Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001211.3.1-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I wish to begin by relating a little of the history of how this directive came before Parliament. This directive was introduced to take account of the European Parliament's Valverde López report of 1997 which mentioned many of the elements of the present text and called for a proposal from the Commission.
For instance, Paragraph 88 of the judgment further states: "Furthermore, provided that the conditions for recourse to Article 100a [that is now 95] and 66 as a legal basis are fulfilled, the Community legislature cannot be prevented from relying on that legal basis on the ground that public health protection is a decisive factor in the choices to be made. On the contrary, the third paragraph of Article 129(1) provides that health requirements are to form a constituent part of the Community's other policies, and Article 100a(3) expressly requires that, in the process of harmonisation, a high level of human health protection is to be ensured."
I also refer you to Paragraph 98 of the judgment. Let me read that in the context of the challenge made to me as to whether there is a substantial legal basis or not. "In principle, therefore, a directive prohibiting the advertising of tobacco products in periodicals, magazines and newspapers could be adopted on the basis of Article 100a of the Treaty with a view to ensuring the free movement of press products, on the lines of Directive 89/552, Article 13 of which prohibits television advertising of tobacco products in order to promote the free broadcasting of television programmes."
It is quite clear from the judgment that the judges took the view that Article 95 could be used as a legal basis for regulating the internal market. In fact, in coming to their conclusion as to what was the appropriate judgment in this particular case, they took the view that some aspects of regulating the market in tobacco and advertising could be permitted and some not. They went on to say in Paragraph 117 of the judgment: "As has been observed in Paragraphs 98 and 111 of this judgment, a directive prohibiting certain forms of advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products could have been adopted on the basis of Article 100a of the Treaty. However, given the general nature of the prohibition of advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products laid down by the directive, partial annulment of the directive would entail amendment by the Court of provisions of the directive. Such amendments are a matter for the Community legislature. It is not therefore possible for the Court to annul the directive partially."
That is a very important paragraph in the judgment of the Court. It clearly indicates that the decision taken by the Court was such that it said: some of this is permissible, some of it is not. Given the general nature of the directive, we cannot sever one from the other and, therefore, we have to strike it all down. There is a clear signpost here as to how we can move forward on these issues.
In answer to the question on exports that Mr Bowis asked me earlier, it is quite clear that, in the unlikely event that the aspect of the directive that refers to exports is challenged and if the view of the Court – which I do not predict – is that it is not supported by the legal basis, it is clearly severable from the directive. Therefore, even in those circumstances, the directive would survive.
In this respect, let me point out that, from the point of view of international and Community rules, there is no exception for registered trade marks in measures taken for public-health protection, particularly here, where the effects on smokers' behaviour are so dramatic.
On ammonia, let me say that the Commission considers a ban to be very premature and cannot find a scientific argument for such an approach at this stage. It would be preferable to wait until the overall question of additives is dealt with in the first Commission report. However, it is also clear that concern on this question is fuelled by internal company information released through court proceedings. It would not be prudent to ignore this data. That is why the Commission proposes to deal with the ammonia issue in a measured way, after seeking scientific advice and having considered all the available information. It will, in particular, report on the alleged use of additives to increase the addictive nature of tobacco products.
On the issue of additives in general, the Commission is ready and willing to give priority attention to this issue on the basis of the information it receives from manufacturers and importers. This was said in the declaration made when the common position was adopted. To do so before we have the necessary data would be speculative and premature. We need to have sufficient time to analyse this information and to consult expert opinion. In addition, the Commission wishes to preserve its right of initiative under the Treaty in this respect.
On the size of the warning labels, I am sure that a satisfactory compromise can be achieved, based perhaps on the Commission's amended proposal of June, which already went towards the amendments made at first reading. The use of coloured photos to accompany texts is perhaps premature and not fully evaluated at this stage. The Commission would prefer to examine the available data and report back in due course. The creation of a maximum-sized warning label for some large packs would be a proportionate solution.
Mr Davies said in relation to the coloured photographs that Member States might be given permission to have this form of advertising on the packet. I do not agree with that view for two reasons: firstly, this would run counter to the concept of harmonisation, which is the justification for using Article 95 as the basis; secondly, even if Member States wanted to advertise in this way, it does not require any sanction or authorisation by legislation at EU level to do so.
The second reading debate on this proposal marks very swift progress. It shows the urgency with which the Council of Ministers and Parliament have both dealt with this matter. I should also like to stress the efforts made by the rapporteur, Mr Maaten, to advance with this file in a balanced and conscientious way.
The issue of vending machines falls outside the scope of this text but the Commission would be willing to examine it in another context to see what approaches would be possible. This is linked to the question of access to products, in particular where machines are situated in unsupervised areas.
On the amendment dealing with GMOs, the Commission considers that this would be better dealt with as an additional recital rather than mentioning it in an article by itself.
On laboratory tests, the amendment dealing with approval of tests is superfluous as another article provides for circulation of goods that are in accordance with the provisions of the directive.
We also need to make provision for results of tests to be controlled where necessary.
As regards frequency of notifications by industry, it seems clear that annual notifications are unnecessary.
On the common agricultural policy, this is not an issue touched on by this text and to mention it in the recitals would not be legally sound. In any case, a full review of the common agricultural policy on tobacco is scheduled for 2002.
On taxation, I quite agree that the price of tobacco products, and by extension the issue of tobacco taxes, is a key issue in reducing the attraction of tobacco for the young. However, this aspect is not the subject of the present directive. We have to be careful not to introduce elements which are not covered by the internal market or common commercial policy legal basis. The Commission reports on the application of the excise directives address this problem in the proper way.
Finally, a total of 54 amendments have been tabled in the report and of these I am pleased to inform you that the Commission can accept 33, either totally or partially. It cannot, however, accept the following amendments: Nos 6, 8, 9, 16, 19, 20, 25, 28, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52, 53 and 54. Thus, the amendments that the Commission has accepted will make this a much improved text and take account of the main concerns expressed by Members.
I should again like to thank Members for their positive contributions and Mr Maaten for his excellent work in this case.
The health effects of tobacco use are now widely recognised and there is a shared feeling among legislators and the public alike that the time has come to adopt stringent rules and regulations on this product. The proposal contains some significant improvements on the present legal situation and aims to create harmonised rules on a series of product regulation issues. On others, the groundwork has been put in place to gather the elements needed for subsequent initiatives.
One of the principal improvements concerns a new lower tar ceiling and, for the first time, a carbon monoxide and nicotine ceiling in cigarettes. Controversially, these ceilings would cover all products manufactured in the Union, whether for domestic consumption or not. The arguments which have been presented about possible job losses have been carefully weighed against the certainty that if we act otherwise we would be exporting a product not considered good enough for Community citizens.
I might also mention that the figures put forward for potential job losses were already an issue when the original directives now being recast were proposed over ten years ago. The job losses then forecast never occurred. In fact, the main job reductions in this industry are due to increased investment in automation, as the firms themselves have declared. The Commission would nevertheless see an argument for an extended transitional period for the application of the rules for exported products, in order to allow more time for manufacturing formulae to be changed and new marketing approaches to be undertaken.
Mr Bowis asked whether the exemption would apply. The exemption would apply to Article 3, as I understand the amendment, i.e. tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels.
As regards the question of descriptors, I would stress that the effect of the use of certain terms such as ‘light’, ‘low-tar’ and ‘mild’ can be very misleading. People change from one type of cigarette to another under the false assumption that the ‘light’ cigarette is safer for their health. This is also a factor in why people continue to smoke instead of trying to stop.
Therefore, the need to regulate in the interests of consumers is clear. Indeed, in the negotiations presently under way for a World Health Organisation framework convention on public health, the same provisions are currently proposed. Consequently, the Community rules will fit well into the future international arrangements, avoiding the danger of trade barriers and reinforcing, at the same time, the protection of consumers and ensuring a high level of health.
I should add that the European Court of Justice has stated in its judgment on Case 376/98 that public health provides a legal basis in addition to and in association with its Article 95. In fact, I would draw your attention to the judgment of the Court. I am not fully convinced that everybody here who has pronounced on the issue has read a copy of the judgment. I would recommend it to those who have not."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples