Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-14-Speech-1-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010514.4.1-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, this is already the third time that we have discussed this topic and the Council and Parliament spent an exciting night bringing things to a conclusion. It will surprise no one that the discussion in our Conciliation Committee that evening was dominated by the judgment of the Court on the tobacco advertising directive. There are many legal aspects attached to this and the question is whether we can now be certain about all the legal aspects that were raised. No, of course not. After all, we were dealing with a different case with different provisions attached in that judgment by the Court, but we certainly believe that we acted in accordance with the spirit of the Court’s judgment, and no more could be expected of us. Agreement was reached on the export provision, so that from 2007 onwards the same criteria will apply to tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide as to products sold within the European Union. In that sense things have been brought into line with the judgment of the Court. I am also happy to see that this topic has now also been raised in the World Health Organisation. We have reached agreement on the publication of ingredients and on the common list of ingredients. An extraordinarily important and pioneering provision. Ultimately the internal market is best served by a common regime in the field of ingredients and testing, as is public health. It is also important from the point of view of a possible future assessment of less harmful tobacco products. In relation to the regulation of snuff, for example; it is no secret that I personally belong to the minority here who felt it could perfectly well have been sold in the European Union, but we shall come back to that in the report of the Committee at the start of the next parliamentary term and probably also in relation to other, less harmful tobacco products that are still being developed. This topic will definitely be a political challenge to us all. We have reached agreement on warnings. In our view there can be no question of a ban on tobacco products and whether one likes it or not smoking is an individual, adult decision, as long as one does not harm others, provided it is based on adequate information. The consequences of smoking are so serious that consumers must be properly warned and we are now going further – though to my taste still not far enough – in the direction of the Canadian legislation, which is more intelligent that what we have been able to achieve so far in the European Union. I am very gratified that Member States have agreed to the option of printing pictures if they so wish and call on the Commission, when it comes to more detailed regulation at the end of 2002, to look closely at what has been developed abroad, for example in Canada.
Then there is the matter of misleading descriptions. Large cigarette manufacturers, such as Philip Morris, agree with what Parliament and the Council were trying to achieve on this point. Naturally a misleading description, whether a commercial brand or not, cannot be allowed on the market, but legally it is a difficult business, perhaps particularly when it concerns a word like “mild”. In the Conciliation Committee we finally opted for the formulation proposed by the Council which is based on the cosmetics directive and I believe that in so doing we have chosen a sensible path that is also legally sound.
I should like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the Council. Although the Portuguese Presidency worked on this in the preliminary stages and the Swedish Presidency in the final phase, I have the greatest appreciation for the French Presidency, which played a crucial role on this point and also for the Commissioner. Perhaps I may for once breach protocol and also mention John Ryan who has been active for years in the Commission on this matter and has played a crucial part. My thanks also to the parliamentary delegation for their patience during this odd conciliation night and to Sabine Magnano and Klaus Beyer for their administrative support, but I should like to single out Renzo Imbeni, our delegation Chairman that evening, who dragged away our major points from the jaws of hell or at any rate from the jaws of the Council. I also believe that the participation of non-governmental organisations and of industry was positive. They were able to achieve a lot with their contribution. It was a remarkable conciliation. I have three concluding observations.
In the first place, Parliament, the Commission and the Council gave a joint press conference which was a novelty and a positive experience. I should like to mention the rapid decision-making. In scarcely a year we managed to get this controversial and complex legislation carefully onto the statute book. Where are those slowly grinding Brussels and Strasbourg wheels that are always talked about?
Finally, the final result is, I believe, better than either the joint position of the Council or the final text of Parliament. This shows that the codecision procedure with equal involvement of Parliament, despite its cumbersome nature, is nevertheless the best way of reaching decisions in this Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples