Mr President, for a long time, we have held the belief that to many, tobacco is a harmless stimulant and that its production creates employment for farmers and workers, particularly in economically weak regions. The production and consumption of tobacco increased dramatically in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It was then thought that smoking was normal and that any self-respecting man should light up a cigarette. In my language, which is Dutch, there are two expressions which illustrate how smoking was viewed then. The first one is: ‘het is geen man die niet roken kan’ [he who does not smoke is not a man], whilst the second one reads: ‘een tevreden roker is geen onruststoker’ [a satisfied smoker does not cause any trouble]. Since then, the production and distribution of tobacco has increasingly ended up in the hands of large international chains in whose interest it is to keep successive new generations of consumers dependent on them on a permanent basis. Their growth market lies with young people, women and people with little education, those on low incomes and with few prospects in life. However, there are also many men, especially those who are well-educated, who are trying to kick the habit of smoking, but it is just as difficult as it is to abstain from alcohol or drugs. Tobacco generates big bucks. This is why there are stakeholders who would prefer to continue to keep everything as free as possible within this market. Freedom of production, import and advertising, and freedom to mislead and sponsor events which attract large crowds of people. Tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide make people ill, as a result of which they die prematurely of heart or lung diseases. Non-smokers run risks too because they are obliged to inhale the smoke of those smoking around them. Accordingly, tobacco is not just about economic interests, rather it is far more of a public health problem. It makes little sense to remind people that it is their individual responsibility whether they smoke or not. This is not about one case in isolation but about the responsibility of all of us together. We cannot leave the market free and subsequently blame the victims of smoking for their bad health. This is not how we treat consumers of heroin or cocaine. It is necessary to ensure that tobacco products are hard to come by and to warn the rest of the users about the risks as best we can. The norm should be that smoking is abnormal and that new generations must be protected from this addiction. From the public health point of view it is necessary that we no longer take the interests of tobacco producers and sellers into account. The situation would hugely improve if the packets were to display the largest possible warning sign and if advertising and sponsoring were banned altogether. In addition, it should not be possible for people to buy cigarettes at supermarkets, cafés or petrol stations as an afterthought. If you are 100% determined in your mind that you want to buy a tobacco product, you should have to visit an outlet which only sells this product. This could best be achieved in the same way as in the Netherlands, where soft drugs can only be sold in a limited number of outlets which need to have a council permit. Some opponents of the currently proposed measures blame the rapporteur for making outrageous proposals. To those opponents, I would like to reveal that in the Netherlands, Mr Maaten belongs to the Liberal Party which adopts the most non-interventionist approach to industry’s interests and which has turned the free market principle into its cardinal ideology. If even a representative of such a party proposes to further regulate the market, then this is all the more proof that public health is at serious risk. As representative of the Socialist Party, I would even go further than Mr Maaten or the majority within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. I represent the section of my group which denounces the idea that tobacco production could only fall or disappear altogether once people have kicked the habit of smoking largely or completely. I believe it has to precede it. We do, however, fully agree with the other opinions in our group that American chains should not be in a position, on account of free imports, to plug the gap which will emerge if European production drops, and that economically weaker regions in Southern Europe should be given support in order to create replacement employment when tobacco production disappears.

Political group: GUE-NGL