Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001211.3.1-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, if this proposal actually becomes law at second reading, this will lead to companies’ freedom being curtailed somewhat, and to a slight improvement in the protection of public health. The strength of this proposal resides in the fact that it is not concerned with the behaviour of individual consumers of tobacco products, but is aimed at making it compulsory for companies to provide all consumers with information, and having the addition of addictive ammonia banned. This would make it less easy for the impression to be created that you can smoke without risking premature death. It would be more difficult to spread reassuring lies.
The weakness of the proposal resides in the fact that it places heavy emphasis on the promotion of free competition. The imposition of uniform standards in all Member States seems calculated to give the various tobacco companies the same opportunities to earn money throughout the EU. This liberal basic principle does not have my group’s blessing. Our main concern is to protect people against the damage that tobacco products do to their health.
My group would rather the proposal had taken an all-encompassing approach. Taking public health as the starting point, this would entail a complete ban on advertising and sponsorship and reducing to a minimum the number of young people who take up smoking. We would also need to look at what impact a reduction in the production and consumption of tobacco would have in terms of alternative employment for tobacco farmers and tobacco industry workers, how to put an end to the current EU subsidy regime for tobacco cultivation, and what we need to do to oppose international trade in this unwholesome product. As long as we fail to do this, each and every European measure can be counteracted by increased exports of American tobacco.
All we can adopt at second reading is a watered-down version of the most far-reaching proposals that we voted on six months ago after the first reading. A watered-down text was adopted back then too, but the Council of Ministers still thinks that Parliament’s opinion goes too far.
I represent those members of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left who supported the rapporteur’s proposals at first reading, and who will also support his watered-down proposal at second reading. The proposal is too weak, but without a decision of this kind tobacco products will be able to destroy even more lives."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples