Sosiaali- Ja Terveysministeriö STM2007-00244 TRO Koskenkorva
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö E-KIRJELMÄ STM2007-00244 TRO Koskenkorva Satu 24.05.2007 SUURI VALIOKUNTA Viite Asia EU; Savuton Eurooppa - Vihreä kirja; Suomen vastaus avoimeen konsultaatioon U/E-tunnus: EUTORI-numero: Ohessa lähetetään perustuslain 97§:n mukaisesti Suomen vastaus komission laatimaan vihreään kirjaan Savuton Eurooppa. Suomen vastaus on toimitettu komissiolle 30.4.2007. Vihreässä kirjassa “Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level” käsitellään perusteellisesti tupakoinnin ja ympäristön tupakansavun terveydellisiä, sosiaalisia ja taloudellisia vaikutuksia. Komissio esittää useita vaihtoehtoisia toimia liityen sääntelyn tasoon, ja kysyy mikä niistä olisi vastaajien mielestä paras tapa edetä. Suomi korostaa vastauksessaan, että mahdollisten toimien lähtökohtana tulisi olla työntekijöiden suojelu, ja että minkään työntekijäryhmän jäänti suojelun ulkopuolelle mahdollisin poikkeussäännöksin ei ole perusteltua. Suomi on myös esittänyt, että toimien tulisi lähtökohtaisesti olla sitovaa sääntelyä, jolloin työnantaja ei sopimuksella tai omasta aloitteestaan voisi poiketa suojelun vastuusta. Osastopäällikkö, ylijohtaja Kimmo Leppo Ylitarkastaja Satu Koskekorva 2(3) LIITTEET Suomen vastaus konsultaatioon (en), vihreä kirja (fi, sv, en) 3(3) Asiasanat tupakka Hoitaa STM Tiedoksi ALR, EUE, MMM, TH, VM, VNEUS Lomakepohja: Eduskuntakirjelmä COM(2007) 27 final Green Paper: Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level 1. Which of the two approaches suggested in Section IV would be more desirable in terms of its scope for smoke-free initiative: a total ban on smoking in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces or a ban with exemptions granted to selected categories of venues? Please indicate the reasons for your choice. In Finland smoking is banned in daycare centres and educational institutions (including outdoor facilities) as well as in indoor public places, public events organised indoors, public transport, and workplaces. Currently the Finnish Tobacco Act allows smoking at workplaces only if the other employees’ exposure to tobacco smoke can be prevented. Smoking can be allowed in restaurants with an area of less than 50 square meters. In larger restaurants, the area reserved for smoking can take up a maximum of 50 per cent of the restaurant. In such cases tobacco smoke may not drift into areas where smoking is banned. The reform of the Finnish Tobacco Act enters into force on 1 June 2007. The revised Act aims at better protection of employees against health and other hazards caused by tobacco smoke. The revised Act is based on the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Employees shall not be exposed to for example carcinogens such as tobacco smoke in their work. In the Tobacco Act, tobacco smoke is defined as carcinogen. All employees are treated equally. Smoking in restaurants can be allowed in separate, enclosed facilities reserved for smoking. Finland endorses the adoption of joint EU level measures for the protection of people against environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Especially children and young people should be protected against exposure to ETS, and smoking in all facilities intended for the use of children and young people should be banned in the EU in accordance with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Of the options presented in Part IV of the Commission Green Paper, Finland endorses Option 2.3 allowing enclosed, separately ventilated smoking rooms. However, Finland agrees with the technical requirements described by the Commission in Chapter 2.3. Finland does not endorse a general exemption for restaurants since exposing the employees in one sector to large quantities of ETS is not acceptable. However, if it were possible to ensure that restaurant employees and customers are not exposed to ETS, a separate smoking room in restaurants, for example, would fulfil sufficiently the objective of occupational safety and health. The prerequisite is, however, that no employee works in the smoking room, that is, no food or beverages for example can be consumed or served in the room. This option is described in Section 2.3 of Chapter IV of the Green Paper. A minimum prerequisite should then be the technical requirements the Commission has defined for smoking rooms. In Finland, this option is possible under the revised Tobacco Act. In particular it should be discussed whether it is reasonable to ban smoking in the outdoor facilities of daycare centres and schools. Options 2.1 and 2.2 would not, however, be acceptable for Finland, as they do not offer adequate and sufficient protection for employees against exposure to ETS. 2. 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? Finland highlights that the chosen measures should be effective, bearing in mind attainable benefits. Hence for example binding legislation, based on occupational safety and health that promotes the protection of employees against ETS in the whole of EU and at all the workplaces would be desirable even from the perspective of the Internal Market and the freedom of movement (people, services). Employees should be treated equally with regard to their health in the whole of EU, and failure to comply with health protection should not allowed to become a competitive advantage. The most natural solution for workplaces is binding legislation. If the smoking ban is to apply at all the workplaces in the EU (and thus even in the whole of EEA), it seems to be necessary to pass a regulation or a directive on the matter. An amendment of the Framework Directive on Health and Safety in the Workplace (89/391/EEC), that is, adding an article on a ban on smoking into the directive, would be a rather clear-cut solution. However, due to the restrictions concerning the directive’s scope of application, it would exclude national defence and police workplaces from the scope of the smoking ban. Neither does the scope of application of Directive 89/654/EEC include all workplaces. In consequence, it is unlikely that the scope of application of this special directive could be expanded beyond the framework directive’s scope of application. If the objective were to ban smoking in the indoor facilities of workplaces, the most simple solution would be to prescribe exactly that. No doubt an amendment of the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive could produce the same outcome. If legislative measures do not carry enough support, Finland is prepared to accept less-binding measures. Recommendations, coordination of good practices and voluntary measures can also enhance and promote the acceptability of and the adherence to a binding law. Exchange of experiences regarding different measures to diminish employees’ and the public’s exposure to ETS can be beneficial, and such activities should be continued within various programmes or through the open method of coordination. A recommendation with an obligation to submit a report and a re-assessment of the situation to the Commission is another possible step towards reducing employees’ exposure to ETS. These measures can also influence the citizens’ attitudes. Although it has been established that for example the comprehensive ban on smoking in Ireland has received widespread support and that the economic effects have been minor, the situation in other EU Member States may be different due to cultural differences. Phased progress can also have a positive impact on people’s attitudes towards banning restaurant smoking in countries where the attitudes are not as positive at the moment as for example in Ireland. However, Finland does not endorse the launching of extensive processes of the type of forums. As tobacco smoke is a carcinogen, the responsibility to protect employees against it lies with the employer, and it should not be possible to deviate form this responsibility by agreement. Moreover, applying the open method of coordination only with regard to restricting exposure to ETS may not necessarily guarantee sufficient follow-up and monitoring procedures for reaching the goal of non-smoking. Legislative monitoring and sanctions due to breaches against provisions should be prescribed at the national level. 3. Are there any further quantitative or qualitative data on the health, social or economic impact of smoke-free policies which should be taken into account? No comments. 4. Do you have any other comments or suggestions on the Green Paper? If provisions for an extensive ban on smoking at workplaces are issued at the EU level, their implementation and effects should be monitored and sufficient funding should be allocated. EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO Bryssel 30.1.2007 KOM(2007) 27 lopullinen VIHREÄ KIRJA Tavoitteena savuton Eurooppa: EU:n toimintavaihtoehdot (komission esittämä) FI FI SISÄLLYSLUETTELO I JOHDANTO ................................................................................................................ 4 II TOIMIEN PERUSTELUT........................................................................................... 5 1. Terveyssyyt ..................................................................................................................5 1.1. Ympäristön tupakansavulle altistumisesta aiheutuvat terveysongelmat...................... 5 1.2. Altistumistasot ............................................................................................................. 6 1.3. Savuttomuusaloitteen