MANUFACTURE, PRESENTATION AND SALE OF
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
(21423)
—
—
|
Common position adopted by the Council on the draft Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 95 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: |
Health |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 27 June 2000 and EM of 13 July 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None; but see (17854) 5058/97: HC 36-xv (1996-97), paragraph 5 (19 February 1997), and (20916) 5194/00: HC 23-xi (1999-2000), paragraph 12 (8 March 2000)
|
| Discussed in Council:
| 29 June 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared |
Background
13.1 Because of the health implications
of smoking, and in order to prevent the fragmentation of the Community
market for tobacco through differing national controls, the Council
has in recent years adopted a number of measures in this area,
on the labelling of tobacco products, on the maximum tar yield
of cigarettes, and on the direct and indirect advertising of tobacco
products, including sponsorship. In addition, a Council Resolution
of 26 November 1996[22]
called upon the Commission to take particular account in its policies
of the detrimental effect of smoking on health, and to examine
further measures which might be taken to reduce smoking; whilst
a Commission Communication[23]
at the end of 1996 called for a further review of the maximum
permitted tar limits, for nicotine addiction to be considered
as a dependency, for a review of existing warning label requirements,
and for action on the definition of "low tar".
13.2 In January of this year, the Commission
put to the Council a proposal[24]
to amend or update the existing legislation in a number of ways.
These included:
- a lowering of the current maximum tar yield of
cigarettes from 12 mg to 10 mg;
- the introduction for the first time of maximum
yields of 1 mg per cigarette for nicotine, and of 10 mg per cigarette
for carbon monoxide;
- a provision enabling Member States to require
further tests to be carried out on tobacco products to assess
the yield of other substances produced by them (though they would
need to protect such information on grounds of trade secrecy);
- an obligation on tobacco manufacturers to submit
to Member States a list of non-tobacco ingredients and constituents,
together with toxicological information demonstrating their safety:
again, the Commission said that commercial confidentiality would
need to be protected;
- an updating of the provisions on the labelling
of tobacco products, including information on yields of tar, nicotine
and carbon monoxide, and the warnings to be given about the health
risks of smoking;
- the banning of misleading descriptors, such as
"low tar", "light" and "mild", unless
expressly authorised by a Member State.
13.3 These measures would come into effect
by 31 December 2003, or within three years of the proposal being
adopted.
13.4 As we noted in our Report of 8 March
2000, the Government had told us that the UK was strongly in favour
of the broad thrust of the proposal, and indeed would like to
see it strengthened in a number of key areas. Thus, it believed
that information supplied to Member States under the measure should
be publicly available; that a ban on misleading descriptors should
be agreed at Community level, rather than allowing Member States
the option of permitting these; and that there should be an independent
scientific committee to enable policy makers at Community level
to react quickly.
13.5 In our Conclusion, we cleared the measures
proposed on the grounds that they appeared to represent a further
useful step towards reducing the risks to health arising from
cigarette smoking, and that the Government had taken the view
that the costs were likely to be relatively small when compared
with the overall size of the tobacco industry (and had in any
case to be set against the resultant health benefits). We also
noted that the Government wished to see the proposal strengthened
in certain respects, as set out in paragraph 13.4 above.
Minister's letter of 27 June 2000
13.6 We subsequently received a letter of
27 June 2000 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at
the Department of Health (Ms Gisela Stuart) pointing out that,
at its first reading of the Commission's proposal on 14 June 2000,
the European Parliament had adopted over 40 amendments. According
to the Minister, the thrust of these amendments was very much
in line with the approach adopted by the UK to the Commission
proposal, and that they did not, taken overall, differ from it
greatly in intent or purpose. However, she highlighted two key
amendments, which she said would (i) remove the ability of a Member
State to derogate from the proposed banning of descriptors, such
as "low tar" and "mild", and (ii) require
details provided by manufacturers of any additives to be made
publicly available. The Minister also mentioned two other significant
changes suggested by the European Parliament. One would allow
Member States up to 2006 to apply to exports the rules applying
to cigarettes in free circulation within the Community, whilst
the other would require maximum, rather than actual, yields of
tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide to be printed on cigarette packets.
She said that some Member States preferred specification of actual
yields, whilst others favoured specifying maximum yields on the
grounds that smokers might otherwise be encouraged to buy lower
tar products in the mistaken belief that they are significantly
healthier.
13.7 The Minister concluded by saying that
the proposal would be one of the main items on the agenda for
the Health Council on 29 June, and that, notwithstanding the short
time that would have elapsed since the European Parliament's June
session, there was a possibility that a political agreement would
be reached at that meeting on a Common Position of the Council.
She added that, although she was alerting us to this possibility
in order to keep us informed of developments, she would be letting
us have a further Explanatory Memorandum after the Health Council.
Explanatory Memorandum of 13 July 2000
13.8 We have now received from the Minister
the Explanatory Memorandum promised in her letter of 27 June,
confirming that the Health Council on 29 June reached political
agreement by a qualified majority, and we have since seen a text
of the Common Position. According to the Minister, it was not
possible in the time available for the Council to agree more than
a few of the Parliament's amendments, although she says that the
distance between the position of the Council and the view of the
Parliament is "not very great". In particular, she says
that progress was made in the three areas of concern to the UK
referred to in paragraph 13.4 above, in that the text agreed at
the Health Council states that information received under the
terms of the Directive should be made public; that the ban on
misleading descriptors should apply across the Community; and
that the Commission has agreed to set up a Tobacco Working Group,
which will meet before the end of the year, and which will advise
the Commission on its biennial reports on the working of the Directive.
13.9 The Minister adds that, whilst all
Member States support the Directive on health grounds, Germany
has expressed strong doubts over its legal base, and in particular
questions the basis for a ban on misleading descriptors and the
application of the provisions of the Directive to goods to be
exported outside the Community. However, she points out that the
Government's own legal advice is that the Directive is soundly
based, and that most other Member States and the Commission share
that view.
13.10 The Minister also points out that
the European Parliament will be informed of the Council's Common
Position for its second reading of the measure. She adds that
the French Presidency will continue to seek to make progress,
but that adoption is unlikely before the Swedish Presidency.
Conclusion
13.11 Having already cleared the original
Commission proposal, we are content, on the basis of what is said
in the Minister's latest Explanatory Memorandum, to clear also
the text of the Council's Common Position, on the basis that the
changes made are in line with those which the UK was seeking to
achieve. We also infer that the text agreed by the Council omits
the two amendments proposed by the European Parliament (and set
out in paragraph 13.6 above), but would welcome confirmation that
this is the case (and that, if so, the Government is content they
should be omitted).
22 OJ No. C 374, 11.12.96, p.4. Back
23
(17854) 5058/97 - ; see headnotes to this paragraph. Back
24
(20916) 5194/00 - ; see headnotes to this paragraph. Back
|
