WRITTEN QUESTION P-2140/99

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 November 1999)

Subject: European funds for the tobacco sector and Marlboro adverts

The Commission presided by Romano Prodi has forwarded to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions a report, which has been published in the Official Journal, on the progress achieved in relation to public health protection from the harmful effects of tobacco consumption.

Does the Commission consider the following to be compatible with the progress achieved and with public health protection:

1. the amount of aid which the European Union grants each year (EUR 962 million, i.e. approx. LIT 1 870 billion for the year 2000) to tobacco producers, evidently to enable them to continue producing at prices that are attractive to themselves, consumers and governments which directly or indirectly benefit from the sector through the taxes they impose on tobacco consumption;

2. the shameless and specious publicity given to a whole range of brands of cigarettes in particular Marlboro through television reports and broadcasts of motor car races sponsored by the various cigarette manufacturers, who are thus given an opportunity to brazenly circumvent the ban on tobacco advertising.

Will the Commission also provide a breakdown of the funds allocated to the tobacco industry by country and by company, at least with respect to beneficiaries having received more than EUR 50 000?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

The subsidies to growers of tobacco are paid under the common agricultural policy (CAP). A report on these payments, which included proposals for reform, was presented to the Council and the Parliament in 1996(1). The discussions in all Community institutions focused on a number of issues including the compatibility of the subsidies with the Community's other objectives in relation to public health protection.

It was decided that the system of subsidies, including a number of important reforms, should continue. This decision was strongly influenced by two important considerations. First, an end to the subsidies would lead to no measurable fall in tobacco consumption as smokers would turn to imported tobacco which already accounts for two thirds of Community consumption. Second, the growers of tobacco are concentrated in less developed regions of the Community with few alternatives to tobacco growing as a source of income and employment.

The system of subsidy payments is, however, subject to review in accordance with the normal review mechanisms governing the common agricultural policy. The Parliament will continue to play its part in this review process. Any decision by the Parliament that such subsidies are incompatible with the Community's wider public health obligations would clearly be taken into account in determining future policy in this area.

The issue of advertising of tobacco products on television and sponsorship of television programmes by tobacco firms is dealt with by Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities(2) as last amended by Directive 97/36/EC(3). As regards sponsorship of events (any public or private contribution to an event or activity with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting a tobacco product), the objective of Directive 98/43/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products(4) is to phase out advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products.

The reference to funds allocated to the tobacco industry by Member State and by company is inexact, as such support is only given to producers of raw tobacco in the framework of the common agricultural policy.

(1) COM(96) 554 final.

(2) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

(3) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.

(4) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.