WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/99 by Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Habit-forming substances added to cigarettes by the tobacco industry.
C 280 E/4 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (28 January 2000) The budgetary authority agreed to allocate € 137 million in the budgetary year 1999 out of budget 1. chapter B7-54 for reconstruction projects in Kosovo. The Commission has made efforts to implement this. The amounts do not include other Commission funding related to the Kosovo crisis, like humanitarian aid provided by the European Community humanitarian office (ECHO) (€ 378 million in 1999) or the exceptional € 100 million budgetary support offered in 1999 out of budget chapter B7-54 to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Montenegro and out of budget chapter B7-50 to Albania in order to enable these countries to cope with the additional burden on their budget caused by the massive influx of refugees from Kosovo. Additional macro-financial assistance was also granted to FYROM and Bosnia and Herzegovina whose economies suffered from the crisis in the region. The Commission in November 1999 announced that it would propose a major assistance and recovery programme for the Western Balkans, including Kosovo, for the years 2000 to 2006. It suggested a total of € 5 500 million, but the detailed assessment of needs is to be completed in the spring 2000 for consideration in the 2001 budget procedure and will be available in time for the presentation of the new programme. The volume of assistance the Member States pledged for the reconstruction of Kosovo is set out in the tables that were drawn up after the Kosovo donors conferences of July and November 1999, and is available to be consulted on the internet site for South East Europe reconstruction jointly managed by the Commission and the World Bank (http://www. seerecon. org/Calendar/pledgeeuro. pdf and http://www. seer- econ. org/Calendar/SDC/sdc-pledges-euro. pdf). 2. to 4. € 500 million was initially foreseen by the Commission for Kosovo reconstruction in 2000 in mid-year 1999, some € 440 million more than foreseen in the Commissionís preliminary draft budget of April 1999. The final assessment of needs was to be made for 2000 during the budgetary procedure. The Commission presented its views on the impact of the Kosovo financing on the budget through the proposal of letter of amendment No 4/2000, at the end of October 1999. The Commission proposed to react in at least two stages: first covering the 2000 budget only, and later, during the preparation of the 2001 preliminary draft budget, and once exact assessments of the needs and the funding by other donors was known, the period covered by Agenda 2000. A more co-operative economic development programme will gradually replace the urgent reconstruction. for the rest of The Commission proposed a combination of three funding sources for the extra finance needed: redeployment in so far as feasible, partial use of the flexibility instrument and a revision of the financial perspective. The budgetary authority agreed € 240 million for direct aid to Kosovo reconstruction in December 1999, with further funding from humanitarian aid and from carry-overs to bring the total available for Kosovo in 2000 to € 360 million. It decided to call fully on the flexibility reserve and to re- deploy funding within heading 4 to achieve this. (2000/C 280 E/004) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2014/99 by Maria Martens (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 November 1999) Subject: Habit-forming substances added to cigarettes by the tobacco industry A report published by three scientific organisations (ASH: Action on Smoking and Health, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program) shows that the tobacco industry adds chemical substances to cigarettes to make them more addictive. The report is available on the Internet: http://www. ash. org. uk/papers/additives. html. Is the Commission aware of these findings? 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/5 What is the Commissionís attitude to this practice on the part of the tobacco industry? In the light of the Commissionís initiatives in respect of public health and consumer protection, is it time for a Commission inquiry into these practices in the European tobacco industry? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1999) The Commission is indeed aware of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Commission also commented on this issue in its recent report on progress achieved in relation to public health protection from the harmful effects of tobacco consumption (1). In 1997, the Commission in fact asked all Member States for information concerning their policy in relation to additives contained in cigarettes. Analysis of the responses reveals significant disparities between the rules in force and shows the current legal situation in the Member States as regards additives in tobacco. It has also served as a basis for drawing up an appropriate Community response to eliminate obstacles to free trade within the single market, while at the same time ensuring a high level of public health protection. The resulting proposal was adopted by the Commission on 16 November 1999 (2) and forwarded to Parliament and the Council. Article 7 of the proposal stipulates that Member States shall require all manufacturers and importers of including tobacco products to submit to them a list of all non-tobacco ingredients and constituents, additives and quantities thereof, used in the manufacture of their tobacco products by brand. This list shall be accompanied by a statement setting out the reasons for the inclusion of such ingredients and constituents in their tobacco products. Member States shall also require manufacturers and importers to provide toxicological data on these non-tobacco ingredients and constituents in burnt and unburned form, and to demonstrate that the said ingredients are safe for the health of the consumer when used as intended in their tobacco products. í (1) COM(99) 407 final. (2) COM(99) 594 final. (2000/C 280 E/005) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2017/99 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (28 October 1999) Subject: Report on quality control of 2nd CSF projects On 13 October 1998, in reply to my question No E-2176/98 (1), the then Commissioner, Mrs Wulf- Mathies, said that the first ESPEL quarterly report had found that quality problems did exist in various projects and that ESPEL would proceed to carry out systematic and in-depth checks on 2nd CSF projects. In the light of the large number of accidents on Greek motorways caused by substandard work and inadequate checking systems, will the Commission say what the results of ESPELís checks are to date? In which specific projects have substandard work or shortcomings been identified? Have those been rectified by the contractors and at whose expense? What financial, disciplinary, penal or other administrative consequences (e. g. blacklisting) will be imposed on those responsible for the failings and substandard work? (1) OJ C 96, 8. 4. 1999, p. 51 and OJ C 135, 14. 5. 1999, p. 16