5. We consider that the
following raises questions of political importance. We make no
recommendation for its further consideration, but suggest that
it would be relevant to the debate which we have recommended on
tobacco advertising:-
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
(17854)
5058/97
COM(96)609
| Commission Communication on the present and proposed Community role in combating tobacco consumption.
|
The Communication
5.1 The Commission recognises
that "the Community and its Member States have their respective
and complementary roles to play in promoting an effective anti-smoking
strategy". The purpose of its Communication is "to
contribute to a review of existing and possible future anti-smoking
strategies both at Community and at Member State level, aimed
at reducing the public health impact of smoking on European citizens".
Reference is made to the Council Resolution of 26 November 1996[15],
which called on the Commission to carry out surveys on best practice
and examine possible further measures which might be taken.
5.2 The Communication
starts by setting out the grim statistics which show that in the
Community:
-- smoking
is in decline but the rate of fall has slowed. In 1994 an estimated
42% of the adult population smoked compare to 46% in 1987;
-- 1%
of 11 year-olds smoke compared to 20% to 33% of 15 year-olds;
marketing strategies target the young;
-- the
Greeks are the heaviest smokers and pay the lowest prices (about
£28.75 per 1000);
-- the
Danes are the next heaviest and pay the highest prices (about
£137 per 1000);
-- in
one generation 25% of Spanish women have taken up smoking;
-- expenditure
on tobacco often takes priority over other household expenditure
amongst lower socio-economic groups;
-- the
better-educated and better-off increasingly avoid smoking and
increasingly demand protection from smoking.
5.3 No other everyday
product varies so substantially in price throughout the Community,
according to the Commission. This is in part due to wide variations
in taxation. The relevant Council directives provide for a limited
degree of approximation of taxes but the Member States continue
to enjoy a very considerable degree of flexibility. The three
principal forms of tax are value added, a fixed specific excise
duty and a variable ad valorem excise duty. The comparatively
high tax levels makes tobacco very susceptible to smuggling.
The Commission says that high prices do deter young people who
have limited disposable incomes, but high taxation policies do
not affect addiction, and so need to be accompanied by other measures.
5.4 The Communication
sets out a range of measures already adopted which, it says, help
to counter tobacco consumption. Most were introduced under actions
aimed at the harmonisation of the Single Market. Others were
adopted under Treaty provisions governing public health.
5.5 Although there are
limitations, including the principle of subsidiarity, on possible
future actions which it could propose, the Commission suggests
that it is opportune to consider a new Community strategy to encourage
a reduction in consumption. Those which it says could be carried
out, with the active support of other Community institutions and
of the Member States, include:
-- developing
a system for monitoring trends, because the information currently
available is often inadequate and out-of-date;
-- developing
a Code of Practice on the right of children to a smoke-free environment,
and improving understanding of why they start smoking. A comprehensive
smoking prevention approach aimed at adolescents is clearly needed
as existing measures are obviously not working;
-- classifying
nicotine addiction as a dependency so that it can be tackled through
Community public health programmes;
-- evaluating
the toxicity of additives. Community legislation on consumer
protection provides extensive information on additives and ingredients
in a very wide range of products but there is no such provision
for tobacco;
-- progressive
reduction of the maximum permitted tar content;
-- review
of consumer information such as labelling;
-- encouraging
Member States to increase their taxation levels.
5.6 The Communication
goes on to set out measures which the Commission believes offer
the best prospects for greater co-operation between the Member
States. These include:
-- measures
to protect non-smokers;
-- restricting
access by limiting sales through automatic vending machines and
self-service counters;
-- setting
specific targets for reducing the incidence of smoking, as Ireland
has done;
-- increasing
the cost of tobacco products by deciding, as the UK has done,
to raise them by 3% annually;
-- providing,
at minimal or no cost, medications to help people stop smoking.
5.7 The next stage envisaged
by the Commission is to examine reactions to the Communication.
In the light of this examination it will consider whether to
put forward appropriate proposals for actions and measures. It
also undertakes to present a report each year on progress achieved
in relation to public health protection from the harmful effects
of tobacco consumption. This will include comparative figures
and is intended to provide "a highly transparent mechanism"
for evaluating strategy at both Community and Member States level.
The Government's view
5.8 In his Explanatory
Memorandum (dated 11 February) the Minister of State at the Department
of Health (Mr Malone) says, firstly, on subsidiarity:
"The Communication
recognises that there are limits to the Commission's role, not
least because of the principle of subisidiarity. However, several
of the options should be treated as matters for national judgement,
in particular, measures to restrict smoking in public places,
limit tobacco sponsorship at major events which are likely to
be televised and provide smoking cessation medicines at minimal
cost or no cost to smokers".
5.9 The Minister then
comments more generally on the policy implications:
"The Government
has consistently made clear at the Council of Ministers its view
that tobacco control measures are primarily a matter for individual
Member States, taking account of their differing social and economic
contexts. The Government supports the sharing of information
and best practice to support measures taken by Member States;
a suitable framework for this already exists within the Europe
Against Cancer programme.
"As part of
its Health of the Nation strategy, the Government already has
in place a comprehensive action plan to reduce smoking prevalence.
This includes taking action in a number of the areas mentioned
in the Commission Communication, for example setting specific
targets for reducing smoking, real terms increases in the price
of tobacco products and controls on smoking in public places,
as well as a number of other measures appropriate to our own national
circumstances.
"Although currently
framed as options, the Commission is likely to bring forward proposals
for action in at least some of the areas outlined in the Communication.
This could have implications for current policy. When and if
the Commission brings forward proposals, the Government will consider
its position in the light of the specific initiatives proposed".
Conclusion
5.10 The Communication
is careful to distinguish between those policies which could be
undertaken as joint Community activities and those which must
be left to Member States individually or in co-operation with
each other. The proposals mentioned by the Minister when commenting
on subsidiarity are all listed in the second category by the Commission.
Although he shows that the UK is taking measures to combat consumption,
he makes no reference to the possible benefits to all, including
British citizens, of a reduction in smoking in other parts of
the Community.
5.11 This Communication
does not put forward formal legislative proposals, but nevertheless
makes a series of explicit recommendations for actions which could
be legislative. We have commented in a number of Reports on the
extent to which documents such as this set a legislative agenda,
and which may also extend the scope of Community action. We suggest
that this Communication would be relevant to the debate which
we have recommended on tobacco advertising[16].
15 (17581) -; see HC 36-ii (1996-97), paragraph 15 (6 November 1996). Back
16 (13015) 6748/91; see HC 24-iv (1991-92), paragraph 1 (4 December 1991), and HC 79-i (1992-93) Outstanding recommendations from the previous Parliament. See also Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 5 February 1992. Back
|
