Parliament tobacco vote delayed

Vote delayed until 8 October, after German election.

Group leaders in the European Parliament voted today (5 September) to delay a vote on new tobacco restrictions scheduled for Tuesday (10 September) in Strasbourg.

Centre-right German and British MEPs pushed for the delay, saying there has not been enough time to digest the position of the environment and health committee, adopted in July. They were supported by the ALDE group of Liberals. 

MEPs were also concerned about how the vote could affect – or be affected by – the federal election in Germany, scheduled for 22 September. Some German MEPs will be absent from next week’s plenary because of campaigning duties.

Linda McAvan, a centre-left British MEP who is leading the Parliament’s work on the issue, opposed the delay, as did German MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz, shadow rapporteur for the EPP.

The vote was rescheduled for 8 October during the first of two plenary sessions next month. “To delay a couple of weeks will not create an obstacle to reach an agreement before the end of the Lithuanian presidency [of the Council of Ministers],” said a spokesperson for the EPP.

McAvan said the decision was disapointing. “We must now make sure that the vote really does go ahead on the 8th October – and that there are no more delay tactics,” she said. “Technically everything was in place for the vote – all the proper procedures have been respected as confirmed by the ENVI committee this morning – and the timetable has not changed since January.”

The ENVI committee largely supported the Commission’s proposal to introduce large pictoral warnings on cigarette packs and to ban slim and flavoured cigarettes and 10-packs.

The call for a delay followed a barrage of lobbying from both sides of the issue this week as MEPs returned from their summer break. Health campaigners are concerned that it is a delaying tactic by the tobacco industry, in the hope of ensuring that the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive will not be agreed by the end of the current Parliament and European Commission mandate in 2014.

Click Here: Putters

“When the proposal was finally published in December 2012, the Parliament and the Council complained bitterly about how difficult it would be for them to close this dossier before the European elections,” said Florence Berteletti Kemp, director of the Smoke Free Partnership. “Nevertheless, both institutions have found ways to move forward, only to be faced with a new delay attempt just as the needed agreement is in sight.”

Internal documents from American tobacco giant Philip Morris International, seen by European Voice, suggest that this company alone has used 161 lobbyists who met 233 MEPs – 31% of the Parliament – from the start of 2011 to June 2012. About half of EPP and ECR MEPs met the company’s lobbyists during that time. A slide presentation from 2011 identified delaying the legislation as a possible way to defeat it.

“The [tobacco industry] strategy was always if they can’t get what they want, they should delay the vote,” said McAvan on Tuesday (3 September). “They are getting nervous now because they didn’t get very far in the ENVI committee.”

Black market concerns

The industry has raised concerns that the measures in the proposal will do little to aid the stated objective to combat youth smoking and will instead drive smokers to the black market. For instance, consumers who purchase ten-packs, slims or menthol cigarettes, all banned under the proposal, may turn to illicit trade – depriving member states of tax revenue.

“Young people do not start smoking because of menthol, but we have large [numbers of] existing adult smokers who prefer a menthol cigarette,” said Ben Townsend, director of EU affairs for Japan Tobacco International. “Where does the consumer go?”

The Commission’s proposal to cover 75% of cigarette packs with pictorial health warnings has also been contentious. MEPs may vote for a smaller portion to be covered, perhaps 65%. Many MEPs also want a longer transition period before any bans would take effect.