2. We have given further
consideration to the first of the following on the basis of further
information from the Government. We maintain our opinion[5]
that it raises questions of legal and political importance, and
continue to make no recommendation for its further consideration
at this stage. We consider that the second of the following raises
questions of legal and political importance, but make no recommendation
for its further consideration at this stage:-
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
|
(17076)
5951/96
COM(96)78
|
(i) Commission Communication on communicable disease surveillance networks in the European Community.
(ii) Draft Decision on creating a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the European Community.
|
|
(17903)
5832/97
COM(97)31
|
Amended draft Decision creating a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the European Community.
|
|
Legal base:
|
Article 129; co-decision; qualified majority voting.
|
Introduction
2.1 The purpose of the
proposal is to put into permanent communication with one another
those responsible in individual Member States for the epidemiological
surveillance of communicable diseases and the authorities responsible
for control measures.
2.2 On 15 May 1996 we
asked the Government to report on progress in resolving the various
concerns it had about the draft, and meanwhile did not clear the
document.
The Commission document
2.3 The amended draft,
now submitted, incorporates 12 amendments accepted by the Commission
out of the 17 proposed by the European Parliament at First Reading.
The objective of the amendments is to improve the mode of operation
of the network and to clarify the text. The amendments which
the Commission did not accept were those which it found to be
inconsistent with the wording of the Treaty on European Union,
those which add no legal significance, and those with unacceptable
legal and financial consequences.
The Government's view
2.4 In his Explanatory
Memorandum (dated 11 March) the Minister for Health (Mr Malone)
says:
"In principle,
the UK supports the aim behind the proposal of establishing close
co-operation and effective co-ordination between Member States
in the field of surveillance of communicable diseases, both routine
and emergency, with a view to improving the prevention and control
in Europe of a certain number of serious communicable diseases."
2.5 The Minister then
says that the UK still has concerns about the proposal. He reiterates
all the concerns which he expressed on 18 April, with the exception
of one, about how disease-oriented collaborations would fit into
the proposal[6].
In addition to the legal base, he questions, amongst other things,
the extent to which the proposal includes control of communicable
disease as a function of the network. He says that the UK is seeking
in negotiations to amend the text to meet those concerns and to
clarify the financial implications of the proposal. He anticipates
that a draft Common Position text will be on the agenda for discussion
at the Health Council meeting on 5 June.
Conclusion
2.6 It appears that
in the 11 months since we last reported, the Government has made
little, if any, impact on the draft. We ask the Minister to provide
us with an update, explaining what position he intends to adopt
on the draft Common Position text. In particular we ask him to
elaborate on his views on the legal base. Article 129 of the
Treaty provides for "incentive measures" but specifically
excludes any harmonisation of laws and regulations of the Member
States. The draft Decision appears to go further than this.
Article 4 of the Decision empowers the Commission to adopt implementing
measures which include protective measures to be taken at external
borders.
2.7 We also ask the
Minister to explain in more detail his concern about the practical
effect of the inclusion of the word control in the Decision.
Meanwhile, we are not clearing the document.
5 (17076) 5951/96; see HC 51-xix (1995-96), paragraph 4 (15 May 1996). Back
6 Paragraph 4.7 (iv) of our Report of 15 May 1996. Back
|
