Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

 Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Verbatim report of proceedings
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - Strasbourg OJ edition

10. Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (continuation)
MPphoto
 
 

  Martinez (TDI).(FR) Mr President, as far as debates go, Parliament is familiar with some absolute classics which crop up regularly: human rights, bananas, mad cows, and now tobacco. We are here involved in revising three directives on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco, cigarettes, snuff tobacco and other tobacco products. And, at this point, we have yet another classic debate, the one which concerns the legal basis: is this a matter to do with the market, in which case Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community applies, or the rules of operation or indeed health policy? The matter has been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The rapporteur from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market suggests kicking the ball into touch by referring the debate back. Whatever the case, we are required to examine the content of the report before us.

Regarding the content of the report, then, an accurate observation is made and the rapporteur makes some sensible proposals but, in the final analysis, the sideways shift sets in. As everyone recognises, the observation that tobacco causes disease and ultimately death is perfectly accurate, in the same way that the poverty generated by ultraliberalism is also ultimately harmful to health. Cigarettes contain tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, additives, citrates, tartrates, acetates, nitrates, sorbates, phosphates, even fungicides, and all these end up causing lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and cot death in infants, with 500 000 people dying every year. Of course, many more people die too.

On the basis of these facts, then, some sensible proposals have been made. Tar content must be limited to 10 mg per cigarette and nicotine content to 1 mg per cigarette. There are even sensible suggestions to prohibit ammonia, which increases nicotine ingestion and thereby also dependence, and to earmark 2% of the profits made by tobacco multinationals for scientific research. These are intelligent and reasonable suggestions. There are also plans to provide information on the dangers of tobacco, and to protect children and even the infants at risk from sudden infant death syndrome. This, however, is the start of the sideslip into lack of realism, self-righteousness and fundamentalism. In other words, from an accurate observation and reasonable proposals, we move towards a problem that is even worse than tobacco itself.

What is this sideways shift? In the first place, there is the bureaucratic sideslip with the business of the label. We are putting labels on everything. Indeed, the ecologist’s neurosis is revealed by the fact that the subject of labelling is raised. We have labels on meat, wine, GM products, chocolate. It is the trump card that beats any freedoms. And now, labels on tobacco but, mark you, for labelling tobacco we are talking serious business. The label must cover 30% of the packet surface, 35% if the wording is bilingual, and 12.5% of the outer surface of the wrapping for pipe tobacco. The label must be printed in black on a white background and the borders must be at least 3 mm and at most 4 mm wide, an average of 3.5 mm. The labels must feature text, but not just any old text, it must be printed in black Helvetica bold type, 100% intensity. Thus proving that tobacco affects not only the lungs but also the brain.

The label must also feature a free telephone number for a body which the smoker can call to ask what dangers his habit involves. There must also be a slogan like ‘smoking kills’, ‘smoking is harmful to those around you’, ‘smoking impairs fertility’, and ‘smoking causes impotence’. So, seeing how impotent our governments are to deal with immigration, lack of security, tax problems, and unemployment, we can only conclude that they are heavy smokers.

This is clearly not, however, a sensible measure. Let me give one example: tobacco was introduced into Europe at the same time as the potato. Tobacco farming was started immediately but it took several centuries for the potato to catch on. That is how irrational things can be. Even if there had been a label on the apple to say that there was a risk of being thrown out of Eden, Eve would still have bitten into it!

What does that prove? Well, it goes to show that slogans are not effective, just as a price increase would not be effective, as it would only increase smuggling and crime. This is the sideslip into self-righteousness and hypocrisy. We are told that there are social costs. Yet the smoker pays excise duties of between 75 and 85% included in the price of tobacco. In my own country, revenue from excise duties is greater than that from recording rights. In other words, by smoking, the smoker is paying for the cost of his own cancer treatment. People have said that it is inconsistent to allocate a billion to tobacco farming and then pay out for the campaign against tobacco. True, but it is just as inconsistent to bomb Kosovo and then pay to rebuild it, or to eliminate internal borders and lose customs duties and then set up OLAF to defend the financial interests of the European Union. In demographic terms, is it not inconsistent, ladies and gentlemen, to permit the loss of 5 million Europeans per annum due to abortions and then to weep over 500 000 deaths due to smoking?

Then there is the puritanical sideslip. The rapporteur sends a shiver down my spine when he speaks of social aberrations, social instincts. What I hear is: the Social Democratic Sweden of the 1960s sterilising fifteen year old adolescents because they were social misfits. I hear: moral order, the Salem witches. I hear: the Puritanism of northern Europe, these reformers desperate to reform everything, including the way we eat and drink. I hear: northern Europe banning wine, on the pretext that wines are harmful to health, but not banning injecting oneself with all sorts of substances. It is the same puritanical streak shared by Robespierre, Pol Pot, the Greens and the Quakers. Our rapporteur is a Liberal and should not forget the lessons of laissez-faire Liberalism: let them live, let them be born, let them drink and let them smoke.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bernié (EDD).(FR) Mr President, we are right to be worried when ideology oversteps the limits of the law and merrily tramples individual freedoms underfoot to the point of advocating a tobacco-free Europe. It is only totalitarian regimes that attempt to regulate the happiness of their citizens. Nonetheless, the aim of this directive proposing to harmonise legislation on tobacco products is actually to oppose tobacco by every means possible, including those that are the most questionable on legal grounds.

The Commission is effectively misusing EC Treaty Article 95 which stipulates that the object of the single market may be sufficient justification to undertake approximation, but the Commission is justifying its action on the grounds of public health and consumer protection, which are covered by EC Treaty Article 152, and this authorises only encouragement and not actual harmonisation.

What are we to think of this crude misuse of Articles 95 and 152? What are we to think of the rejection voted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market? What then will be the use of this committee and, indeed, of the European Union’s legal consultants? What are we to think of the unemployment unavoidably generated by this directive which, in eliminating all subsidies to production, will toll the knell for the tobacco sector? This affects one million jobs in Europe. In France, 40 000 small producers are scraping a living thanks to this additional activity which is extremely labour-intensive. What are we to think of a Europe which, according to the power of lobbies and special interests, permits the addition of vegetable fats to chocolate, authorises the use of GMOs and imposes restrictions liable to jeopardise the sale of local products on the markets and now to threaten tobacco production, even though it is perfectly legal?

As you will have understood, we shall be voting against this directive. Is it too much to ask that Articles 95 and 152 be respected? All we are asking for is a minimum of subsidiarity and a modicum of tolerance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Fiori (PPE-DE).(IT) Mr President, the actions of the European Union, the Commission and, in particular, Parliament, in their endeavour to regulate the tobacco industry, continue to give the impression that they are disregarding the needs of the workers and growers of the industry – and by the industry I mean the production, industrial and, in particular, tobacco-growing sections. You are all aware of how heated the debate in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy was. There have been a large number of amendments, including the one tabled by myself, attempting to defend the production sector and the tobacco-growing sector in particular.

In Europe, 135 000 families work in the tobacco industry and it employs as many as 800 000 workers, most of whom are seasonal workers hired at harvest time and during production periods. This is a major industry which, moreover, hires more women than men to do seasonal work. Furthermore, from a production perspective, it would be very hard to change from growing tobacco to another crop. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted an amendment withdrawing subsidies for European tobacco production. We are concerned as to whether this instrument will genuinely be an effective means of reducing tobacco consumption. The most immediate effect will be to weaken the situation of European tobacco-growers to the benefit of production elsewhere in the world, and the price reduction will penalise the entire production system of the European continent.

Are we saying that, in order to reduce smoking in Europe, it is necessary to kill off European tobacco growers without even any guarantee that this will reduce cigarette consumption by a single cigarette? From where I stand, a responsible smoking reduction policy needs to be based on an awareness and prevention campaign, especially in schools. It should not penalise those who are contributing to Europe’s wealth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Garot (PSE).(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there seems to me to be no question as to the validity of the proposed directive on harmonisation of the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. Obviously, the proposal to tighten up standards for maximum nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide content in cigarettes must be considered one of the ways of ensuring better public health protection.

As a member of Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I should particularly like to highlight the fact that tobacco producers are not opposed to the changes proposed by the Commission, insofar as these changes are justified on public health grounds. Like them, however, I deplore the fact that the Commission has not carried out an impact study concerning the effect of the proposal on the production sector, as it did for a number of businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses. They thus failed to take account of the fact that, on the whole, European producers will not be capable of supplying products to the required quality by the deadline of 2003.

This leads me to advocate delaying the date when these new provisions come into force. Let me remind you that the tobacco sector, involving 130 000 producers and 400 000 seasonal workers, is more often than not located in regions which present very few alternatives for farm production. This is a social reality which must not be forgotten, especially since, in economic terms, European production accounts for less than 25% of European tobacco consumption. In these circumstances, jeopardising the situation of European producers would only be of benefit to the multinationals involved in import and export. I should not like to think that this might be our objective.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sterckx (ELDR).(NL) Mr President, I am keen to follow the line taken by our rapporteur, Mr Maaten, and would like to ask you, fellow-Members, to do the same. Tobacco is no ordinary product of course. We are familiar with the fatal risks associated with tobacco, we know the statistics which have already been quoted here today. We also know about its addictive effect. Typical use of cigarettes is extremely dangerous, life-threateningly so. You can be unlucky and have a car crash, or abuse alcohol, but with tobacco, the life-threatening aspect is always there. I very much welcome the emphasis which Mr Maaten placed on the dangers of passive smoking. A tobacco ban would be inefficient and socially unattainable at present. But it still remains clear that those who market cigarettes should not be allowed to do so. The product is far too dangerous.

What can we do as regulators? First of all, we need to realise that we are in an extremely absurd situation, straddling enormous state revenue on the one hand and enormous expenditure in health insurance on the other. We should be able to admit to this. European policy on tobacco is not very logical, to say the least. We as regulators should at least try to practise damage limitation. We should compel producers to make the warnings to users as clear as possible. It may be bureaucratic, but if you see how producers deal with other requirements, then I have to say that it is necessary to spell out our regulations very clearly.

Later on this week, Parliament will be discussing phthalates and PVC softeners, and when I see how very circumspect we MEPs are, how very careful we are in dealing with these products, if I compare this with the little we are asking with regard to a dangerous product such as tobacco, I have to conclude that this Parliament can be very selective in its indignation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Turmes (Verts/ALE).(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall not go over the health aspects of the directive again, for indeed I support the rapporteur wholeheartedly as well as the amendments tabled by my fellow Member, Mrs Roth-Behrendt.

I should like briefly to mention the matter of the potential unemployment created by this directive. The tobacco industry presents itself as the harbinger of employment in Europe and claims to defend jobs, but what has the management in the tobacco industry actually achieved between the late 1980s and the present? Jobs in the industry have been “rationalised” by 50%. Employment levels in tobacco production, which formerly stood at 120 000 people, now involves no more than 60 000 people.

A World Bank study shows that a reduction in tobacco consumption worldwide will lead to an increase in job creation: for if the money spent today on tobacco is spent in future on some other luxury product, for example, this will create more jobs because the tobacco industry is one that has been rationalised to the bone. It is therefore not true that the directive will cause job losses.

To return to the question of exports to third world countries, is the health of an African worth less than the health of a European? The speeches made by some Members of this House, who I sincerely believe to be inspired by the arguments of the tobacco industry, are reminiscent of the debate on chocolate. As soon as certain industries and certain employers in Europe stand to gain something, the solidarity advocated in our speeches no longer seems to apply. This is one more reason to support Mr Maaten’s report, and also the European Commission’s efforts to extend the directive to exports too.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Meijer (GUE/NGL).(NL) Mr President, for a long time, we have held the belief that to many, tobacco is a harmless stimulant and that its production creates employment for farmers and workers, particularly in economically weak regions. The production and consumption of tobacco increased dramatically in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It was then thought that smoking was normal and that any self-respecting man should light up a cigarette. In my language, which is Dutch, there are two expressions which illustrate how smoking was viewed then. The first one is: ‘het is geen man die niet roken kan’ [he who does not smoke is not a man], whilst the second one reads: ‘een tevreden roker is geen onruststoker’ [a satisfied smoker does not cause any trouble].

Since then, the production and distribution of tobacco has increasingly ended up in the hands of large international chains in whose interest it is to keep successive new generations of consumers dependent on them on a permanent basis. Their growth market lies with young people, women and people with little education, those on low incomes and with few prospects in life. However, there are also many men, especially those who are well-educated, who are trying to kick the habit of smoking, but it is just as difficult as it is to abstain from alcohol or drugs. Tobacco generates big bucks. This is why there are stakeholders who would prefer to continue to keep everything as free as possible within this market. Freedom of production, import and advertising, and freedom to mislead and sponsor events which attract large crowds of people. Tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide make people ill, as a result of which they die prematurely of heart or lung diseases.

Non-smokers run risks too because they are obliged to inhale the smoke of those smoking around them. Accordingly, tobacco is not just about economic interests, rather it is far more of a public health problem. It makes little sense to remind people that it is their individual responsibility whether they smoke or not. This is not about one case in isolation but about the responsibility of all of us together. We cannot leave the market free and subsequently blame the victims of smoking for their bad health. This is not how we treat consumers of heroin or cocaine. It is necessary to ensure that tobacco products are hard to come by and to warn the rest of the users about the risks as best we can. The norm should be that smoking is abnormal and that new generations must be protected from this addiction.

From the public health point of view it is necessary that we no longer take the interests of tobacco producers and sellers into account. The situation would hugely improve if the packets were to display the largest possible warning sign and if advertising and sponsoring were banned altogether. In addition, it should not be possible for people to buy cigarettes at supermarkets, cafés or petrol stations as an afterthought. If you are 100% determined in your mind that you want to buy a tobacco product, you should have to visit an outlet which only sells this product. This could best be achieved in the same way as in the Netherlands, where soft drugs can only be sold in a limited number of outlets which need to have a council permit.

Some opponents of the currently proposed measures blame the rapporteur for making outrageous proposals. To those opponents, I would like to reveal that in the Netherlands, Mr Maaten belongs to the Liberal Party which adopts the most non-interventionist approach to industry’s interests and which has turned the free market principle into its cardinal ideology. If even a representative of such a party proposes to further regulate the market, then this is all the more proof that public health is at serious risk. As representative of the Socialist Party, I would even go further than Mr Maaten or the majority within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. I represent the section of my group which denounces the idea that tobacco production could only fall or disappear altogether once people have kicked the habit of smoking largely or completely. I believe it has to precede it.

We do, however, fully agree with the other opinions in our group that American chains should not be in a position, on account of free imports, to plug the gap which will emerge if European production drops, and that economically weaker regions in Southern Europe should be given support in order to create replacement employment when tobacco production disappears.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Turchi (UEN).(IT) Mr President, the Maaten report on today’s agenda has lead to this interesting debate. However, we must not forget that our business here is politics, which is quite a different matter from merely sitting here listening to technical arguments or pressure from the varies lobbies such as Philip Morris or the large multinationals: we should be thinking about the future of Europe!

In my opinion, the Maaten report, which is certainly technically sound and lays down appropriate parameters, represents a move towards the political will to protect the right to health, a right which must be protected and guaranteed for each and every European citizen. It is, in effect, all part of the realisation throughout the world that smoking is harmful, and we have the figures to prove it. Having established that, we can then discuss any other justifications we may wish to. Smoking is harmful and we must use the Maaten report to regulate tax reductions, labelling and the other initiatives proposed in the report which are certainly, for the time being, important but not decisive measures.

I feel that the main point to be stressed is the need to create a ‘non-smoking’ culture. Last century, smoking was part of the culture. It was important and provided a sense of security. Now, however, we have to turn that culture on its head. Of course, we must also stress the freedom of each one of us, of all citizens, to choose, and in this case I hope that we will choose the freedom not to smoke, freedom which, however, does not hide the harmful results and dangers of smoking itself. On the other hand, I also have to consider the 400 000 workers and the 150 000 or so tobacco growers of the tobacco industry. In this past century, we have succeeded in changing nuclear energy into something different, into clean energy. It would seem absurd not to be able to change or contribute to the transformation of such industries into equally productive industries which will develop economically and socially in the future. It would be completely absurd, especially at the dawn of a new millennium, in an era in which man landed on the moon, if we do not manage to bring about a change in this industry or to provide accurate information regarding the genuine harm caused by smoking.

Well, in my opinion, we have two main tasks: we must endeavour to provide accurate information and give everybody the chance to choose whether to smoke or not, and I hope that they will choose not to – my own family has suffered bereavements through this – and, at the same time, we must bring about a change of culture in the relevant industries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Blokland (EDD).(NL) Mr President, smoking forms a serious threat to public health. In the European Union, more than half a million people die each year as a result of smoking. Due to the addictive effect, it appears very difficult to stop smoking. Unfortunately, it is still the case that many young people take up smoking. Tobacco manufacturers pursue a deliberate policy in this direction by lending cigarette smoking a sporty and macho image in advertising. Once the tobacco industry has won over a young person, the industry is generally guaranteed another regular customer. This policy of reeling in customers is helped by the fact that the addictive effect is enhanced by adding substances to cigarettes so that the nicotine is better absorbed. In addition, with misleading messages such as “light” and “ultra light”, the tobacco industry is trying to create the impression that the relevant tobacco products are less harmful.

The European Commission’s proposal and Mr Maaten’s excellent report adequately address the above-mentioned problems. I do, however, have two further remarks to make.

Firstly, European tobacco policy is not consistent, a point which has already been argued. On the one hand, the use of tobacco is discouraged, but on the other hand more than EUR 1 billion is spent annually on subsidies for the tobacco industry. It is high time that these subsidies were phased out gradually down to zero.

My second comment concerns labelling. I am in favour of strict labelling i.e. 40% or 50% of the packaging for health warnings is a workable compromise. As for the content of the warnings, I think that the text “als u rookt, bent u uzelf aan het doden” [if you smoke, you are killing yourself] has just crossed the boundary of what is reasonable. Warnings should appeal to the smokers’ own perception of the environment and should not be formulated such that their effect is like water off a duck’s back.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Grossetête (PPE-DE).(FR) Mr President, today’s debate reminds me, word for word, of the debate we had at the second reading of the directive on the advertising of tobacco products. The same legal arguments are being used as a scapegoat by the very same Members of Parliament who, under cover of a putative sacrosanct legal coherence, are in fact defending vast financial interests.

I am sorry to see that over the years there has been no development in their arguments. I regret this all the more because now even the cigarette industry itself is tending to acknowledge the fact that this debate should be obsolete. Those who are now hypocritically rehashing yesterday’s legal arguments are taking part in an outmoded rearguard debate. From a legal point of view, the debate of the future is the one dealing with the court cases which we are starting to see in Europe.

How is it possible to weigh the financial interests of a number of industrialists against the devastating effects of tobacco consumption upon health? Every year, tobacco kills more people. And, in comparison with the restrictions we are subject to in the context of mad cow disease, how is it possible that we are doing nothing about the 500 000 smoking-related deaths every year in Europe? How is it possible not to shudder when thinking of our young people, our young women and our young mothers?

On the specific subject of agricultural subsidies in favour of tobacco production, I should like to see the European Union at long last adopting a consistent policy. It is not possible, on the one hand, to offer significant subsidies to tobacco production while, on the other hand, releasing ever inadequate funds to combat smoking and cancer. For years the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has been denouncing these budget decisions. In terms of the common agricultural policy, new plans must be thought up with a view to finding alternative solutions for farmers.

I should like to see this directive apply to all tobacco products, not just cigarettes but also cigars, rolling tobacco and pipe tobacco for, while consumption of such products does not cause the same diseases, tobacco for oral use causes equally terrible devastation.

This directive will not, unfortunately, solve all the problems related to tobacco consumption, but it does at least aim to attempt to inform the consumer.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Medina Ortega (PSE).(ES) Mr President, anyone who follows this debate will see that there is a kind of war going on between those who are trying to protect health and those who defend tobacco. However, as Mrs Grossetête has pointed out, the problem stems from the fact that legal arguments have been given and that, by a small majority, the Committee on Legal Affairs decided that Article 95 was not the appropriate legal basis.

As a Socialist member and spokesperson in the Legal Affairs Committee, I would like to reiterate the objection to this point of view. Article 95 is the article which takes up the former Article 100A of the Treaty, on the basis of which the three previous directives, which are now being remodelled in this new directive, had been adopted. Therefore, to reject that legal basis now is to go against our previous tradition, to cast doubt upon what we had done, which seems to me to be above all very dangerous for the construction of a European legal system.

To speak of subsidiarity in this area, an area strictly relating to the internal market, which specifically involves the health of the citizens, regulated by Article 95, is a way of diverting the battle and, in my view, this is very dangerous because, while the defence of an economic sector seems to me to be important, and worthy of respect, it must not lead this Parliament to change the legal basis or, as is intended for example in another amendment, to suspend any decisions until the decision of the Court of Justice on the directive on tobacco advertising is adopted. This directive which we are discussing today has nothing to do with the directive on tobacco advertising.

Therefore, Mr President, I believe that we must be consistent, maintain our previous attitude in this respect, maintain the legal basis proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the Legal Services of the three institutions and refuse to accept this abuse of the subsidiarity theory which would truly put an end to the existence of the European Union and the competences of this Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Davies (ELDR). – Mr President, as I was coming to Parliament this morning I remembered the night I sat by my father's bedside looking at his wasted body as the lung cancer finally claimed him. I am sure I am not the only person in this Parliament to have lost friends or family through smoking.

The fact is that if the laws on drugs which apply in most countries across the European Union were applied consistently, then tobacco manufacturers would all be locked up behind bars and condemned as murderers for deliberately making their products addictive. Yet when it comes to the greatest killer drug of all, we apply different rules. There is no consistency and we say that people should be allowed to choose for themselves. As a Liberal, I agree with that position: people should be allowed to choose for themselves. However, everything possible must be done to ensure that those decisions are made with full knowledge of the consequences.

The manufacturers say that everyone knows the risks already; that there is no need to increase the size of the health warnings, and that they certainly should not adopt the sort of proposal I am putting forward, to supplement the health warnings with some hard-hitting pictures to drive home the consequences.

Frankly, the manufacturers have an addiction of their own: an addiction to trying to mislead us. If the rules on advertising were changed, manufacturers would grasp the opportunity to promote their products in every possible way, because they believe that advertising works. And we should accept that fact: advertising does work. We should seek to turn the tables on them. We should seek to ensure that the cigarette packs themselves are turned into instruments to promote health, not death. We should follow the Canadian example and ensure that advertising is used effectively. And the bigger the better.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  De Roo (Verts/ALE).(NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by congratulating Mr Jules Maaten on his first-class report. Smoking is a dangerous habit which even harms non-smokers, but at the end of the day, I am liberal enough to say that everyone should decide for themselves whether they smoke cigarettes, use dope, drink alcohol, or whatever. But it is up to the government to point out the harmful effects to addicts and other citizens. The tiny label of 10% which we have at present is not effective then. We need warnings which are much bigger. But 80% of new smokers are young people under the age of 18. The traditional warning that smoking harms your health cuts no ice with them. The warning that smoking causes impotence could possibly work, especially if it is illustrated, as young people take a great interest in sex.

I would like to add one other point. Anyone who has seen the film “The Insider” knows that the cigarette industry adds ammonia and other substances in order to encourage addiction. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has endorsed the green amendment in order to rule this out. Fellow MEPs, I would like to call on you to back Jules Maaten’s excellent report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alyssandrakis (GUE/NGL).(EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one cannot fail to notice the confusion – we hope not deliberate confusion – in the report by the Committee on the Environment, which is turning the campaign against smoking into a campaign against tobacco producers.

We do not dispute the fact that smoking damages your health and we therefore agree with the spirit of the directive proposed by the European Commission. However, we must not forget that very little, in fact just under 30%, of the tobacco consumed in the European Union is produced in the European Union. Most of it is imported. Consequently, measures to reduce tobacco production will do nothing to reduce consumption; they will merely boost imports. We need to take measures against imports and, once consumption has fallen to production levels, we shall have no objection to discussing production cut-backs.

I should like to concentrate on three separate points: first, we are categorically opposed to Amendment No 17 by the Committee on the Environment, which recommends a gradual reduction in production aids for tobacco. This would spell financial disaster for hundreds of thousands of tobacco producers in Greece and other southern countries of the European Union, at no benefit to public health, for the reasons already stated.

Secondly, we are also categorically opposed to Amendment No 21 in the report, which abolishes the European Commission’s proposal to extend the date of application for tar yields by Greece to the end of 2006. This extension was proposed because of the special nature of certain varieties of tobacco cultivated in Greece and abolishing it will hit tobacco production in Greece extremely hard.

Thirdly, we agree with the view that reductions in the amounts of harmful substances should apply both to cigarettes consumed in the European Union and to cigarettes produced for export. It would be absurd to maintain that people from countries outside the European Union have greater resistance to harmful substances.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Collins (UEN). – Mr President, I am satisfied that there is general consensus within the fifteen Member States that legislation governing the sale, presentation and advertising of tobacco products must be fundamentally changed. The protection of the general public health of the citizens of the Union, must be a central priority for all European Union legislators at any time. As a result of the Amsterdam Treaty we now have an equal say with the EU governments in the area of legislation on public health matters. Let us use it intelligently.

The issue of cigarette smoking and the damage which cigarettes do to the health of the citizens of the Union is a very serious public health matter indeed. For the most part I support the key amendments which were passed by the Committee on the Environment last month, in their call for the warnings on cigarette packets to be larger than proposed by the Commission. The warning about the public health risk of cigarette smoking should cover 40% of the front of every packet and 60% of the back of every cigarette packet sold within the Union. Labelling requirements in general should be stricter and include fuller health warnings and the list of ingredients should also be available on request. Descriptions such as low tar, mild and light must in future be banned. I support the elimination of such descriptions because they give the impression that smoking such cigarettes does not damage the health of individuals as badly as other cigarettes: this is clearly misleading. Such slick advertising by tobacco manufacturers must not be permitted.

The Committee on the Environment has also called for warnings to be printed only in black on a white background, so as to give such warnings more impact. The committee members also consider that general warnings such as smoking kills are inadequate and I agree with this analysis. Messages such as "Smoking kills half a million persons each year in the European Union", or "85% of lung cancers are caused by tobacco" should be the messages printed on cigarette boxes in the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bowis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I suspect that in my group as in most others there is a wide range of views, from people who think that smoking is a matter for consenting adults, largely but not necessarily in private, to those who think that sellers of tobacco should suffer capital punishment and that those who smoke should be incarcerated in secure hospitals. But all of us would agree that the primary purpose of this measure is to protect children and to deter them from a habit that may kill them.

The best way is not to worry about maximum levels of content but to worry about minimum levels, so that the first taste for a child is so foul that they do not seek to repeat the experience. Certainly we should support the ban on the use of labels such as mild and light or anything that suggests that the product is safer. The truth is that people inhale more deeply to get the taste and so can actually damage themselves more. Such labels are deceptive and dangerous and should be banned.

Otherwise labelling is of marginal and temporary impact, whatever the picture, whatever the words, and there is some danger of a cigarette card mentality emerging, with the different messages becoming collector's items.

The export issue is probably the most difficult. It is one for balanced judgment: on the one hand, it is odd to say that what is not good for our citizens is okay to export to other countries; but on the other hand, it is presumptuous of us to say what standards other countries should adopt and on balance I come down in favour of the second approach.

Lastly, we have the issue of subsidies for growing tobacco, paid by our taxpayers to people in our Europe. It is immoral and obscene that we allow subsidies for growing something that we know will kill and will cost us billions of euros in health care for smokers. Our governments must stop this and we must stop them supporting it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ford (PSE). – Mr President, this was a highly controversial report within the Industry Committee which only approved its opinion by 29 votes to 26. The division in the Environment Committee was overcome as the major groups managed to agree a compromise.

On behalf of the Socialist Group, we support this compromise. We reject the view that the legal basis of the report is wrong. We support the creation within the EU of a single market in cigarette and tobacco products. At the same time, within the limits of Community law, we would like to use the opportunity of maintaining and strengthening public health protection within the EU. We believe that nicotine and tar levels need to be further limited and new limits should be imposed on carbon monoxide levels. We believe that health warnings should be bolder, clearer and larger. Nevertheless, my concern is that in some areas, our good intentions are in advance of common sense.

If we are to have a single market, surely we should have mutual recognition of the common procedures for testing. It would be absurd to make each Member State test separately. Secondly, I hope that countries outside the EU will follow our lead in cutting limits on nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide. It seems absurd that we insist on exporting jobs from the EU to applicant countries and others to produce cigarettes that will be legal to import for personal consumption within the European Union.

Thirdly, I accept that the latest research indicates that smokers compensate for lower tar levels by smoking light cigarettes differently. Nevertheless, banning such terms as "mild", "light" and "low" threatens to make illegal long-established extra-European brands like "Mild Seven" with all the consequences for the WTO rules and it will merely increase sales of thesauruses to the tobacco industry.

If I were to be mischievous, I would recommend "Organic Green" or "One" as appropriate substitutes. Despite these reservations, I hope the general thrust of the report will receive strong support from Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulsen (ELDR).(SV) Mr President, allow me to adopt a rather Swedish and personal tone. Swedish snuff is most certainly not good for you and is not to be confused with any sort of ‘health food’. It is a very addictive drug, and I most certainly would not want the tobacco industry, by which I here mean Swedish snuff manufacturers, to be given the opportunity to market snuff in the rest of Europe as something healthy. That would be devastating.

In spite of these misgivings of mine, I cannot quite understand our allowing all other forms of tobacco product – cigarettes, cigars and pipes – which are in themselves more dangerous for the individual who uses them. These tobacco products are most certainly and without any doubt harmful to health. The fact that snuff is less dangerous to people who use it is, in actual fact, less important. What gives snuff an advantage is the fact that nicotine addicts can use it without affecting the environment. Passive smoking is probably the most insidious effect of tobacco. We can experience this on a daily basis, both in this Assembly and in this House too. There is smoking going on everywhere, something which sometimes causes acute difficulty in breathing for those who are allergic to smoke, among fellow Members of Parliament too.

One ought not perhaps to refer to one’s own experience in this Assembly, but I myself took up smoking when I was very young. At that time, it was not only cool to smoke, but it was even useful. Rather tubby young ladies, in particular, were extremely well served by cigarettes. Fifteen years ago, my husband contracted a serious lung disease. Then, if not before, I painfully learned the cost in terms of suffering of the smoke produced by myself and all smokers. I now regard myself as a nicotine addict. But I am not bothering anyone else.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Breyer (Verts/ALE).(DE) Mr President, smoking kills! Tobacco is the only product that when used as directed, kills its consumers. Yet we have the absurd situation where additives used in Gummibärs, for example, are better labelled than the additives in tobacco products. It is preposterous that it is unclear, for example, as to whether ammonia, which increases addiction, has to be labelled or not. It is also absolutely grotesque that we are going to carry on allowing advertisers to use such misleading descriptions as light or ultramild. I feel people should be left in no doubt as to the fact that there should be a ban on this.

It is also hypocritical that many people lament the risks smoking poses to health on the one hand – from hardening of the arteries in the leg to cancer – and the associated costs incurred by the national economy, yet they are against the risks being stated in large and clear lettering on the packet. I believe it has become evident – and this is borne out by experiences in Canada – that the larger the health warning on the packet, the greater the deterrent effect. As a Parliament, we have really nailed our colours to the mast where the ban on tobacco advertising is concerned. I make no bones about the fact that I think it is disgraceful how the Red-Green Federal Government followed the former Federal Government’s example in lodging a complaint against this at the European court of Justice. However, I hope we really succeed in nailing our colours to the mast this week, as in the case of the ban on tobacco advertising, and that we do not bow to the pressure of industry but are able to make it clear that everything possible must be done to protect children and young people, in particular, from taking up smoking.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Florenz (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, I welcome the Commission’s initiative because I feel that the old directive on the regulation of tobacco products in Europe is out-of-date. Several years ago, we dealt with the BSE crisis here in Europe and left no stone unturned in terms of health and consumer policy. We brought about a great deal of change, and rightly so. When you consider how much was spent in connection with BSE, it is shocking to note how lacking in courage the European Union is when it comes to actually doing something for health on the tobacco front.

There are four or five key points at issue here, to my mind. We must reflect on the subsidisation of tobacco growing in Europe. We must pluck up the courage to do more to promote transparency where health policy is concerned. We must provide the citizens with more information, which is not a matter of whether the logo should cover 15% or 45% of the surface area of the packet, but of bringing about a change of mentality in society.

I believe it is vital that we do all we can to get the message across to young people that they must not take up smoking. God knows, at my age it probably does not matter if I carry on smoking or not. But our children must not start smoking. That is what this directive should aim to achieve.

It is absolutely scandalous that we are subsidising the tobacco industry. We allocate enormous sums of money for the production of tobacco that we in Europe should not smoke on account of a pathetic set of standards. We are going one step forwards and two steps back. What we must aim to do is to help farmers not to grow tobacco. Supporting non-production, that is the goal. I would like to see less tobacco overall in Europe.

Permit me to say a few words about the legal basis. It is not for me to decide who is right. Nor is it for this House to decide. Let the courts decide. What we need is a directive that makes sound recommendations, so that we can be sure to reduce tobacco consumption in Europe in the future.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Malliori (PSE).(EL) Mr President, the right to health should be enjoyed by all citizens of the European Union, which is why we consider the draft directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products to be extremely important.

It has been proven that certain types of cancer and cardiovascular and lung diseases are directly related to smoking. It is our duty to provide proper and adequate information on what smoking does to your health. It is our duty to promote health through a public awareness, information and behaviour modification programme, especially for the most easily swayed section of the population, i.e. the young.

The Commission proposal is based on Article 95 of the Treaty, taking account of a high level of protection of public health by harmonising the internal market in tobacco products and we agree wholeheartedly with this. We also agree that tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields should be reduced and that the terms ‘light’ and ‘ultra light’ should be abolished because they create the erroneous impression that smokers are at less risk.

We would also like to have a positive list of additives. As far as the form and content of the message are concerned, it is important that it should be clear, comprehensible and brief if it is to be noticed at once, and we therefore consider it imperative to increase the surface area covered.

However, I should like, Mr President, to touch on what I consider to be another important matter. It is idealistic to believe that we will stop smokers smoking if we abolish production aids for tobacco in Europe. Those who have still not been persuaded that smoking damages your health will continue to smoke cigarettes imported from third countries, thereby undermining agricultural production in certain areas of the Union. I think that a fundamental study of the financial and social fallout is needed if we are to avoid hitting tobacco producers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lynne (ELDR). – Mr President, 500 000 EU citizens die each year from smoking – that is 1 400 a day. Even if a small number of people stop, it will have huge health implications, not only for smokers but for passive smokers as well. It is important that we fight delaying tactics today. The EU already regulates health warnings and tar yields. Smokers also have a right to know that there are more than 600 additives licensed for use in tobacco products. They have a right to know that "light" and "mild" branding is misleading. People inhale more if they have a light cigarette than any other cigarette. The health warning should be large and explicit. We must warn of the dangers of smoking, the dangers of lung cancer and also the danger of bronchitis and asthma. People must know that it is not just lung cancer but other lung diseases and other diseases as well. We must warn of the dangers of passive smoking.

I know the dangers of smoking and the dangers of passive smoking. I started smoking when I was 11 years old. I ended up smoking 40 a day. I had chronic bronchitis and I was told by the doctor that I had to give up as otherwise my life would be in danger. My health has been damaged by smoking.

There was no warning when I took up smoking. Maybe I would not have taken it up if there had been. Now I am the victim of passive smoking. I just have to pass a cigarette and I have an asthma attack, especially in this building. I have asthma attack after asthma attack. I am a good example of why we should adopt this report now. Even if one person stops smoking as a result of this, or does not take it up; even if one person is not inconsiderate any more; even if it stops one person being hospitalised because of other people's smoke, it is worth it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Corbey (PSE).(NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, smoking is unhealthy and smokers should be aware of this. Sound and clear warnings about all kinds of diseases and disorders are therefore, in our opinion, a matter of greatest importance. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur on the dynamism and perseverance he has displayed in this connection. The European Union too, should know that smoking is unhealthy. In fact, it should put its money where its mouth is. The Tobacco Directive is a good opportunity to demonstrate that the internal market is not just about the free movement of goods. We have to attach clear health requirements to the goods within the internal market. It is not just the tar and nicotine yields which are at issue here, but also mainly additives. Additives which encourage addiction should be banned at the earliest opportunity, as far as I am concerned.

The other aspect of the Union policy is the issue of tobacco subsidies. It would indicate a lack of consistency if we continued subsidising tobacco products in the knowledge that smoking is unhealthy. If phasing out subsidies has social and financial implications for the tobacco growers in the poorest regions, we are all jointly responsible for finding a solution. Smoking is unhealthy. We are all agreed on this, but should we be sharing this with the entire world? This is one of the most interesting and principle questions in today’s debate. It would be a considerable change in policy if we were to impose European standards on other countries. If this change were extended to other fields, it could mean that European companies would only produce for the European market. This would, as such, lead to a certain degree of regionalisation of the world economy, a regionalisation which, in the case of the tobacco industry, would be at the expense of the position of Europe-based companies. The question is whether we want this. To impose standards on other countries can come across as presumptuous, moralistic or patronising. After all, other countries can set their own standards which industry has to comply with. A sound approach, however, would be to make the European standard compulsory in the case of export to countries where such standards are lacking. In this way, we would at least avoid other countries, especially Third-World countries, being lumbered with second-rate cigarettes.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Beysen (ELDR).(NL) Mr President, although I value the work of rapporteur Maaten, I have to say that I am greatly disturbed by the European Parliament’s inconsistent line with regard to tobacco.

The report once again reflects the ambivalence of the European Union – as has been highlighted in this debate – which subsidises the tobacco cultivation by more than EUR one billion and collects more than EUR 70 billion in tax money annually on the one hand and which curbs the sale of tobacco products on the other. I would also like to emphasise that it is not up to the European Parliament to deny tobacco products, which are legally available on the market, a fair chance of commercialisation.

What strikes me in the debate is that we seem to overlook the objective of this directive. It aims to reinforce the internal market by promoting better harmonisation and by removing barriers to trade. In this respect, I notice an imbalance in the present report, an imbalance between the need for harmonisation and the aim of protecting the consumer.

I take exception to the fact that the consumer is considered as someone who cannot judge for himself what he should or should not do. The proposed warnings on the packet completely miss the point. Whatever the dimensions, the information will remain ineffective. Information on the dangers of smoking will need to be conveyed in a more effective way if we want to achieve the objective. Above all, we should not forget that it is – and should remain – up to the citizens to decide for themselves how they wish to conduct their lives and they should be able to continue to do so.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE).(ES) Mr President, I believe that the objective of achieving greater protection for the consumer in relation to tobacco consumption is absolutely shared by all of us. To this end, it also seems to me to be fair and beyond all doubt that the tobacco industry will have to adapt to stricter conditions of manufacture, presentation and sale, such as those proposed by this directive. In this respect, I congratulate Mr Maaten on his work.

Nevertheless, we cannot put the cart before the horse if we want this work to succeed. The reality is that Europe produces and exports tobacco and, furthermore, its cultivation is subject to significant subsidies. As has been pointed out, this does not just involve the interests of the large multinationals. It involves the legitimate and fair way of life of hundreds of modest families. If we wish to prohibit these subsidies, let us prohibit them, but not without truly seeking alternatives which are proven to be viable.

With regard to exports, it seems logical that the European Union should apply the same levels of content for cigarettes for consumption within the internal market as for those intended for exports. In this respect, a proposal of time limits may seem logical. However, we cannot deny or forget the authority of each state to manage the risks within its own society. If we believe that we can and must teach someone something, we must do so firstly – and this has been said here – through education and increasing awareness and not through an imposition which has dubious results as an instrument for reducing the consumption of tobacco.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lund (PSE).(DA) Mr President, I should like to begin by thanking Commissioner Byrne, something which has not been done today, for I do in fact think that it is a good proposal that the Commission has come up with, a proposal which I should really like to have voted for without changes. It is a good contribution to reducing the poison content of cigarettes and to providing far better information about the damaging effects on health of cigarette smoking. I find it sad that there are MEPs who are trying to weaken the Commission’s proposal. I am thinking, for instance, of the discussion about the legal base. In my opinion, this is a ridiculous discussion. The legal services have agreed that the legal base is in order, and I must say, as a lawyer, that I am rather embarrassed about the fact that the majority of members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market are so unqualified and frivolous and completely confuse the law with their own political wishes. On the question of when the proposed legislation is to come into effect, I would say that I do not think that there is any argument, either technological or industrial, in favour of postponing the date when the lower limit values are to come into force. I should like us to decide on the end of 2003 as the time when the legislation is to come into effect but, as a compromise, we could agree to the end of 2004, if necessary. In my opinion, what is at issue here is an unnecessary impairment of public health. Turning finally to the question of exports outside the EU, I wish to say that, in my view, it would be immoral if we were to allow the export of cigarettes which, on health grounds, we prohibit our own citizens from smoking. Under those conditions, I simply do not think that we can allow ourselves to export more cigarettes which are a danger to health. I could live with a compromise in the form of the year 2006, but I could not compromise any further on this point. I hope that, in the voting tomorrow too, we shall arrive at a result here in Parliament which does not significantly weaken the Commission’s proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Stihler (PSE). – Mr President, tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of ill health and premature death throughout most of the world. In Scotland, which I represent, one in five people will die of smoking-related diseases. We have an opportunity of doing something about that this week. We must pass this report into law and thus save lives.

The reality that smoking kills is not getting across at the moment. We need a bigger, bolder and clearer health message to make smokers more aware. If the size of the health warning directly reflected the risk to health, the label would cover the whole cigarette packet.

Half of all long-term smokers will eventually be killed by tobacco and of these half will die during middle age, losing 20 to 25 years of their lives. This directive will save lives because it is going to alter the content of cigarettes by reducing tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields and do away with misleading descriptions, such as "light" and mild". Consumers, especially young women, are being sold the idea that so-called "light" or "mild" cigarettes are better for them, as if they were the tobacco equivalent of low-fat yoghurt. However, low-fat yoghurt does not rot your teeth, blacken your lungs or put you on a ventilator. Yet smokers of mild cigarettes smoke more deeply to get the same nicotine hit as smokers of other products and receive the same level of damage.

I want to make health warnings bigger, better and bolder: 40% on the front, 50% on the back. Health Canada recently carried out research on the effects of increasing the size of the area occupied by health warnings on cigarette packets. The result proved that larger warning messages better encouraged smokers to stop. Adoption of the directive would open the possibility for the improvement of health for millions. We have the opportunity and responsibility to act positively on this today.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE).(ES) Mr President, we are talking about a directive which attempts to harmonise marketing, manufacture, the different ingredients of tobacco (nicotine and tar content etc.), as well as their presentation to potential consumers. I believe that nobody can rationally oppose this.

This harmonisation directive is necessary, and it is necessary that we carry out this harmonisation in all respects, without leaving significant gaps, with regard to the possible use or non-use of certain terms, such as “light” or “ultra-light”, to the discretion of the Member States.

If we are going to harmonise, let us harmonise and not be fainthearted about it, within the technological possibilities which may be available to us. However, to ask in passing for the removal of aid to tobacco growers is to hijack a different debate: that attitude is, ‘while we are on the subject of tobacco, let us ask for the removal of aid to the growers’.

I believe that it is truly hypocritical to ask, within this harmonisation directive, for the removal of aid to tobacco growers. Why not simply talk about the processing of tobacco? Why not talk about the multinationals established in some Member States who tear their hair out when we discuss the production and consumption of tobacco? Why not talk about this processing?

There is no way that I can accept this request for the removal of aid to tobacco. When the proposed amendment of the COM in tobacco is presented to us, then we will either discuss it or not and we will reach an appropriate agreement. However, this harmonisation directive should be restricted to harmonising.

Commissioner, you have the responsibility for harmonising, and harmonising in the real sense, and to this end I believe you have the support of the majority of this House.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roth-Behrendt (PSE).(DE) Mr President, it is very difficult to find new things to say at the end of this kind of debate. Allow me therefore to say something slightly provocative, which I relish doing: when I listen attentively and hear confirmed what I have known to be the case for thirty years, i.e. that smoking is dangerous – we all know that is the case and have done for thirty years – then I ask myself why we do not actually ban the production of cigarettes. It would be very much the logical thing to do and perhaps the Commission could give some thought to the matter. But I would not wish to overdo being provocative and will become a little more serious. I have this to say to the Commission: if we are serious, not just about creating transparency and informing people, but above all, about trying to make a harmful product as tolerable as possible – assuming we can – then surely one of the first things we need to do is to clarify the issue of additives.

I ask myself, and would like to know from the Commission, why there is still no harmonisation, no approximation of permitted additives? Why does the European Union not have a list of permitted additives, or a regulation specifying permitted amounts? What is stopping us from drawing up a positive list and labelling accordingly? We should put our money where our mouth is. That is not what is happening here. There is another point I would like to add: why are we not being consistent in our approach and harmonising taxation, if we are convinced that cigarettes are harmful? Why are you doing nothing in this respect? I, for one, would support you if you did. Why are we not going to harmonise taxation, preferably at a high level? I urge all the honourable members who have spoken today to support this. Harmonisation of taxation at a high level within the European Union. If we know that smoking is dangerous then we cannot have a situation where tobacco is being used and consumed in one Member State at a high rate of taxation, and at a very low rate in another Member State. Do something about this please, Mr Byrne, and put your money where your mouth is in this respect as well.

In my next point I would like to raise the issue of subsidies. Even if this point does not belong here, I know that we must raise it nonetheless, Mr Byrne. If you are serious about protecting people’s health, then when it comes to the budget, I would like to see you fight to have subsidies spent on something other than tobacco cultivation!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE). – Mr President, may I start by declaring an interest in this debate: I am a passionate non-smoker and I wish to share my passion with other Members of the House. But I am also passionate about something else, that is, deregulation in the field of employment and the opportunity for Member States to become increasingly competitive in the global market place. The idea that we should ban not only the marketing of certain types of cigarette and tobacco products, but also their manufacture, in other words, that we ban the possibility to export, is wrong in principle and absurd in practice, given that those markets exist and flourish elsewhere.

I should like to quote two brief articles from today's Financial Times for those who have not seen them. One is in the letters page and is headed "Tobacco proposal would be a slap in the face for workers". One paragraph says that if exports are banned, it will deeply affect our competitiveness in world export markets and may cost hundreds of jobs in Germany alone, maybe even cause the regional closure of plants. That is a comment from one of the leading trade unions in Germany. On the facing page is an article written jointly by the prime ministers of the UK and Spain, not about the tobacco directive but about market liberalisation, which says: "It is so important to avoid the sort of heavy-handed regulation that could drive investment and jobs out of Europe".

That, Mr President, is what we are in danger of doing – we are not just stopping exports of cigarettes we are actually promoting the export of jobs. We have an opportunity today to send two signals – first, that we care very much about health, but also that we care very much about jobs, employment and deregulation.

The final point I would make is a little plea to the Commissioner. We have had this conversation before, but when we vote today on the labels, can we please have a larger-scale version as posters and spread them throughout the institutions so that we are not just talking to others but also addressing ourselves. If his support cannot be strong, it can at least be mild!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Müller, Emilia Franziska (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as a Bavarian delegate I would like to highlight a point in this draft directive which has a crucial bearing on my homeland Bavaria. It is undoubtedly right to make people aware of how damaging cigarettes are to health. The citizens of the EU are entitled to a high level of health protection, as enshrined in the Article on the internal market in the Treaty. However, the present draft fails to differentiate between cigarettes and other tobacco products such as pipe and fine cut tobacco, cigars, cigarillos, mouth and chewing tobacco, as well as the traditional European snuff.

In this connection, I would like to refer to the market shares of the various tobacco products. Cigarettes have a share of approximately 91%. Pipe tobacco, cigars and snuff account for 9%. These products are manufactured by small and medium-sized enterprises. Many types of tobacco reflect the cultural characteristics of the region where they are produced. For example, snuff is a crucial component of the Bavarian culture and way of life. For over 400 years, taking snuff has been the healthiest and most environmentally friendly way to enjoy tobacco. This is precisely what led to the Commission stating, in its explanatory statement in the draft directive, that scientists are no longer insisting on a strict health warning in the case of tobacco products not intended for smoking, snuff for example. Therefore, in comparison with all other tobacco products, snuff is the least harmful to health. This has been scientifically proven beyond doubt. That being the case, it is both unnecessary and factually wrong to apply a health warning, as provided for in current Amendments Nos 48 and 120. For this reason, I would urge you to vote against Amendments Nos 48 and 120 and to accept the original text of the Commission’s proposal as it is.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Procacci (ELDR).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to express my heartfelt thanks to Mr Maaten for his report, particularly for the way it focuses on the protection of public health but also for the way it deals with the issues affecting tobacco growers and producers.

At last, we have an institutional, comprehensive text on tobacco products which will ensure that, in the future, we work together with the other institutions towards regulating tobacco products at world-wide level. Until such legislation to regulate tobacco products is introduced, we will have to ensure that we keep a balance in responding to the challenge facing us, for, on the one hand, we must provide for improved consumer information and more intense awareness-raising to dissuade consumers from smoking tobacco, and, on the other, we have to safeguard the rights of producers and growers.

We cannot, therefore, include the idea of eliminating production subsidies even as an aim in the recitals. In fact, this approach does not take into consideration the fact that the problem cannot be resolved by terminating our own production, for that would just prompt the citizens to use tobacco produced outside the Union. Rather, we need to raise awareness and adopt global directives, directives with world-wide scope. It is only in this context that there would be any point in providing incentives to our tobacco growers to change the type of crop they grow.

Moreover, we cannot disregard the concerns which weaken the solution adopted in the area of production for export. The directive governing the matter, which is the product of a partly successful compromise, has a clear, acceptable moral basis. Indeed, it is immoral to produce for consumption by others that which we retain to be too harmful for our own consumption, but one wonders: will the health of tobacco consumers from outside the Union genuinely benefit from this decision, or will they just smoke non-European tobacco?

Do we not therefore risk penalising our industry, which would have to convert entire sections of production for export, without achieving an appreciable result in terms of health? In conclusion, the moral principle is acceptable but the solution is unsatisfactory.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products: this is where the Commission wants to combine the three existing internal market directives. The simplification of regulations as such, is only to be welcomed, yet the debate about tobacco has certainly taken on a very biased tone in many quarters. There is no doubt about it: our citizens must be protected against the damaging effects of tobacco consumption and given the appropriate warnings. I say that as a confirmed – but hopefully very tolerant – non-smoker and am wholeheartedly in support of this.

However, the debate about labelling is completely over the top to my mind. Every smoker is aware of the risks tobacco consumption poses to health. If people do not have the willpower themselves to give up cigarettes then as I see it, a statement covering a large area of the packet is not going to deter them from smoking either. Overdoing the statements will do neither the consumer nor the industry any favours.

The death’s head on the packet has no real bearing on whether or not someone decides to take up smoking. We need to hit the consumer where it hurts the most, which is the wallet in my view. Temptation is best tackled with a lack of money. If we do not want to drive the industry to take up the habit as well, then we must support an extension of the deadline for reducing the tar and nicotine content of tobacco products until December 2006.

The limit values proposed by the Commission for the year 2003 are not workable in our view. The tobacco industry in Europe constitutes a highly significant economic factor. I am therefore against putting companies at a disadvantage competitively, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. The Commission talks about harmonisation of internal market regulations, yet these small enterprises will be the ones to suffer the most from the stranglehold of special conditions and measuring procedures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Daul (PPE-DE).(FR) Mr President, I shall not repeat what our fellow Members have already said, but I believe that all Members of Parliament would agree that overall, culturally appropriate solutions must be found for consumer health. We have a duty to take action. The problems will not, however, be solved by adopting puritanical positions and eliminating aid to producers.

Ladies and gentlemen, the consumer and his health must be protected, but this must be achieved logically, by implementing coordinated policies rather than by eliminating the premium for producers. Reducing consumption will cause a decrease in production. Health problems will not be solved tomorrow by importing 100% of our tobacco. On behalf of tobacco producers I would urge the European Parliament, a responsible body, that an overall alternative be proposed to protect consumer health.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am concerned about the health of my daughter, Elisabetta, who has been elected a regional councillor in Lombardy in Italy where I was a councillor for five years. Unlike in the European Parliament, all the councillors smoked like chimneys during committee meetings. I was very happy when I arrived at the European Parliament and found that here, hardly anybody, or rather nobody at all smokes in committee meetings. This is just to emphasise the fact that passive smoking is harmful for everyone, even Members of the European Parliament.

I totally agree with Mr Martinez who spoke earlier. There is no point in us writing ‘Smoking kills’ on cigarette packets if all the young people then sit down in front of the television at 3 o’clock on a Sunday afternoon and watch Hakkinen or Schumacher, who drive like maniacs on the race track, are idolised, especially by young people, and whose clothes, helmets and cars are covered in advertising for different brands of cigarettes.

I support anyone who protects health. I am in favour of this report but I do not agree with its hypocrisy. We must be more courageous!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Klaß (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have had heated discussions about this directive in the committees. The question remains as to whether this proposal should be viewed as a health policy initiative. For the fact is that it will mean a massive tightening up of provisions, not based on internal market criteria. Obstacles to trade will not be dismantled, which is what the main aim of the legal act should be, rather they will actually be preordained for when the directive comes into force. The directive would weaken the position of EU manufacturers on third country markets. That would lead to manufacturers pulling out of the European Union. We must make a clear assessment of the consequences. We cannot afford to lose jobs and tax revenue. The small and medium-sized companies acting as suppliers would also experience considerable difficulties.

However, I would also like to raise the issue of tobacco cultivation in the EU. The subsidies for this are part of structural aid. They should be cancelled without offering the farmers an alternative. Even now, 80% of the tobacco requirement is imported. Therefore, if we are talking about scrapping subsidies then we are going to have to think in global terms, otherwise our tobacco farmers in the EU will be the only ones to suffer. Jobs will be lost and cultural landscapes will decline. Yet this will not mean a decrease in smoking. We must strive for international regulations here.

The consumers are not innocents abroad. They are aware of the risks of smoking. Even reducing the maximum tar content will not give us healthy cigarettes. Putting health warnings resembling obituary notices on the packet instead of factual information – which I am emphatically in favour of – is intended to have an impact on people’s emotions. Consumers will have no truck with that, for that is not far short of discriminatory authoritarian control.

Public health is an issue of major concern to us all. That is why we need unambiguous and reasonable conditions and laws that tie in with the objectives of the health authorities and create stable framework conditions at the same time. When I think of the science fiction film ‘The Year 2036’ that was shown on Sunday evening – cigarettes are prohibited, as are meat, chocolate, sweets and wine of course – I ask myself if this is the shape of things to come.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, the European Union spends EUR 1 billion each year subsidising tobacco production – EUR 1 billion. That kills over 500,000 EU citizens – half a million of our citizens. It would be cheaper to go out and shoot them. It would save money on health services. How many billion euros are spent on health services trying to save the lives of people who try to kill themselves with cigarettes?

As you have gathered, I am an intolerant non-smoker. I do care, and I am extremely concerned about the increasing number of people, particularly young girls, who are starting to smoke. We can write off those of my age and older who have been at it virtually all their lives but young people are missing the message. Surely, it is not beyond the best brains of the political world, the medical and scientific world and the marketing world to get the message right so that our young people do not start to smoke. That is my plea. Can we not get the marketing message to them?

We would have to protect the tobacco farmers. There would have to be alternatives, but surely it can be done. It is immoral to spend EU taxpayers' money on subsidising a product that kills half a million of our people. We must find alternatives.

In my country, and I suspect in all the other 14 Member States, you can have drink rehabilitation paid for by the public health medical system, you can have hard drug rehabilitation paid for by the public health medical system, but anyone trying to come off cigarettes gets no help from state public health services. We must correct that anomaly. In my country nicotine replacement therapy is only available by medical prescription. Madness! It should be available next to where all cigarettes and tobacco products are sold. You can opt to buy replacement therapy rather than overdose on cigarettes. What is the difference?

The general medical services systems, which in Ireland is our public health care system, should fund those who want to come off cigarettes and provide nicotine replacement therapy prescriptions free. The state should fund it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Maaten, for his valuable work. After all the secretive work carried out by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the compromise reached in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is a very good one. Plenary should adopt the report in the form presented in that Committee.

The fact is that tobacco kills. Anyone who claims otherwise is either completely ignorant or, for one reason or another, a puppet of the tobacco industry. Everyone knows that we cannot change the centuries old tobacco culture merely through legislation. Our most important task is to ensure that consumers receive objective information on the dangers of smoking. It is foolish to claim that the miserably small warnings on cigarette packets are enough to inform consumers of just what sort of product they are actually using. The tobacco companies use clever image marketing on their cigarette packaging, targeted precisely at different consumer groups – generally the young. We have to fight the tobacco companies using their own weapons. About half of the surface area of a cigarette packet should be reserved for health information, to weaken the supremacy of the tobacco companies.

For many, smoking is not a question of choice or pleasure. Tobacco gets you in its grip, just like any other drug, on account of the fact that it contains nicotine. It is tremendously important that the maximum quantities of the poisons contained in tobacco – not only nicotine, but tar and carbon monoxide as well – become harmonised at the lowest possible level. This will also be important in the prevention of harm caused by passive smoking. In future, greater consideration should also be given in EU legislation to the rights of non-smokers, who suffer from the effects of tobacco smoke.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Liese (PPE-DE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when you are one of the last to speak in such a debate you may appear to be at a disadvantage. However, I actually see it as a definite advantage, because, firstly, I am in a position to take up some of the comments made by previous speakers, and secondly, the Commissioner has no chance whatsoever of ignoring the questions I put to him, because he cannot forget them that quickly. It is not possible to cover all the issues in a long debate but I would like to put several specific questions to the Commissioner and would appreciate some specific answers.

I believe the Commission has come up with a proposal containing many sound ideas. The document affords many excellent initiatives but there is definitely plenty of room for improvement. One aspect which the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has improved on is that of the compulsory health warning in connection with passive smoking. It is just as important to work far harder to get the message across to consumers – indeed it should be made compulsory – that when they smoke, it is not just themselves they are harming but also their fellow human beings. It has been scientifically proven that the risk of cot death increases five-fold when the parents smoke twenty cigarettes per day, not just during pregnancy but also during the child's first year of life. The environmental authorities in the United States calculated that every year, 5 000 people die of cancer caused by passive smoking. In other words, the number of deaths due to passive smoking is far higher than the number of fatalities that can be traced back to environmental pollutants, which is something we discuss on a very regular basis in Parliament.

The second point that I think needs to be improved on is the so-called hotline. It certainly is not possible to include all the necessary information on cigarette packets, but consumers should be given the opportunity to obtain more information from a source independent of industry. I would be very interested to hear what the Commission thinks to this idea. Firstly, does it agree with the content of this proposal? Secondly, how might the proposal be reformulated in legal terms with a view to making it fit for adoption?

The third point is surely the most controversial, and is the one that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has made drastic changes to in my view, i.e. the point relating to tobacco subsidies. I know it is a difficult issue. Nevertheless, I have tabled the proposed amendment, which the committee adopted, in this form. At the same time though, I also gave some serious thought to what would become of the farmers that currently make a living from growing tobacco. As Mrs Klaß rightly said, this is structural aid. But surely structural aid does not necessarily have to go towards tobacco cultivation?

Commissioner Flynn – I am actually addressing you as Commissioner Flynn because your predecessor had major difficulties on this very subject! Commissioner Byrne, you are Commissioner Flynn’s successor and I hope you prove to be more successful – perhaps you will raise this argument in discussion with Mr Fischler. If our strategy for stopping people from smoking tobacco is successful then it will be even more of an uphill struggle for the tobacco farmers to eke out an existence growing tobacco. That is why we need alternatives and why we should not cut subsidies but restructure them for the same recipients.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Trakatellis (PPE-DE).(EL) Mr President, allow me to start by saying that I agree with many of the proposals and amendments because, as we all know, smoking is a scourge, it is a threat, it causes thousands of deaths and we have no choice but to take steps to help the anti-smoking campaign. However, this does not mean that we should want to use the powers granted to us by this act to intervene where it would, I think, be highly unfortunate to do so.

To start with, I shall not endorse the attempt by certain members to use this act to stop production aids for tobacco because, as you know, first of all, the European Union has a deficit and imports tobacco from abroad and, consequently, the only outcome would be to penalise poor Greek farmers and benefit producers of imported tobacco. This is not the way to solve the problem of smoking. On the contrary, we need to engage in an anti-smoking campaign. Consequently, I shall not vote in favour of this proposal. On the contrary, I should like to see a logical programme which will really help tobacco producers to gradually restructure their crops and they cannot do so overnight. We must not create unemployment and underemployment in poor regions of the European Union.

The second point with which I disagree is this: it is wrong and it is inconsistent and incoherent on the part of the European Union to use this directive to repeal previous directives and timetables granted to the Greek tobacco industry and used as the basis for its business plans. Now we want to repeal them. It is wrong; we need to be consistent and coherent.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Byrne, Commission. – I am very pleased to note the continued wide support in Parliament for this legislative initiative which builds on three existing directives dating from the late 1980s. The Valverde Lopez report which Parliament adopted in 1997 called on the Commission to bring forward this proposal as a matter of urgency – a call which has been repeated by the Health Council.

The proposal consolidates the existing internal market rules on product regulation, including tar content of cigarettes and the use of health warning labels. It proposes reducing the level of tar in cigarettes, their main carcinogenic component. It also proposes increasing substantially the size of the health warnings and bringing them up-to-date in line with scientific advice. It introduces harmonising rules for nicotine, the addictive agent in cigarettes, and for carbon monoxide, the agent associated with cardiovascular disease.

It also limits the use of misleading descriptions which could lead people to assume that light cigarettes are safer, while the opposite seems to be the case.

I am aware that some in Parliament would prefer to ban such descriptions immediately. However, I do not consider that this is appropriate. Instead, in future, these terms would have to be subject to Member States authorisation and the Commission could act to rectify any internal market distortions.

The proposal imposes an obligation to declare additives in tobacco products which results in making the products easier to smoke or perhaps reinforce the impact of the nicotine by increasing addiction.

The Commission has decided in this proposal, as was the case with the existing directives from 1989, 1990 and 1992, that the correct legal basis for action is Article 95 of the Treaty. This is clearly so because the differences in national rules between the Member States on a product so widely traded as tobacco can lead to very real problems in the internal market and public health protection is potentially put at risk.

Even if the national rules were fully applied this would lead to unequal treatment of economic operators as the content of present national laws is very different. By adopting Community-level rules, as has been done since the late 1980s, we ensure that certain basic standards are set and respected for all European citizens.

I should now like to refer to the report presented on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. The amendments proposed in this report are of a very high quality. I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Maaten, for the contribution he has made in preparing these amendments in such a positive and constructive manner. I should now like to set out the Commission's position on the amendments proposed.

A total of 48 amendments have been proposed in this report. Of these, I am pleased to inform you, the Commission can accept 38, either totally or partially. It cannot, however, accept Amendments Nos 9, 17, 20, 21, 34, 36, 37, 40, 42 or 46.

The accepted amendments include the proposal to increase the size of labels. However, we need to be very careful not to stray from consumer information to the area of consumer harassment which would be counterproductive.

Banning certain additives is premature until further information on their use and effects is available. The industry has not in fact provided the relevant information to Member States and it is my belief that the establishment of a law to enable Member States to request the tobacco industry and individual companies to provide this information is the first necessary step. This would lead to the situation which people have called for this morning with a positive list being established, but first we must get the accurate information to enable us to do so.

In this connection the cooperation of the tobacco industry will be essential. We need to bring their experience and knowledge of the tobacco products sector into the process of regulation and revision.

Dealing with the common agricultural policy is also inappropriate in an internal market text, as is mentioning warnings on vending machines which are not covered in this proposal. All in all, therefore, the majority of the amendments which the Commission has accepted will make this a much improved text, whilst several of those rejected can also be taken into account outside this text but within the framework of other initiatives.

I should now like to turn to the other 71 amendments submitted last Thursday. Of these the Commission can accept a further 34 – either totally or in part. However, the Commission considers that Amendment Nos 49 and 50, 52, 54, 56, 59 to 61, 64, 65, 68 to 73, 77, 79, 80, 82 to 85, 89, 93, 94, 96, 99, 101, 104 to 106, 110 to 112, 114 and 117 are not compatible with the proposal's scope, intention and legal basis and should not be accepted.

In particular, I would mention that this proposal is a recasting of three existing internal market directives. Amendments undermining that legal basis, which has been considered valid for over ten years, would not be considered constructive and would ignore the advice of the legal services of all three of the legislative institutions of the European Union, namely the Commission, the Council and indeed the European Parliament itself.

Similarly, amendments which would seek to totally exclude exports from the scope of the directive are not considered acceptable since we need to cover all products manufactured in the Union in order to ensure that products finally consumed here respect the rules. However, a transition period for exports can be justified in order to allow firms to change brand formulae as appropriate and to modify their marketing strategies.

This extension must also be viewed in conjunction with the upcoming WHO negotiations of a Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This convention aims to put in place worldwide tobacco product standards. If we succeed in this respect, there will be no need to distinguish between tobacco products for domestic consumption and those for export.

On the issue of additives, the Commission will report under Article 10 of the Proposal concerning the use of additives in tobacco products, a subject of great concern to consumers. Unfortunately, it is not possible to introduce immediate harmonisation of additives as some in Parliament would like.

In order to ensure a full and detailed report, the proposal envisages a declaration of these additives by the manufacturers and importers. This is a necessary first step before we can go any further. It would be premature at this stage to introduce bans on particular substances. I would hope that a constructive dialogue can be built with industry experts in order to develop Community legislation in full knowledge of technical data.

The Commission recognises the complex issues covered in this proposed directive; particularly, the need to ensure that in drawing up the reports provided for in Article 10 and any accompanying proposals, full scientific, technical and other data are taken into account. In order to provide advice on a long-term basis, the Commission intends to create a Multidisciplinary Tobacco Group, the first meeting of which will take place before the end of this year.

Finally, the Commission does not consider that cigars and pipe tobacco should be treated as if they were made of something other than tobacco. Consumers of all tobacco products, regardless of their age or social class, must be informed on an appropriate basis.

I would like to thank Members for their positive contributions and the rapporteur, Mr Maaten, for his excellent work and note that this is yet another example of our two institutions working closely together to good effect.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy