WRITTEN QUESTION P-2798/00

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2000)

Subject: WHO report on undue influence by the tobacco industry

1. On 2 August the findings of the independent Expert Committee on the Report on Tobacco Industry Documents and the World Health Organisation (WHO) were published. These findings show that tobacco companies fought the WHO's tobacco control agenda by, among other things, staging events to divert attention from public health issues raised by tobacco use, attempting to reduce budgets for tobacco control, pitting other UN agencies against the WHO, distorting the results of important scientific studies on tobacco, and discrediting the WHO as an institution. Will the Commission discuss this report in its High Level Public Health Committee (composed of Chief Medical Officers) to coordinate the Member States reaction to the report's recommendations?

2. In the light of this research conducted for the WHO, what measures has the Commission taken to ensure that paid consultants of the tobacco industry do not hold positions of influence within the European Commission or that Commission officials have not been improperly influenced by the tobacco industry or its representatives? What if any additional measures will be taken in the future?

3. The EU plays a major role with regard to tobacco legislation and in representing the 15 Member States in the talks on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) within the WHO. Does the Commission agree that if such practices took place with regard to the WHO, it is probable that they were undertaken with regard to the European Commission or to the EU institutions at large?

4. Noting the severe staff and resource shortages and reductions in the Commission services dealing with tobacco control, can the Commission provide a table showing such reductions since the first Europe Against Cancer Programme was launched, and can the Commission guarantee that these reductions are not due to undue influence of the tobacco industry as has been proven in the WHO?

5. How has the Commission made its decisions about resources allocated to tobacco control policies and what resources have been allocated since the first cancer programme to the present?

6. Does the Commission accept, in full or in part, the view of the UK House of Commons Health Select Committee that resources devoted to tobacco control in the European Commission are utterly derisory and what if any measures will be taken to address this concern?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2000)

1. Co-ordination of the position of the Member States in matters of national competence, arising within the framework of the World Health Organisation, is within the responsibility of the Council Presidency. It would therefore be more appropriate for the Presidency to organise any such discussion.

2. and 3. The Commission is not aware of any tobacco industry consultants having been employed by the Commission in the public health field, and can assure the Honourable Member that the tobacco industry does not have any influence over decisions on staffing in Directorate general (DG) Health and consumer protection. Policy over the past year acutely demonstrates the Commission commitment in this issue. Tobacco control has been a priority in the public health domain and the new draft directive has made rapid progress through the Council and Parliament.

4. and 5. Staff resources are allocated on the basis of priorities set down in the Commission's work programme, and in the light of resources agreed by the budgetary authority. The Commission has requested from the budgetary authority a reinforcement of overall staffing so as to meet its priorities, one of which is DG Health and consumer protection.

Staff resources allocated to the cancer programme at present are, in addition to the head and deputy head of unit, 1 A official, 1 B official (partially), 1 detached national expert (partially). This does represent a reduction from the level at the beginning of the initial cancer programme, but it should be borne in mind that this level of staffing is not abnormal for a programme of this kind and maturity. Also the unit concerned now manages other public health programmes such as the drugs programme. As new activities are undertaken, the allocation of staff must necessarily be adapted to reflect those developments. The tobacco industry has not influenced the staffing allocation.

6. The staffing allocation for tobacco control is a function of overall staffing limits and competing priorities. The fight against tobacco consumption will remain high on the agenda and consequently the staff resources required. The Commission hopes to have the support of the Parliament in this regard. Tobacco control will in any event remain a priority for the Commission which will continue to ensure it receives the resources necessary to undertake our policies in that regard.