3. We have given further consideration to the first two of the following on
the basis of further information from the Government. We maintain our opinion[5] that they raise questions of legal and political importance, but now make no
recommendation for their further consideration. We consider that the third of the following raises
questions of legal and political importance, but make no recommendation for its further
consideration:--
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. |
(17957)
-- |
Amended draft Decision creating a network for the epidemiological
surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the European Community. (Further amended in
Council Health Working Group). |
| Legal base: |
Article 129; co-decision; qualified majority voting. |
Introduction
3.1 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 competent authorities responsible for control measures.
3.2 On 12 March we considered the proposal as amended by the Commission following
the European Parliament's First Reading. We noted that the Minister for Health (Mr Malone) in his
Explanatory Memorandum (dated 11 March) reiterated the concerns he had expressed in April 1996 and
that he appeared to have made no impact on the text which had given rise to these concerns.
The document and the Government's view
3.3 The Minister has now forwarded an unofficial text which he says is unlikely to
change in significant detail before the Health Council meets in June and can therefore be regarded
as the draft Common Position text. Commenting on it he says:
"The text, as amended by the Irish and Dutch Presidencies, meets the UK's concerns.
The structure and function of the network has now been clarified. As far as the scope of Article
129 is concerned, the Council Legal Service's advice is that, although the proposal places certain
duties on Member States, it does not constitute a harmonisation of their laws and regulations and
is, therefore, compatible with the concept of 'incentive measures' within the meaning of Article
129. The Presidency text limits these obligations on Member States to informing and consulting each
other and to co-operating and co-ordinating their efforts in prevention and control of communicable
diseases, language entirely consistent with the language of the Treaty. The Presidency text also
makes clear the Member States are not obliged to harmonise their laws or procedures, distinguishes
between disease surveillance and control measures, and makes explicit that the measures to be taken
remain the responsibility of Member States."
Conclusion
3.4 The Minister has now demonstrated that the Government has indeed worked
effectively to ensure that the proposal does not give rise to concern, particularly over the legal
base. Given his assurance that the text is unlikely to change significantly, we are now clearing
the document on the basis of the unofficial version now before us.
5.(17903) 5832/97; see HC 36-xvii (1996-97), paragraph 2 (12 March 1997). Back
|
