Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-18-Speech-1-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021118.5.1-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, every time we discuss tobacco in this Chamber all hell is let loose. There are divisions within groups, relations between committees are soured and Members who are usually friends treat each other with mistrust. Tobacco is a divisive subject for debate because of the many different sides there are to the argument.
There is the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, which, it would seem, is not particularly concerned with public health and gives more importance to the internal market rules. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy would appear not to be aware of the fact that there is no legal basis for proposing a public health policy. It is all a pretence. In actual fact, both committees are quite aware of all the facts, but this has now degenerated into role playing. In any case, whatever line we take, we cannot disregard the fact that Directive 98/43 was annulled by the Court of Justice because it lacked an appropriate legal basis. Therefore, we now have the chance to remedy the situation, if only in part.
Indeed, as the Commissioner himself admitted with great frankness a few minutes ago, the Commission’s latest proposal is decidedly inadequate to provide the kind of protection of public health demanded by the Committee on the Environment. In any case, as it stands, it seems to be limiting its demands, to be prepared to settle for very little
in order to avoid another rejection by the Court of Justice because of the innovations it proposes, although they are very well balanced. As others have said and I want to reiterate, it would still be an appreciable result if we were to go home with the Commission’s proposal. As on past occasions, a little is better than nothing.
As shadow rapporteur, I too have recommended that my group vote for the Commission’s proposal without amendments. We will see what happens tomorrow. The important thing is that we do not start proposing once again to cut Community aid to tobacco growers on the pretext of protecting their health or, now, to ban advertising. It is the smokers – and I stress, the smokers – not the growers who must be the targets of these measures to persuade people to give up smoking. Indeed, the strange thing is that even if the entire Community production were to be terminated, the number of smokers would not have fallen at all; on the contrary, the smokers would just switch brands and start buying products from third countries. This change would not bring any improvement at all in conditions of public health, just an increase in the revenue of extra-Community companies, and, worst of all, it would have a considerable negative impact on employment levels in European tobacco-growing areas, in other words in the south of Europe, where more unemployment is the last thing they need.
To sum up, it is right to oppose advertising in the interests of public health but, for goodness’ sake, let us not start proposing once again to cut aid to Community growers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples