Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001211.3.1-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, we are now discussing this directive for the second time this year, and once again, a large number of amendments have been tabled. This would have been completely unnecessary, of course, if the Council had taken more notice, or indeed any notice, of our first reading and the amended proposal from the Commission, which went some way towards our goal. I am happy to say that since then – partly through the good offices of the Commission – the entire Presidency has shown willing and I believe the positions have moved somewhat closer together after all. Legislative procedures do not take place in a vacuum; as the negotiations for the framework agreement on tobacco control in the World Health Organisation have shown, there is a worldwide trend towards increasingly far-reaching control of what the World Health Organisation refers to as the tobacco epidemic.
Madam President, how far should we take this? How far are we allowed to take it? I witnessed the concern expressed in our Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market over the implications of the ruling of the Court of Justice of 5 October for the directive concerning tobacco advertising, and I echo the view that it will have a considerable impact on this directive and also on EU public health policy in general. I also feel that the arguments for closer involvement of the European Parliament, i.e. greater transparency and better democratic control, have gone from strength to strength. Adjustments had to be made to the draft directive and some have been proposed this time round as well. I just think it is a shame that our Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has been unable to make a constructive contribution in terms of the content of the directive. I would be most interested to hear the Commissioner’s view of the issues surrounding this legal basis. I think it is important for us to know what he thinks. The political basis is clear: harmonisation of the market whilst maintaining a high standard of public health and consumer protection, and building on existing legislation and advanced scientific knowledge.
We really must strengthen the functioning of the internal market, for example by mutual recognition of test results and the development of common standards. Those who adhere to them would not then be required to fulfil various additional conditions depending on which country they happen to be in. This is not a crusade against smokers, nor is it a ban on smoking. That would be undesirable and would also be unworkable in any case. What we are aiming to do is to achieve an enhanced sense of personal responsibility, and hopefully help deter young people from smoking. According to the World Health Organisation, there are 1400 smoking-related deaths annually in the European Union. That is almost one per minute. Eighty per cent of new smokers each year are below the age of 18, and the majority of them are young women who predominately smoke the so-called ‘light’ cigarettes. So it is vital to impose a ban on these misleading descriptions, and the product must be subject to controls. It is the most readily available product in the European Union, but we know more about the contents of a pot of jam and the ingredients of cola than we do about the average cigarette. This directive will ensure that we at last get to know what cigarettes contain and why. Once in possession of these facts, we must proceed to draw up a common list of permitted ingredients of the kind that already exists in incomplete form in the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and Germany. However, I sense that the Commission is reluctant to take this step and do not really understand why. This Parliament would like to see a commitment to drawing up this list
2005, during the tenure of this Commission, or at least to see it proposed by then. We therefore insist on the Member States providing the necessary information in good time. Provision must be made to ban at an earlier stage ingredients that increase physiological dependency. It is very important to establish maximum tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels. However, I do wonder whether our efforts are going to be able to do a lot for public health standards in the long run. Nicotine addiction is a complex matter. The harmful effects are largely caused by the tar, carbon monoxide, and other ingredients, and we need to find out more about the damaging, but perhaps even the positive, aspects of nicotine addiction.
It is obvious that what is unhealthy for European consumers is also unhealthy for other consumers and therefore ought not to be exported. I
willing to consider establishing a derogation for this purpose, lasting three years or so. During this time, companies would be able to make the necessary production and marketing modifications, so that jobs are not needlessly transferred to countries outside the European Union.
Health warnings need to be improved. The European Parliament has gratefully made use of Canadian research findings, and I feel we will go further down this line in time. We are not ready to go that far at this stage. That said, we
feel that health warnings should be at least as big as they are in Poland, where they now cover 30% of the packet and I am disappointed that the Council did not want to go further than 25%.
Madam President, I hope this Parliament will support the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"am"1
"do"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples