Policy responses and statements

Name of organisation:

European Commission

Name of policy document:

Green Paper - Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level

Deadline for response:

1 May 2007

Background: The European Commission has produced a Green Paper, entitled "Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level", to launch a broad public consultation on the best way to promote smoke-free environments in the European Union. The Green Paper examines the health and economic burdens associated with passive smoking, public support for smoking bans, and the measures taken so far at national and EU level. Views were sought on the scope of measures to tackle passive smoking. The advantages and disadvantages of measures of different scope are analysed, including a total ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and exemptions of different types (eg for restaurants and bars). The Commission considers that the policy of widest scope would bring the biggest health benefit to the public health of the population. Finally, the Commission seeks views on which policy option would be most appropriate to achieve smoke-free environments: no change from the statvus quo, voluntary measures, coordination and exchange of best practices between Member States, a Commission or Council Recommendation or binding EU legislation. The other EU institutions, Member States and civil society were invited to submit their comments to the Green Paper until 1 May 2007. The Commission will then analyse the responses and produce a report with the main findings of the consultation, before considering further steps.

The five options presented for discussion in the Green Paper are:

No change from the status quo: while the current trend towards smoke-free environments in the Member States would probably continue, progress would be patchy and this could be expected to be the least effective policy option.

Voluntary measures: while self-regulation at European level might be quicker and more flexible, the evidence from Member States suggests that voluntary agreements in this area have not been effective.

Open method of coordination: seeking convergence in national smoke-free legislation through guidelines, targets and exchanges of best practice is another possibility, but its effectiveness would depend on peer pressure

Commission or Council Recommendation: such a recommendation would not have binding force but would place the issue on the political agenda. Its effectiveness would depend on monitoring requirements and some Member States might choose not to act at all.

Binding legislation: this could be achieved in different ways and would impose a comparable, transparent and enforceable level of protection against environmental tobacco smoke across the EU. However, this route is likely to be relatively lengthy with an end result which is difficult to predict.

In terms of scope, the Commission's Green Paper concludes that a comprehensive smoke-free policy would bring the greatest health benefit to the population, and the evidence from around the world is that this option is viable and enforceable. The Commission considers that the desirable level of EU involvement in promoting smoke-free legislation is an open question, and is also linked to developments in Member States.

COMMENTS ON
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
GREEN PAPER - TOWARDS A EUROPE FREE FROM TOBACCO SMOKE: POLICY OPTIONS AT EU LEVEL

The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to respond to the European Commission on the Green Paper, Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level.

GENERAL COMMENTS

The College, based in Scotland, is a leading participant in the campaign to introduce smoke-free legislation for public places, and welcomes the Green Paper as a timely addition to the EU and global debate on smoke-free policies.  The paper itself is based on strong scientific evidence and presents a range of possible options for smoke-free policies.

The experience in Scotland has been overwhelmingly positive; widely accepted (including in prisons where equivalent restrictions have been accepted without significant incident) and was entirely framed in terms of amenity and social benefit, given that the Scottish Parliament did not have powers to take in health and safety legislation.  Therefore, as a social measure alone, and quite apart from public or employer liability, public restriction on smoking has been shown to be acceptable.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONS

Which of the two approaches suggested in section IV would be more desirable in terms of scope for a smoke free initiative: total ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and work places or a ban with exemptions granted to selected categories of venues?

A total ban on all smoking in all enclosed public places would be the preferred approach to be adopted.  Second-hand smoke (SHS) is a proven classified carcinogen and the health effects of SHS have been well documented.  On conservative estimates, exposure to SHS kills at least 79,000 people in the EU each year.  The only legitimate response to this data, as the Green Paper recognises, is a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed work and public places.  Extending protection for a known carcinogen to some workers but excluding others cannot be justified under any principles of occupational health and safety. 

Partial bans, particularly in the hospitality sector generally, do not work and lead to confusion and non-compliance.  Given a choice, employers tend to choose the status quo and continue to allow smoking.  This has been the experience in all countries which have permitted the establishment of smoking zones in work places. 

Option 2.1: Restrictions on licensed premises

The College does not support this option as it would leave a large workforce unprotected, and is particularly relevant to young women, both as staff and consumers.  The startling statistics on the toxic effect on people in heavily polluted smoking environments such as discotheques could render Member States open to litigation, as well as many women open to harm.  Much more important in terms of justice would be the effect on the embryo.  While there is some mention of the interests of children throughout this document, and a relative lack of research on effects on children, the Commission should not underestimate the importance of legislation that favours them. 

Option 2.2: Exemption for bars and pubs that do not sell food

As the document states, this would be a blight on the poorest and most vulnerable in the community.  It would act against the beneficent qualities of a managed market in offering least protection to those who most need it.  It would widen health inequalities, polarise the pubs and bar market, and set back cultural attempts to socialise drinking, especially in Northern Europe, where drinking with food is a less common phenomenon.  Overall, such a set of restrictions may have overall negative health effects.  The College does not support this option.

Option 2.3: Enclosed, separately ventilated smoking rooms

This option would run counter to clear evidence.  It would provide no effective protection to consumers and is not supported by the College.

Q.  Which of the policy options described in Section V would be the most desirable and appropriate for promoting smoke-free environments?  What form of EU intervention do you consider necessary to achieve the smoke-free objectives?

For the arguments stated above, the College rejects options 1, 2 and 3.  It would not place adequate protections on consumers in Member States that did not wish to implement these measures - “no change from the status quo” is not an option considering the risk to health from passive smoking.

Evidence from the past shows that voluntary measures do not protect workers and members of the public from exposure to SHS.  An example of this comes from voluntary agreements in the UK, which resulted in little perceptible improvement in exposure levels.   An open method of co-ordination (OMC) although this may have some benefits, is not capable of introducing completely smoke-free enclosed public and work places.

Option 4: Commission or Council Recommendation

The EU Council recommendation already exists in the field of smoke-free policy.  The evidence shows that, following the introduction of the 1989 recommendation, Member States did introduce legislation, which led to some sectors of the workforce in public becoming smoke-free.  It is likely that a further Commission or Council recommendation would have similar success, provided it is adapted to recent legislative and evidential developments of the Member States.  However, the impact of this approach may be limited and would not restrain the tobacco industry from exploiting weaknesses.  It could pose a setback for vulnerable people in some Member States, and would not recognise sufficiently the effects on child health.   Finally, the EU could stand accused of doing too little to implement both the letter and the spirit of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and act as a signal for the rest of the world to relax its guard in countering smoking, particularly in developing countries.

Option 5: Binding Legislation

The experiences of Member States have shown that a ban is a feasible and popular option in both North and South Europe.  It would set clear parameters for a level market across the EU in smoking tobacco, as well as the promotion of leisure industries, behaviour and trade in public places, and the encouragement of business and tourism.  As the world's leading economy, it would signal the value that the EU places on the health and well-being of its people over legal but toxic products that are heavily taxed.  It would be a signal that good social and consumer protections are possible in a thriving economy.  It would also signal the value that the EU would wish to project to business and tourist guests, and the staff who serve them. 

However, cultural elements when introducing smoking bans and the introduction of EU legislation (accepted as lengthy) may slow down the momentum towards smoke-free laws at a national level.  It may be helpful to undertake several of the measures offered in option 5 (directives on workplace smoking, protection of workers, classification of environmental tobacco smoke as a pathogen) while starting the process to have Europe-wide legislative measures, and encourage Member States to adopt their own measures after due consultation in anticipation of European legislation.

FURTHER RESEARCH AND CONSENSUS

The research information being accumulated in Scotland is to be presented at an International Meeting in Edinburgh in September 2007, and this will be very persuasive in demonstrating the health benefits and minimal adverse economic effects of the ban.  It will be very important in moving opinion internationally.

OTHER ISSUES

Public education about the effects of SHS/environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is essential, and if this is not undertaken before introducing a public smoking ban the measure will fail.  The acceptance of the ban in Scotland has been remarkable, but having a fairly lengthy public consultation period allowed the media to explore the issues fully and helped to move the arguments forward.  This may be challenging on a Europe-wide basis, but it would be important that a ban could be seen as having been discussed and decided upon by the people of each nation rather than being "imposed by the EU".

Copies of this response are available from:

Lesley Lockhart,
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
9 Queen Street,
Edinburgh,
EH2 1JQ.

Tel: 0131 225 7324 ext 608
Fax: 0131 220 3939

[27 April 2007]