Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when you are one of the last to speak in such a debate you may appear to be at a disadvantage. However, I actually see it as a definite advantage, because, firstly, I am in a position to take up some of the comments made by previous speakers, and secondly, the Commissioner has no chance whatsoever of ignoring the questions I put to him, because he cannot forget them that quickly. It is not possible to cover all the issues in a long debate but I would like to put several specific questions to the Commissioner and would appreciate some specific answers. I believe the Commission has come up with a proposal containing many sound ideas. The document affords many excellent initiatives but there is definitely plenty of room for improvement. One aspect which the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has improved on is that of the compulsory health warning in connection with passive smoking. It is just as important to work far harder to get the message across to consumers – indeed it should be made compulsory – that when they smoke, it is not just themselves they are harming but also their fellow human beings. It has been scientifically proven that the risk of cot death increases five-fold when the parents smoke twenty cigarettes per day, not just during pregnancy but also during the child's first year of life. The environmental authorities in the United States calculated that every year, 5 000 people die of cancer caused by passive smoking. In other words, the number of deaths due to passive smoking is far higher than the number of fatalities that can be traced back to environmental pollutants, which is something we discuss on a very regular basis in Parliament. The second point that I think needs to be improved on is the so-called hotline. It certainly is not possible to include all the necessary information on cigarette packets, but consumers should be given the opportunity to obtain more information from a source independent of industry. I would be very interested to hear what the Commission thinks to this idea. Firstly, does it agree with the content of this proposal? Secondly, how might the proposal be reformulated in legal terms with a view to making it fit for adoption? The third point is surely the most controversial, and is the one that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has made drastic changes to in my view, i.e. the point relating to tobacco subsidies. I know it is a difficult issue. Nevertheless, I have tabled the proposed amendment, which the committee adopted, in this form. At the same time though, I also gave some serious thought to what would become of the farmers that currently make a living from growing tobacco. As Mrs Klaß rightly said, this is structural aid. But surely structural aid does not necessarily have to go towards tobacco cultivation? Commissioner Flynn – I am actually addressing you as Commissioner Flynn because your predecessor had major difficulties on this very subject! Commissioner Byrne, you are Commissioner Flynn’s successor and I hope you prove to be more successful – perhaps you will raise this argument in discussion with Mr Fischler. If our strategy for stopping people from smoking tobacco is successful then it will be even more of an uphill struggle for the tobacco farmers to eke out an existence growing tobacco. That is why we need alternatives and why we should not cut subsidies but restructure them for the same recipients.

Political group: PPE-DE