Select Committee on European Scrutiny Twenty-Fifth Report


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 1 August 2000