home page ← Buzz@Bruss! Edition #11 ← If it works, prove why it needs fixing
Before the Commission puts pen to paper on its legislative proposal for a revised TPD and TAD, one question deserves more attention than it currently receives: what exactly is broken? At a time when calls for new restrictions are multiplying, the Commission’s own evaluation suggests the existing framework is already delivering many of its intended objectives.
A framework that is already delivering
The Commission’s evaluation concludes that the TPD and TAD have helped reduce smoking prevalence, contributed to public health objectives and provided a functioning framework for the internal market.
When a regulatory framework is broadly achieving its intended outcomes, revision should not be treated as an objective in itself. Any proposed change should be supported by a clear demonstration that the existing framework is no longer capable of addressing the issue at hand.
Effective regulation is not simply about adopting new rules. Policymakers should also consider whether additional restrictions could create unintended consequences, including increased illicit trade, reduced compliance or new enforcement challenges.
Market evolution is not evidence of regulatory failure
Consumer preferences change. New product categories emerge. Markets evolve.
These developments do not automatically justify additional regulations. Where specific concerns are identified, they should be assessed on their own merits and addressed through targeted measures that reflect the characteristics of the products concerned, rather than broad regulatory expansion.
The Better Regulation test still matters
As the Commission prepares its proposal, the Better Regulation test should not become an afterthought. Necessity, proportionality and subsidiarity matter just as much during politically sensitive revisions as they do elsewhere.
In our submission, we argue that additional EU action should be considered only where there is clear evidence that existing rules, enforcement measures or national approaches are insufficient, and where action at EU level would provide added value. Any new measures should also demonstrate that their expected benefits outweigh their economic, administrative and societal costs.
Focus on better regulation, not simply more regulation
Should legislative changes be proposed, priority should be given to improving the effectiveness, quality and enforceability of existing rules.
Current notification, reporting and compliance systems already provide authorities with extensive oversight tools. Future reforms should therefore focus on making the framework work better in practice, while avoiding unnecessary complexity, duplication and administrative burden.
Any future measures should also avoid unintended consequences that could undermine compliance, market oversight or the effectiveness of the existing framework.
Preserving the right balance
One of the strengths of the current framework is the balance it strikes between common EU rules and Member State flexibility.
We believe that balance should be maintained. EU intervention should focus on areas where genuine internal market concerns require common rules, while leaving Member States the flexibility to address issues that can be managed effectively at national level.
Ultimately, revising legislation should never be an objective in itself. The burden of proof should remain where it belongs: demonstrating why additional regulation is necessary, proportionate and likely to deliver better outcomes than the framework already in place.
Buzz@Bruss!
#11
more articles
The case for getting TPD right
Can flawed questions produce sound policy?
