Making Europe a smoke-free zone

Date: 07/07/05

Two MEPs discuss the way forward for dealing with smoking at work and in public areas

She has resisted the call for a total ban on smoking at the workplace in the past, but Liz Lynne says there is now evidence that this would save thousands of lives

As someone with severe asthma, smoking is a subject that I take a lot of interest in and have spoken about many times in the past. Tobacco is one of the leading preventable causes of death and disability among adults in Europe. Every year five million people die worldwide from smoking-related diseases and this is set to double by 2020 if nothing is done. As we know, some of those that die will be non-smokers - killed by passive smoking. Indeed, statistics suggest that one bar worker a week dies from passive smoking in the UK alone.

I have opposed and will continue to oppose a smoking ban at EU level, as it should be up to member states themselves to make such a decision. I have resisted the call for a total ban on smoking in the workplace in the UK in the past and called for bars and restaurants in particular to be given one last chance to provide smoke-free areas. But there is now plenty of evidence to suggest that a UK ban would save thousands of lives and improve the quality of life for many more.

Time and goodwill is rapidly running out for the employers who continue to flout even the current weak laws. Too often, even when no-smoking areas are provided, they are poorly ventilated and only accessible via areas where smoking is permitted. This can effectively bar a chronic asthma sufferer from even entering the building.

Most European countries now have some sort of ban, usually on public transport, but very few have legislation preventing people from smoking in the workplace. Ireland, Holland, Italy, Sweden and Norway have already introduced a total ban on smoking in public places with Scotland set to follow next year. A partial ban is also proposed in Belgium from next year and England and Wales by 2008. Seven thousand people in Ireland stopped smoking in the first months of the Irish ban and tobacco sales fell by 16%.

Much has already been done at an EU and member state level to encourage people to give up smoking, from larger and more graphic warnings on cigarette packets to a ban on tobacco advertising.

Last year I hosted a press conference in Brussels to launch officially two new reports, drawn up by the European Network for Smoking Prevention (ENSP) on the effects of smoking in EU countries.

The first report was co-ordinated by Luk Joossens of the Belgian Tobacco Coalition called Effective tobacco control policies in 28 European Countries It aims to provide an overview of effective tobacco control policies and to quantify the efforts of countries using a scale provided by a panel of experts.

The second report conducted by Professor Anton Kunst of Erasmus University in Rotterdam called Socio-economic inequalities in smoking in the European Union is based on a study of 14 countries. The report concludes that tobacco use is increasingly concentrated among the poorest in our society.

The reports make recommendations to maximise the effectiveness of legislation to protect people from tobacco smoke in countries where it already exists and calls for appropriate legislation in countries where none is currently in place.

Yes, we need to protect those non-smoking workers from the effects of passive smoke, but we also need to reduce the numbers of people who smoke. As the reports indicate, reducing smoking rates among the poorest, in particular, is now a vital task for politicians and those who influence public opinion at both national and European Union level. Banning people from smoking in their workplace and other public places is a start, but it is not the only answer to reducing the amount of smokers in the EU and making us a healthier continent.

• British Liberal Democrat MEP Liz Lynne is a member of the European Parliament's committee for employment and social affairs.

National social security systems cannot afford the burden of paying for the additional damages caused by smoking, argues Manuel Medina Ortega

One by one, member states in the European Union are introducing limits to smoking. The wholesome cowboy beaming a smile from the big billboard while he enjoys his cigarette has become a thing of the past. People will remember with nostalgia the chain-smoking Peter Henreid, of Casablanca fame, and the romantic spirit of the Smoke gets in your eyes song. Once it is generally admitted that 'tobacco kills' and that it is 'harmful for your health', governments have to take the further step of limiting tobacco advertising in public places. National social security systems cannot afford the additional burden of paying for the damages caused by smoking.

After the advertising limitations and the ban on smoking in public places, governments are now forbidding tobacco in the workplace, including the old traditional havens for smokers in pubs and restaurants.

The European institutions have attempted to help national governments by imposing common labelling requirements on tobacco products. The Union has gone as far as to limit advertising on TV and relevant sports competitions. It failed, however, when the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament adopted a directive introducing a general ban on tobacco advertising.

The German government sued the Council and the Parliament before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the judges annulled the advertising directive.

The basis for annulment by the ECJ of the tobacco directive was the lack of a sufficient legal basis in the European Union treaty. The health provisions of the treaty were insufficient to warrant a general ban. Specific bans on tobacco advertising could only be adopted under the internal market provisions of the treaty. This means that tobacco advertising can only be banned by the Union when the achievement of the internal market requires supranational legislation. Otherwise, it is up to each member state to decide on the type of advertising that can be allowed.

The rationale of the advertising judgement can be safely extended to a ban on tobacco in the workplace. There is no legal basis under the now existing treaty to impose an EU-wide ban on tobacco in the workplace.

The draft EU constitution would strengthen the Union's powers on health issues. Article III-278 paragraph 5 points out that European laws or framework laws may establish incentive measures designed to protect and improve human health and, in particular, to combat the major cross-border health scourges, as well as measures which have as their direct objective the protection of public health regarding tobacco and the abuse of alcohol. Harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the member states in this area is excluded, nevertheless. Thus, for the time being, smokers can enjoy a puff in their workplace, provided that their national government has not yet banned this doubtful privilege.

In this area, as in many other domains, the EU remains divided, or, at least, "united in diversity", as the new constitution motto says. There will be no need to issue all-European laws banning tobacco in the workplace so far as the main paymasters of the tobacco-related illnesses, i.e. the national social security systems, are kept independent of each other. On the other hand, common problems give rise to common solutions and it is likely that, ultimately, all members of the EU will apply similar rules on the limitation of smoking in the workplace.

From a practical point of view, as long as there are no common provisions on the banning of smoke in the workplace, visitors to Europe and Europeans travelling from one EU country to another will have to find for themselves whether they can smoke or be exposed to smoke in their daily activities.

• Spanish Socialist MEP Manuel Medina Ortega is a member of the European Parliament's committee on the internal market and consumer protection.

Two MEPs discuss the way forward for dealing with smoking at work and in public areas.

• Primary Source