Tobacco Documents Online

Summary of the discussi~ons at the EEC CO'MMISSIONiHEARINGS ON THE G1tEEN'PAPER December 12th - 1'3ith,1984 Inithe chair, Ivo SCHWARTZ, assisted by Ulf BRUlLANN' and!A. SCHRI~CKER' (Max Planck Intitute). Other representatives of the Comnission, cfr. list annexed. The introduction.was given by Ivo SCHWARTZ. Procedures All consultations on the different subjects coverediby the Green Paper have to be completed by end February 1985. A report on the Hearings will be produced and sent to all the organisatiions which attended the hearings. Dr. Ivo SCHWARTZ'mentioned that several working,groups of the national experts had been set up and that already one of them had startedlto comment on the Green Paper. This one is the working group on Advertising and Youth Protection. Another workimg group will study the harmonization of advertising and a third one will cope with copyrights. As from March 119'85, the Commission will start drafting a proposal for a Directive. This work is to take some months and will probably be presented to the Council by the end of'1985 and transmitted by the Counciil' to the European Parliament and'the ECQSOC'for advice. This will take some more months before both advices will: be given to the Council which,will consequently and if necessary ask the Commission to modify ilts proposals before these proposals will be given to:the working groups of the COR'EPER (Permanent Representatives). If this calendar is carefully looked after,, we may come to the conclusion that no Directive will be adopted by the Fiember States before 198'8'but probably by the end of that year. The urgency a number of organisaitiions were afraid of seems not to be a reality and it may well be that,with the launch of satelllites and their use and also wiith the decision of Belgium and Denmark to introduice advertising on television, a number of provisions actualDy foreseen could be reviewed within the light of the reality. *. As could have been foreseen, the floor was divided into two parties: a) the members of the CCC. Although some divergencies exist amongst ~ O them, the ETl1C being most negatiive and the BEUC'more practical. b) all the others, following the philosophy on advertising expressed N by the World Federation of Advertisers" comments and'statements. W ~ ~ ../.. ~i ~ ~. ~'

-2- The very first part of'the hearings was aniexchange of general views on the Green Paper. CCC: the Commission favours the private stations and has no cnmpetence in imposing the introduction of advertising in countries as Belgium and Denmark and1wishes a Directive at the highest level of'restrictions. ETUC goes even further and opposed alkind of IDirecti~ve as.the C©mmission intends to propose. EBU, EGTA„ AIG: those organisations question the need of harmonization andlif a Directive is absolutely needed iit must comply with two conditions - a guarantee of lli~berailization, to avoid protectionism - minimal rules. All the other organisations are more positive in baeking,the Commission, even1with a Directive, if such an exercise i.s necessary to liberalize, but all will defend th~e content of the Directive.. Question 1' After this general dliscussion, it was clear that nobody was opposed to the auithorilzationiof advertising, what was much more debated by the CCC members was the general' philosophy of th~e Green Paper which didinot take:into account the economical, indiustrial and sociall effects (ETUC)l, the quality of the programmes (COOP-ETUC) and other products~that have to be banned from television (BEUC)I. The answer of the Commission was -that if'the consumer organisati:ons have information on economical, industri~al and social effects, they should share it with the Commission -that the Commission has no~t to deal wiChthe quality of the programmes -that the Commission has already decided to restrict iltself to tobacco (ban) andlalcohol (Code of conduct). Question 2' The need of approximation was not debated very long and only the ETUC was opposed to the kind of Directive as foreseen by the Commission. One point became quite clear: the existence of the Debauve Case (even if outdated by facts) is still a possibil!ity for Member States to prohi~bit a programme or part of a programme withiadvertisements not allowed on their territory. But once again the CCC members advocated a Directive with the highest regulations being opposed to the recommendations of the Council of. Europe, the rules of the EBU and even the Misleading Advertising Directive. Question 3' The limitation of advertising time (20%) was declined into 3 sub-questions: a) has the Commission to regulate adivertising,timeg b) if yes, is the 2©Z level all right or must it be at another level?. c) is the limitation to be appDilcable to private and public stations at the same level or a~t two different levels? The CCC members were in favour of ai 10% leveD, raising once againi the attitude of the Commission, whiich they say favours the private stations. ../..

-3- The Commission reacted against this stating,that 10% was an impossible levell for private broadcasters, and that in proposing a unique level of 20% the Commission favours more the public broadcasters than the private ones.. The EBU representatives advocated the statement of'the Council of Europe. WFA"s proposal: 1. the intention of the Commission is to facilitate transboarder advertising, 2. . the Commission considers: that a country has to: have enough advertising, coverage and it is up to ttie nationals to decide on the "how"' 3. enough coverage may be of'a different level country by country and is a result of the national marke~t 4. the level of advertising time on a givenimarket is a national! decision and has no relationship with the opening of the borders 5. as inithe future TV'broadcasters may have different "raisons d'etre'", the WFA proposed to regu~late advertising broadcast time on the basiz of those "raisons d"etre`and nat to impose a definite levell 6. even if the Councill of Europe already has madle the same recommendations, those remaim recommendations, a Directive is something else. Thiis proposal could well be a discussion item whenithe drafting of the Directive will start. Questions 4 Sundays and public holidays 5 Times of the day 6 Blocks or/andlnatural breaks. These points were accepted as proposed by the Commission. The Commission considers that the question on blocks and natural breaks has to be regulated because only a minority of the Member States agrees on natural breaks. Question,7 Individual spots or advertising slots, maximum duration of 3 mi~nutes per commercial and 12 minutes per block. This question was not much argued, the partiicipants considering more important the identification of advertising, than the duraition of the commercials. In this field, it was suggested to identify very precisel!y a commercial of more than 3 minutes. The lenght of blocks couldlbe regulated the same way as the Sundays and public holidays. Question 8 Separation of advertising from the rest of the prograoune.. Sponsorship. Everybody agreed on the principle of separation~. N 0 Sponsorship was opposed by ETUC, whiilst BEUC being more pragmatic in accepting it but with cauition: "we d'o know very little about this~new technique." W 1V The importance of pre-vetting was stressed on by the COFACE. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~

-4._ Quest:ion 9 Prohibition of certain products. The Commission maintained'its proposal on the ban of cigarettes.. Messrs. THEOBALDS and UNDERHILL asked what we were talking about: products or advertising?' For alcohol, a minimum Code of conduct within the Directive has to be, considered and enshriined' in national laws, dixit the Commission. (Dr. SCHRICKER). WFA proposed'.to draft withiall parties i~nvolved, a Code of conduct which will bind all alcoholic drinks, that this Code could be annexedd to the Directive - not part of the Directive -, with the required flexibility if circumstances require so. As the qwestion of alicoholl has to be "harmonized", the Directive could make reference to this Code stating that if a commercial conforms to the Code it should be accepted in all countries even by those which ban swch advertising. Question 1'0 Control of advertising and the standard's.. There was no great problem to accept the current control systems.. Only the standards to be included into the Directive caused some concern. But it was clearly stated by the Commission that their interpretation will be the task of the control body of the broadcasting country. BEUC made a last attempt to introduce other products to be regulated, asked1tolprobibi't testimonials and endorsements (boith rejiected by the Commission) and requestedlthe Commission to golfurther with the standards for children (for instance, thait children's programmes should not be interrupted). A'final point was railsedlabout the control systems: the importance says the Commission is that there should be a control, the system remains with the individual bodies. NB. It is important to note that the Commission maintains its proposal for a minimum of rules„ avoids to embarq on de.tail's„ and considers that if a commercial conforms to the rules and!codes of the broadcasting,country, it should he allowed in all the receiving, countries of the EEC. Enc1'. 1 Paul P. die WINi Director General WORLD,FEDERIITION OF' A VERTISERS Brussels, December 20 1984 WFA /'PP dW /NfJIH / DG T! I I 5'