasonable for the Union to put the large sums of money into tobacco-growing that it does today. This is inconsistent, and it is becoming expensive. This money could be put to good use elsewhere. Therefore, the only sensible thing to do is to phase out the subsidies gradually and for the farms affected to be given help to convert to other crops.
When this report was previously discussed, the issue of Swedish snuff was brought up. I do not consider there to be any reason to change the current rules, i.e. an exception in the case of Sweden, nor, at the same time, the right of countries which do not wish to sell snuff to uphold their ban. I am therefore pleased that no amendment has been made to that regulation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples