Hearing of John Dalli – Commissioner Designate for Health and Consumer Policy

14 January 2010. Mr. John Dalli, designate EU Commissioner for Health was heard yesterday by the Members of the European Parliament

To watch the hearing click here

At the end of the hearing the ENVI Chairman Jo Leinen (S&D, DE) remarked that it was evident from the replies that the candidate had over 20 years of political experience and anyone that could get regular applause from Dagmar Roth Behrendt (D-S&D) must be doing well.Mr Dalli's performance was punctuated with applause on several occasions. He promised to be the guardian of Consumer interests in the Commission, which pleased the IMCO Members, and when faced with the balance between industry and consumers or patients, he said he would always put patients and consumers first – but that it was also in industry's interest to do so too.

In his opening address he promised to put patients and consumers firs and to be independent and objective.

He stated that his vision is that of European Citizens living a longer, healthier life because they live a healthy lifestyle, enjoy safe, nutritious and high quality food and have access to high quality medical advice and care.

“My vision is a well-informed Consumer who can take educated decisions on the goods and services they consume”.

To secure sustainability of health systems he said the focus should be on prevention. Alarmingly, 97% of health spending across Europe goes on treatment as compared to only 3% on prevention. With your help and support I will strive to redress this imbalance by convincing all stakeholders that prevention is an investment offering very high future returns in health.

We will also pursue vigorously our efforts against smoking, alcohol abuse, drugs and obesity, which have been scientifically proven as the forces which lead to the hospitalisation and death of millions of our citizens every year.

We have to ensure that the Single Market properly serves the consumer through better access to products and services, both in availability and price.

We must keep a critical eye on how well markets serve consumers and on how the structures may need to change in order to do this better. We must continue to empower the consumer by backing him with clear, scientifically-based information.

Extract from the hearing:

Health policy

In reply to Estrella's (S&D, PT) question on which diseases he would prioritize he said that he would focus more on health determinants than specific diseases. They had limited resources and it was better to address horizontal issues that were common to many diseases ie obesity link to cancer and CVD. Prevention would move us quicker to health equality and prove quicker to deliver.

McAvan (S&D, UK) asked what he hoped his legacy would be after 5 years ie tough on tobacco, he replied that he wanted to be tough on all health issues that led to death and hospitalization and his aim was that schoolchildren would at a young age start talking about these life style issues that would give them a better life. McAvan came back saying information was not enough (lots given out on smoking) action was needed but how would he react to accusations of pushing the “nanny state”. He replied that information was not the nanny state, instructing was, and that was not his aim. He did not plan to legislate the minutae but inform so consumers could make right choices (but this cost money!)

McLarkin (ECR, UK) asked about alcohol misuse and how they would go about alcohol labelling when they look at this issue in 2012. She hoped he would favour education over constant overregulation of labelling systems regarding ingredient listing that she felt consumers would not find useful or understand.

Dalli said this was a complex area which he had dealt with in Malta. He said that abuse of alcohol has to be attacked first of all through a vast information campaign and there has to be some other controls, for example testing for drink driving, this is something he believed we need to start pushing for. He clarified that they were not talking about people not consuming alcohol but about people not abusing alcohol.

He believed that there is no simple solution by labelling of alcohol but this is a far reaching problem and we have to have some novel ideas on this.

He agreed with Merkies (S&D, NL) that more needed to be done for the aging population, not just in terms of treatment for Alzheimer's etc but ensuring they could live a healthier life for a longer time.

Finally on health, Roth Behrendt (S&D, DE) asked how would he fight in Council against MS who were trying to block any new laws in the health field. Would he be tough enough? The reply was an emphatic yes and he claimed to have a reputation at home for being tough, even when it made enemies. He also stressed the need for enforcement and this aspect should be considered even at the drafting stage.

Food labelling:

Sommer (EPP, DE) complained that on the Food Labelling proposal, DG SANCO had no scientific basis for its proposals and it was based on assumptions and arbitrary thresholds for political reasons to try and promote healthy lifestyles. Dalli replied that his main interest was the long term benefits for consumers. The Commission was not trying to tell people what to eat, but what they were eating (applause from the Left). How much information is the issue and where we need to be “smart”, but you can't get away from the fact the consumer cannot decide if they are not informed. This does not mean we are saying some foods are good or bad. The result will be the consumer making choices that can influence climate change, animal welfare etc.

Corazza Bildt (EPP, SE) raised SMEs concerns of extra costs on food labelling if the legislation was too prescriptive and asked if mandatory national provisions and voluntary national schemes would lead to a fragmentation of the Internal Market? Dalli replied that flexibility was built in already for SMEs and they did need to prevent any disparity in the internal market.

Manders (ALDE, NL) argued the consumer risked being overloaded with information on labels and would he support it being available on the internet instead? Barroso talked of cutting red tape by 25% - where would those cuts come in his portfolio? Dalli did not agree it could be left to the internet and was applauded again by the Left. He did however welcome Mander's initiative of a “Kids university for cooking” and he was working with Vassilou on promoting life skills in schools. He agreed with Weisgerber (EPP, DE) that action was needed on imitation foods, which he called “fraud”, and he would act quickly to ensure proper labelling.

McClarkin (ECR, UK) stated that people shouldn't be overburdened with complex information and asked how would he strike the balance between ensuring the functioning of the internal market giving consumers the information they need while protecting freedom of choice?
Dalli replied that the Commission was not in the business of banning foods, the choice remained and that we had to get consumers to want that information and make sure that it is available to them. The aim was to get smart labelling (enough, readable) and educate the consumer to use it (this is the next level).

A number of MEPs (Garcia Perez S&D, ES, Nicholson, ECR, UK) warned about the dangers on competitiveness of having higher standards than 3rd countries and her assured them that imports must meet the same high standards as the EU. He added that EU standards should be the same as their competitors but at the level that science advised.

Consumer Policy

Gebhardt (S&D, DE) warned about the risks of too many Commissioners dealing with consumer issues leading to fragmentation. He assured her that he was responsible for coordinating consumer policy in the Commission and that he saw himself as the guardian of consumer concerns in the College. Consumer issues were in fact in every single portfolio and he would insure there was a consumer input into every new proposal. Gebhardt welcomed this but pointed out that Reding in her hearing has said she was responsible. He replied that Reding was in charge of the Consumer Rights Directive but he had overall coordination.

Harbour (ECR, UK), the IMCO Chairman, welcomed this statement and hoped they would have as good a relationship as they had with Kuneva.

Schaldemose (S&D, DK) called for his assurance that consumers would not lose acquired rights when new proposals were made. She also asked if he favoured minimum or maximum harmonization? On the first question he defended the integrity of the internal market as this benefited all consumers in the long run, even if that meant harmonization. On the second, he said they needed to tread carefully and be consistent. Standards were not subject to negotiation but they needed to be at the right level that consumers expected.

Rosbach (EFD, DK) asked if he would ensure MS could keep higher standards than common EU ones ie if they banned the use of endocrine disruptors? Dalli felt this would be “dangerous” and make havoc with the Internal Market. Rosbach replied that this would undermine consumer protection in MS that had higher standards and he replied that the answer was to have high standards across the EU and not have a two tier situation, which would just increase health inequality. He did get applause for committing himself to maintain the hormone ban and defend it in the WTO.

The final question was from Seeber (EPP, AT) who asked whether he would consult the EP before making major proposals. He assured him he would and that it was better to come early and talk through issues than end up fighting over policy.

The meeting ended with generous applause from all sides and he looked to have safely navigated his way through.