13. We consider that the
following raises questions of political importance, but make no
recommendation for its further consideration at this stage:-
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
|
(17783)
12949/96
COM(96)638
|
Commission Opinion on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's Common Position on the draft Directive to amend Directive 93/16/EEC to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their qualifications, and conferring implementing power on the Commission for the updating of certain articles thereof.
|
|
Legal base:
|
Articles 49, 57(1) and (2) first and third sentences; co-decision; qualified majority voting.
|
Introduction
13.1 The "Doctors
Directive", adopted in April 1993, is a consolidation of
a number of Directives adopted between 1975 and 1990, all of which
were concerned with the mutual recognition of medical qualifications
and the co-ordination of medical training by the setting of minimum
requirements. This proposal is to delegate to the Commission
power to make certain amendments to the Directive by the comitology
procedure. These include changing the list of specialties and
the minimum length of specialist training. A Common Position[43]
was adopted by the Council on 17 June 1996 and in October the
European Parliament proposed four amendments to it.
The document
13.2 The Commission did
not accept the four amendments. In its Opinion it says that it
rejected:
-- Amendments
1 and 4 because it was persuaded by the Council that the stronger
regulatory committee framework was necessary because changes to
the length of training courses had not only financial but also
public health implications;
-- amendment
2 because it feels that it would create ambiguity about the jurisdiction
of the Advisory Committee on Medical Training (ACMT);
-- amendment
3 because it is totally unconnected with the proposal.
13.3 In his Explanatory
Memorandum (dated 21 January) the Minister for Health (Mr Malone)
says that a meeting was held in Brussels on 10 January of the
Working Party on Economic Questions (Establishment and Services)
"Doctors" to prepare for the Conciliation process.
13.4 The Working Party
agreed that:
-- for
the proposed amendments 1 and 4, the starting point for conciliation
should be the common position;
-- for
the proposed amendment 2, it was difficult to see the point of
including a reference to ACMT, but it was not entirely ruled out;
-- for
the proposed amendment 3, there was unanimous agreement to reject
the inclusion of a recital dealing with third country medical
qualifications.
The Government's view
13.5 The Government supported
the Common Position. In his EM the Minister repeats verbatim
points which he made in February 1996. He points out, however,
that the UK wants any amendments to the minimum period of training
for specialities to be subject to a Regulatory Committee (Type
IIIa) which gives greater control to Member States. The UK, like
many Member States, he says, depends on trainee specialists for
the delivery of health services.
Conclusion
13.6 We ask the Minister
to inform us in the usual way of the outcome of Conciliation.
In the meantime, we are not clearing the proposal.
43 (16867) 4247/96; see HC 51-xiv (1996-96), paragraph 13 (27 March 1996). Back
|
