President. – The next item is the report (A6-0412/2005) by Mr Toubon, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, and amending Council Directive 76/211/EEC (COM(2004)0708 – C6 0160/2004 – 2004/0248(COD)).
Günther Verheugen, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, the proposed directive on pre-packaging seems to be a very technical dossier. However, in reality, it is part of the major policy initiative strongly supported by our institutions on better regulation and simplification.
There is Community legislation on pre-packaging, but the current legal situation is neither satisfactory nor clear. In the European Union, we have a stable legal framework for wine and spirits, where, throughout the Community, products are sold in agreed quantities. For around 70 other products, current legislation has introduced voluntary harmonisation to which Member States have adopted different approaches. Member States such as Belgium or the Netherlands have deregulated package sizes altogether. In other countries, for instance Sweden, Community legislation on package sizes has been made optional for manufacturers. Other Member States have made regulation mandatory but only for home producers. Some national rules are entirely based on the existing optional Community directives, but in other countries, such as Germany, national rules are different from Community provisions. From a legal point of view, the situation is therefore quite confusing, to put it mildly.
At the same time, products freely move from one country to another and consumers find a wealth of products on the market. Until now, no consumer has ever complained that there was an excess of choice. The proposal of the Commission intends to simplify the legal situation whilst leaving the benefit of free choice to consumers. The Commission is proposing a single legal framework to be implemented throughout the Union by all Member States. In substance, the Commission proposes to leave the free choice that consumers currently enjoy and to regulate package sizes only for a very limited number of sectors, in particular wines and spirits.
The Commission notes that the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection endorses this approach in principle. However, we have different views on the number of sectors that should become subject to the Community regulation fixing nominal quantities.
As far as the Commission is concerned, and based on a wide consultation of consumers in all Member States and European Trade Federations, only the wine and spirits sectors should be regulated. However, on the basis of a prior commitment to Parliament, the Commission has also included in its proposal the regulation for soluble coffee and white sugar.
Whilst supporting the overall approach, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection suggests that additional sectors should become subject to regulation, including drinking milk, butter, roasted coffee, dried pasta, rice and brown sugar. The Commission questions the justification for regulation in these sectors. European industry, with the exception of the coffee sector, is not in favour and consumers have not requested regulation that limits their choice. The proposed amendment would imply that a number of products that are placed on the market today would disappear. Furthermore, it would also mean that Member States that never had regulation or had abolished it would have to re-introduce regulation on package sizes. This is contrary to the political aims of better regulation and simplification and does not protect consumers. The Commission appreciates that the Parliament has carried out an impact assessment of these amendments. This initiative reflects the Commission’s common concern for better regulation and simplification.
To conclude, in the Commission’s opinion, consumer protection today should not be based on limiting consumer choice, but should concentrate on providing correct information to consumers and on the prohibition of misleading practices, allowing consumers to make a well-informed and deliberate choice.
It is fair to say that the Commission, as well as the European Court of Justice, takes as the benchmark the average consumer, reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. Vulnerable consumers do not become less vulnerable with rules on nominal quantities, but by better implemented existing Community law on consumer protection, such as labelling and the prohibition of deceptive packaging. The Commission is working with national authorities towards the better implementation of these Community rules in order to effectively improve the protection of vulnerable consumers.
Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report I am presenting on behalf on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has substantially changed the Commission proposal. It was adopted by 28 votes in favour, with one abstention.
I propose accepting the deregulation of sizes, which is the Commission’s chosen solution in taking account of the case-law in the Cidrerie Ruwet case. The Commission also proposes retaining mandatory ranges in some specific sectors: wines, spirits, soluble coffee and white sugar. The Commission calls for this derogation to be restricted to a period of 20 years.
The members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection immediately questioned the relevance of the proposal and the quality of the impact study on which it is based. I was therefore led to propose that other basic products be subject to mandatory ranges. They are coffee, butter, rice, pasta and drinking milk. The ranges I propose are quite extensive in terms of intervals, not to mention the fact that, below the smallest size and above the largest, there are no restrictions whatsoever. I also propose that it be possible to review the arrangement in eight years’ time, and not in 20 years’ time as the Commission proposes.
Why is the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection presenting you with this proposal? Firstly, to protect the consumers, particularly those most vulnerable, such as the elderly and the partially sighted, who have far from fully understood the unit pricing laid down in 1998. Next, to take account of the independent impact study commissioned by our committee and confirming that deregulation would carry risks for the consumer and that it would not lead to greater competition between producers and distributors. Finally, because better lawmaking does not mean no lawmaking at all. As Lacordaire said in the 1830s: between the strong and the weak, it is liberty that oppresses and the law that sets free. You will see that this apparently insignificant and technical text enables us to ask important questions.
To conclude, I will highlight three factors: an impact study that is funded by Parliament itself and that depends neither on the Commission nor on pressure groups, which is a first; a concept of ‘better lawmaking’ inspired only by the interests of our fellow citizens and not by an ideological attitude; and a concern to retain our national cultures, because our nations are very attached to their food traditions and to their consumption patterns.
John Purvis (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Mr President, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy applauds the Commission’s initiative to deregulate and liberalise package sizes. My committee considers that a free market works in the best interests of the consumer. We were persuaded to accept the Commission’s proposal to make exceptions for alcoholic beverages, soluble coffee, white sugar – we added brown sugar for consistency – and for aerosols. In the interests of consistency, we also proposed a regulated size for spirits bottles of 750 cl, which was the widely accepted size of wine bottles. It verges on the misleading to have 750 cl the standard bottle for wine and 700 cl the standard bottle for spirits. Therefore, we regret that this proposal was rejected by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
We appreciate that the Committee on the Internal Market and its very conscientious rapporteur, my good friend Mr Toubon, have considered these matters very thoroughly. However, we in the Committee on Industry are disappointed to see proposals from that committee to introduce fixed, harmonised, mandatory sizes on a whole range of staple products which have not previously been so harmonised. We have labelling requirements. We prohibit misleading advertising. EU legislation requires unit pricing so that the price for a standard amount must be displayed, and this helps consumers to compare prices fairly. The ability to decide freely on package sizes is in the interests of the smaller business, the new entrant, the innovative enterprise and, therefore, also in the interests of the consumer. There is nothing to stop marketing of traditional sizes; there is nothing to stop the use of traditional measures such as pints and pounds. The Commission proposal did not even mention milk. Nothing needed to change from the status quo.
The Committee on Industry suggests that Parliament support the Commission’s praiseworthy attempt to reduce unnecessary regulation and vote against the Committee on the Internal Market’s proposed extension of mandatory sizes to all these extra products.
Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Toubon on the work he has done and particularly to commend his approach, which has made the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection the first committee in Parliament to commission an impact assessment where we have chosen – in this case in the interests of consumers – to add to the burden of regulation that the Commission has proposed.
That report is available to colleagues. It indicated that despite the fact that there would be more complexity, the economic analysis demonstrated that the competitive effects were comparatively small and accepted the view of the rapporteur that there were consumer benefits to offset it. There will be further discussions about it, but nevertheless I would not want this to go by without congratulating the Commission overall for the direction in which it is trying to take this. There is a vast range of other products apart from the exemptions that are included in this praiseworthy proposal, and we should not forget that when talking about some of the specific issues.
As the Commissioner is well aware, in my own country, the United Kingdom, there has been a certain amount of entirely misleading controversy caused in the press about this proposal. I shall confine myself to commenting on that for the record this evening. First of all, on the assumption that we agree that drinking milk should be included, it is obviously extremely important that the traditional bottle sizes in which milk is delivered in the UK are fully protected. I am sure colleagues will accept that fully and thus deal with any issues about the loss of the traditional British ‘pinta’.
Secondly, but more fundamentally, bread is a commodity that is regulated nationally under many specific regulations. In the UK, we consume very large amounts of pre-packed sliced bread and I think there is a very strong argument for exempting that from the regulation altogether and allowing Britain to sustain its current regulated pack sizes for this very important consumer commodity.
Evelyne Gebhardt, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Toubon, many thanks for the excellent report that you have just presented. To Mr Harbour, I would say that it is very important that we respect the cultures and traditions of the Member States. We should always do that in our legislation. I think my group will also support these amendments – that will not be a problem.
Commissioner Verheugen, you have just said that we need better regulation and, above all, better implementation of Community law. I absolutely agree with you there, but I would also remind you that it is up to the Commission to ensure that Community law is actually implemented. I would ask you to be very strict on these issues, because I, as a European, want the decisions we make in Europe actually to be implemented.
On the other hand, you also said that you take as the benchmark the average consumer, as does the European Court of Justice. That is understandable: we all need a point of reference to work from. As a social democrat, however, my benchmark in such cases is precisely those people who are not average, because they are disabled, because they are elderly, or because, for whatever reason, they are taking the various opportunities that are available in the Member States and are provided by companies. It is in these cases in particular that reliability when purchasing basic foodstuffs like bread and milk is especially important. That is why we must ensure that this reliability is maintained in our shops, and why we will agree to the rapporteur's proposals.
Toine Manders, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Toubon for his commitment and the way he went about things, but also, and all, to express my gratitude to the Commission and Commissioner Verheugen for the proposal they have made for the drafting of better legislation and deregulation. It therefore strikes us as a little odd that Parliament should now respond with a host of exceptions. We in the Netherlands, a country that rejected the Constitutional Treaty, consider it unnecessary for Europe to get involved in matters such as the measure of coffee or milk, for that is what the internal market is for and measurements and products are subject to mutual recognition.
We are therefore very unhappy about the additional exceptions or additional products that are now being included to qualify for harmonisation. We will therefore vote against those exceptions and if we cannot throw them out and cannot stick to the Commission proposal, we as Liberals will vote against the proposal as a whole, which we would regret, for this could ultimately set an example. I hope that we will not have to deal with this now and I hope that I will not, when I return to my own country, have to admit at some future referendum on the Constitutional Treaty that we in this Parliament do get involved in details, which should be left to the man and woman in the street.
Legislation already clearly provides for the price per unit of litre or kilogramme for the benefit of the consumer. Since that is already incorporated in the price, I think we should not underestimate the European public, or patronise them and treat them like children or second-class citizens. I think we should have faith in the individuals who can make their own choices, and it is up to us to give them those choices. Similarly, it would be unfortunate, in my view, if we were to travel to other countries in Europe, as tourists or otherwise, and if we would no longer be able to enjoy the weights and measures that apply there, like, for example, the pint in the United Kingdom.
It is unfortunate to my mind that we have not opted for better legislation and deregulation as the Commission proposed, and we regret the proposals for exceptions.
Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, it is, in truth, not often that I am able to agree with the Commission concerning liberalisation projects, but this is a sensible form of liberalisation. I see that Mr Toubon has done some serious work and carried out an impact assessment, but that is not sufficient reason for issuing regulations at EU level. If a country wishes to regulate sizes of loaves and pasta, it can do so, but not at EU level. There is a danger of matters becoming rather ridiculous when the EU goes in for such things.
What consumers expect is, of course, protection against dangerous additives and an overhaul of those additives that we do use. They also expect clear labelling, big enough to be read and in their own language, so that they understand which ingredients are included in the products concerned. The rules to combat misleading marketing cover those problems that consumers could come up against because of confusing pack sizes. It is that type of legislation that has a real impact on consumers’ needs.
When it comes to alcohol, I agree with the Commission that that is another issue. In that area, it is a question of monitoring consumption in another way, and the existing rules and those proposed by the Commission are appropriate for doing so. There are reasons for having regulations in this sphere. I think that the proposal produced by the Commission, namely not to increase EU legislation, is a well-balanced one.
Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner Verheugen, Mr Toubon, I wish to welcome the Commission’s proposal for deregulating packaging. I hope that continued debate will bring our own approach closer to that of the Commission, so that it is the consumer and not the politicians who choose.
The rapporteur, Mr Toubon, has shown that he is ready and willing to accept my amendment rescuing Swedish milk packs, so that people can still have milk for their coffee at work. There are still things to be done in terms of deregulating butter and pasta and of having less detailed regulation generally. It would be bad for competition and for consumers if we were to make matters worse for small and medium-sized enterprises and to use political measures to give market shares to the big conglomerates. Those of us who come from a small country cannot accept the report in that form. We have had enough of debates about cucumbers and strawberries. Let us avoid a debate about ‘milk-snatching’ and go on negotiating with a view to obtaining greater freedom for the consumer. A lot remains to be done before this matter has been satisfactorily concluded.
Anna Hedh (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, for many countries, Mr Toubon’s changes to the Commission’s proposal mean new rules being laid down at EU level for an already functioning market. We Swedish Social Democrats do not believe that the rapporteur’s amendments involve any benefit for consumers. On the contrary. If the rapporteur’s approach were to meet with sympathy, it would involve major conversion costs for many European companies, and this without the groups we say we represent even needing or necessarily even desiring the changes.
For example, the Swedish Consumers’ Association, which works actively with quite a few cooperation groups and associations on precisely these issues to do with packaging, has, on the basis of our contacts with the Association, never heard any wishes expressed concerning fixed pack sizes. Moreover, the EU’s institutions would not be complying with their ambition to improve the quality of legislation by avoiding detailed regulation. We Swedish Social Democrats have nothing against making stringent demands of businesses with a view to their achieving better consumer protection. On the contrary. As has been pointed out, however, the regulations are, in this case, unnecessary, and we shall therefore vote against the report.
President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Written statement (Rule 142)
David Martin (PSE). – I welcome this report on rules of nominal quantities for pre-packaged products.
I am in favour of retaining specific quantities for staple foods as I believe it is important to maintain nominal quantities in the interest of the British consumer. The report preserves essential parts of existing legislation and, in particular, removes the unjustified attempt by the Commission to abolish fixed sizes within 20 years. Given the complexity of ‘unit pricing’, such protection laws will ensure that the current sale of the British pint of milk is not put at risk. Contrary to inaccurate Eurosceptic scare-stories that have caused much controversy amongst consumers, British consumer choice is protected.