.1 The manufacture, presentation and
sale of tobacco and related products
| (34587)
18068/12
+ ADDs 1-7
COM(12) 788
| Draft Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products
|
| Legal base | Article 114 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Health
|
| Basis of consideration
| Minister's letters of 16 September and 31 October 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports
| HC 83-xiii (2013-14), chapter 1 (4 September 2013);
HC 83-viii (2013-14), chapter 5 (3 July 2013);
HC 83-vi (2013-14), chapter 1 (19 June 2013);
HC 83-v (2013-14), chapter 5 (12 June 2013);
HC 86-xxx (2012-13), chapter 3 (30 January 2013)
|
| Discussion in Council
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision
| Recommended for debate in European Committee C (decision reported on 4 September 2013)
|
Background and previous scrutiny
1.1 The draft Directive would replace the existing
regulatory framework for tobacco products, which has been in force
for more than a decade, and introduce a number of changes which
are intended to take account of scientific, market and international
developments, including the entry into force of the World Health
Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2005.
Our earlier Reports provide a detailed overview of the draft
Directive and its scrutiny history.[1]
1.2 When we last considered the draft Directive,
on 4 September 2013, we noted that the Government had supported
a general approach on a Presidency compromise text at the Employment,
Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 21 June
and that, in doing so, it had decided to override our scrutiny
reserve. We recommended the draft Directive for debate in European
Committee C, but asked the Government to provide a summary of
the key changes sought by the European Parliament, and the Government's
position on them, before the debate took place.[2]
The Minister's letters of 16 September and 31
October 2013
1.3 The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary for
Public Health (Anna Soubry) wrote to inform us in September that
the European Parliament had decided to delay its consideration
of the draft Directive until October.
1.4 Her successor (Jane Ellison) confirms that the
plenary vote in the European Parliament took place on 8 October
and that the Presidency aims to conclude "trilogue"
negotiations between the European Parliament, Council and Commission
by the end of the year so that the draft Directive may be adopted
before European parliamentary elections in May 2014. The Minister
sets out the position of the European Parliament (EP) on key aspects
of the draft Directive in the following terms:
"Support picture health warnings on
65% of the front and back of packs, with warnings at the top
of the packs. This is identical to the Council's General Approach
(GA) text, so it is unlikely to be re-opened in Trilogue negotiations.
The original Commission proposal was for health warnings to
be a minimum of 75% of the front and back of the pack. The
UK has argued for bigger health warnings as they are more effective
and believes that 65% is a good and pragmatic compromise and represents
a good step forward across the EU.
"Tobacco products with characterising flavours
including menthol should be prohibited.
The GA and EP texts align on this issue. However, they take different
approaches to achieve this objective in practice. The GA envisages
that Member States (MSs) will prohibit the placing on the market
of tobacco products with a characterising flavour, assisted in
taking decisions by an Independent Advisory Panel. The Commission
is empowered to adopt delegated acts to adopt maximum concentrations
of additives in certain circumstances.
"By contrast the EP text envisages that additives
shall not be used in tobacco products unless they are approved
in a harmonised EU-level list annexed to the Directive. Additives
which impart a characterising flavour when used, or when used
in sufficient concentration, may not be approved.
"The UK is a signatory to the WHO Framework
Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). FCTC guidelines state that
'there is no justification for permitting the
use of ingredients, such as flavouring agents, which help make
tobacco products more attractive.'
"The UK Government would want to see anything
that makes tobacco or tobacco products more attractive to children
removed from the market. Therefore we welcome the prohibition
of characterising flavours in both texts. However, the practicalities
will be discussed further during Trilogue negotiations.
"Reject the regulation of all Nicotine Containing
Products (NCPs) as medicines, instead applying controls inspired
by (but not identical to) tobacco products, although some NCPs
which make medicinal claims (e.g. that they can help with quitting)
will still fall within a medicines framework. The UK remains
of the opinion that requiring NCPs over a threshold to have a
medicines licence if they are to be marketed, as per the GA text
is the most appropriate way forward. We will take this position
during Trilogue negotiations.
"Ban packs of cigarettes with fewer than
twenty sticks, as is already the case in the vast majority
of Member States. We know that young people in England are more
likely to buy packs of ten, compared to adults and that small
packets increase the affordability of such products to minors.
The UK supports the ban on small packets of cigarettes envisaged
by both the EP and Council texts.
"Reject a ban on "slim" cigarettes,
which aligns with General Approach text. This issue is unlikely
to be reopened during Trilogue.
"Support the introduction of a "track
and trace" system for tobacco products extending
to the entire supply chain, which aligns with the General Approach.
The EP text seeks to introduce additional requirements including
provisions that scanning technology must not be owned by the tobacco
companies, which in practice may be unnecessary and overly burdensome.
The UK prefers the GA text and we will make these views known
during negotiations.
"Ban cross border distance sales of tobacco
products throughout the EU. The GA text
envisaged an optional ban on cross border sales, meaning MSs can
choose whether or not to introduce their own ban. The UK supports
the GA text.
"Enable Member States to introduce more stringent
provisions on tobacco domestically in some areas,
which is relevant to the introduction of further policies which
complement the Directive, such as standardised packaging, by individual
Member States. Both the GA and the EP texts move in the right
direction in this regard, as compared to the Commission's starting
proposal. Both texts introduce some flexibility but in different
ways. The GA envisages MS flexibility with regard to introducing
more stringent rules in relation to additives and standardisation
of packaging, where it is justified and proportionate in line
with the Treaty. By contrast, the domestic flexibility envisaged
in the EP text in relation to areas covered by the Directive is
broader in scope. However, the EP text retains the power for the
Commission to approve or reject such domestic measures, which
was removed in the GA text. The UK supports the GA text on
Article 24.
"Vote in favour of the entire amended Directive.
"Give the EP's rapporteur a mandate to engage
in Trilogue negotiations with the Council.
Achieving this mandate was vital, as it means negotiations are
now commencing."
1.5 The Minister concludes by underlining the Government's
commitment to securing the best possible outcome on "the
vitally important Tobacco Products Directive" in the coming
months and looks forward to "full and regular engagement"
with the European Scrutiny Committee. She summarises the Government's
position on the negotiating position agreed by the European Parliament
as follows:
"The UK Government broadly supports the EP vote
on the Tobacco Products Directive. We are very pleased to see
the move towards tougher action on tobacco with Europe-wide controls
banning flavoured cigarettes and small packs and the introduction
of stricter rules on front-of-pack health warnings. However, we
are disappointed that the EP voted not to support the proposal
to regulate NCPs as medicines. We will continue to push this and
our other key objectives during Trilogue negotiations."
Conclusion
1.6 We welcome the Minister's commitment to "full
and regular engagement" with the Committee on the progress
of trilogue negotiations. Given the political impetus to conclude
negotiations by the end of the year, and the importance of the
issues at stake, we recommend that the debate in European Committee
C should take place at the earliest opportunity.
1 See headnote. Back
2
See (34587) 18068/12: HC 83-xiii, chapter 9 (4 September 2013). Back
| 
