3 Health and consumer protection 2007-13
| (a)
(26750)
8064/05
COM(05) 115
+ ADD 1
(b)
(27539)
9905/06
COM(06) 234
(c)
(27540)
9909/06
COM(06) 235
|
Commission Communication: Healthier, safer, more confident citizens: a health and consumer protection strategy
and
Draft Decision establishing a programme of Community action in the field of health and consumer protection 2007-13
Commission staff working paper: extended impact statement
Amended draft Decision establishing a second programme of Community action in the field of Health (2007-13)
Amended draft Decision establishing a programme of Community action in the field of consumer protection (2007-13)
|
| Legal base | (a) Articles 152 and 153 EC; co-decision; QMV
(b) Article 152 EC; co-decision; QMV
(c) Article 153 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | (b) and (c) 24 May 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (b) and (c) 1 June 2006
|
| Department | (b) Health
(c) Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | (b) EM of 21 June 2006
(c) EM of 14 June 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) HC 34-vii (2005-06), para 2 (26 October 2005)
(b) and (c) None
|
| To be discussed in Council | (b) December 2006
(c) No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) Cleared and recommendation for debate withdrawn
(b) and (c) Not cleared; further information requested
|
Previous scrutiny of document (a)
3.1 The document comprises:
- a Communication from the Commission explaining the proposals
in:
- the draft of a Decision to establish a Community
health and consumer protection programme for 2007-13; and
- an impact assessment of the proposal.
3.2 The Communication explained why the Commission
proposed that Community action on health and consumer protection,
each of which currently has its own programme, should be combined
in one new programme for 2007-13. The Commission believed the
combination to be desirable because, in its view, health and consumer
protection have many objectives in common and bringing them together
would lead to greater policy coherence and administrative savings.
3.3 The draft Decision contained common objectives
for health and consumer protection and specific objectives for
each of them. Its Annexes listed actions to give effect to the
objectives.
3.4 The Commission proposed that the new programme's
budget for 2007-13 should be €1.2 billion, more than double
the rate of expenditure of the two current programmes, taken together.
3.5 When we considered document (a) in October 2005,[6]
the Government told us that Member States had indicated broad
support for the general direction proposed for the new health
and consumer protection programme. But some had voiced concern
about bringing the two together and had questioned some of the
specific proposals in the draft Decision.
3.6 We recommended document (a) for debate in a European
Standing Committee. We considered that among the key issues for
debate were:
- the merits of combining the
health and consumer protection programmes;
- what action on health and consumer protection
can be taken satisfactorily by each Member State and what cannot
be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can be better
achieved by the Community; and
- the size of the proposed budget for the new programme.
3.7 The Minister of State at the Department of Health
(Ms Rosie Winterton) wrote to us in November 2005 and in May to
tell us that, at first reading, the European Parliament had voted
to split the new programme in two so as to establish separate
programmes for health and consumer protection. She suggested that
it might be productive to defer the debate in the European Standing
Committee until the Commission had produced a revised proposal
in the light of the views of the European Parliament and the EU's
total budget for 2007-13 had been settled. We agreed that this
would be sensible.
Document (b)
3.8 Document (b) is the draft of a Decision to establish
a Community health programme for 2007-13. The Commission has made
extensive changes to the health provisions of the draft in document
(a). The changes reflect the amendments proposed by the European
Parliament at its first reading of document (a) and the settlement
of the EU's total budget.
3.9 The new programme's budget for 2007-13 would
be €365.6 million. This is hugely less than the budget of
€969 million proposed in document (a). Because of the reduction,
the Commission has cut back both the objectives it proposes for
the health programme and the actions to be taken.
3.10 The programme's objectives would be to :
- "Improve citizens' health
security
- Promote health to improve prosperity and solidarity
- Generate and disseminate health knowledge".
3.11 The actions to give effect to the objectives
would include, for example, promoting:
- risk assessment;
- the development and procurement of vaccines;
- planning for health emergencies and the response
to them;
- the safety and quality of human organs and blood;
- healthy ageing;
- the reduction of health inequalities within and
between Member States;
- healthy life-styles;
- health education;
- identification and dissemination of good practice
in health care; and
- the collection, analysis and publication of statistical
and other information.
3.12 The draft Decision proposes maxima for financial
contributions from the programme. For example, it proposes that
the Community should not contribute more than 60% of the cost
of action to help achieve the programme's objectives, although
"in cases of exceptional utility" it could contribute
up to 80%. The Commission would be required to publish its criteria
for assessing claims of "exceptional utility".
3.13 The Commission would also be required :
- to present a report by an external
and independent body on the implementation of the programme after
three years;
- to present a Communication on the continuation
of the programme after no more than four years; and
- to present, no later than the end of 2015, an
assessment of the programme by an external and independent body.
3.14 Section 6 of the Legislative Financial Statement
attached to the draft Decision proposes the indicators the Commission
would use to monitor the achievement of the programme's objectives.
They are measures of activity (such as the number of projects
or number of publications), not measures of the effect of the
programme on public health.
The Government's view on document (b)
3.15 The Minister of State at the Department of Health
(Ms Rosie Winterton) tells us that the Government supports the
draft Decision. It welcomes many aspects of it, including the
omission of provision for EU-wide awareness campaigns (a feature
of the draft Decision in document (a)); and the greater emphasis
on disease prevention, health promotion and dealing with health
inequalities. The Government also welcomes the strengthened requirements
for the evaluation of the programme. The Minister adds, however,
that:
"the impact indicators … are still
largely quantitative, and we will seek support from other Member
States … for a stronger focus on monitoring outcomes and
the impact of individual projects.
"The UK will also seek a reference in the
text to the areas which the UK considers to be a priority for
exchange of good practice between health systems, in particular
patient safety."
3.16 The Minister says that she will be sending us
an Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment of the draft Decision.
Document (c)
3.17 Document (c) is the draft of a Decision to establish
a Community consumer protection programme for 2007-13. It reflects
the view of the European Parliament that there should be separate
programmes for consumer protection and health. It also reflects
amendments proposed by the European Parliament at its first reading
of document (a) and the settlement of the EU's overall budget
for the next Financial Perspective.
3.18 The draft Decision provides that the new programme's
budget for 2007-13 should be €156.8 million. Document (a)
proposed that the budget for consumer protection should be €234
million. Because of the reduction, the Commission proposes that
the programme should have two objectives rather than four and
that there should be 11 actions to help achieve the objectives
rather than 20.
3.19 Document (c) proposes that the aim of the programme
should be to:
"complement, support and monitor the policies
of the Member States and ... contribute to protecting the health,
safety and economic interests of consumers as well as to promoting
their right to information, education and to organise themselves
in order to safeguard their interests".
3.20 This aim is to be pursued through the following
objectives:
- "to ensure a high level
of consumer protection, notably through improved evidence [for
the development of consumer policy], better consultation and better
representation of consumers' interests"; and
- "to ensure the effective application of
consumer protection rules notably through enforcement co-operation,
information, education and redress".
3.21 The actions to help achieve these objectives
would include, for example:
- conducting surveys of markets,
products, prices, consumers and consumer complaints;
- collecting, analysing and disseminating statistical
and other relevant information;
- developing tools to assess the safety of consumer
goods and services;
- making financial contributions to the functioning
of European consumer organisations;
- improving the enforcement of consumer protection
rules through co-operation between consumer protection authorities,
joint surveillance operations, conferences of experts, and exchanges
of and training for enforcement staff;
- assessing the effect of alternative dispute resolution
schemes;
- providing consumer protection information for
the public, particularly in the new Member States; and
- making financial contributions to the cost of
developing European Masters degree courses in consumer protection.
3.22 The draft Decision provides that the Commission's
financial contribution to actions jointly financed with Member
States should not exceed 50% of the costs, although "in cases
of exceptional utility" the Community could contribute up
to 70%. Similarly, the Community contribution should not exceed
50% of the cost of "the functioning of European consumer
organisations", although it could meet 95% of the cost of
European consumer organisations representing consumer interests
in the development of European standards for products and services.
Provision is also made for scholarship grants from the programme
for the mobility of teachers and students and for contributions
of up to 85% of the costs of developing Masters degree courses
in consumer protection.
3.23 Document (c) proposes that the Commission should
be required to ensure that the programme is evaluated three years
after its start and after it ends and to report the conclusions
to the Council and the European Parliament.
3.24 The fifth Recital to the draft Decision says
that the Commission intends to extend the role of its Public Health
Executive Agency to include assistance with the implementation
of the consumer protection programme.
The Government's view on document (c)
3.25 The Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign
Affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry (Mr Ian McCartney)
tells us that the Government was never convinced by the arguments
for combining the consumer protection and health programmes. It
sees consumer protection policy as a part of the competitiveness
agenda and the improvement of the internal market.
3.26 The Minister says that the Government will seek
assurances that the proposed new objectives will not lessen the
Commission's commitment to better regulation and policy-making.
He adds that the Government welcomes both the focus on enforcement
in the second new objective and the strengthened provisions on
the evaluation of the programme. It will seek clarification of
the Commission's plan to involve the Public Health Executive Agency
in the implementation of the consumer protection programme and
the proposal for the development of Masters degree courses on
consumer matters.
3.27 The Minister has provided us with his Initial
Regulatory Impact Assessment of the draft Decision. It suggests
that the actions to achieve the programme's objectives would make
calls on the Community's budget but would not impose costs on
business or consumers, who would be likely to benefit from, for
example, better information and enforcement.
3.28 Finally, the Minister tells us that his Department
is consulting consumer organisations, business and others about
the draft Decision.
Conclusion
3.29 We welcome the separation of the proposals
for Community action on health and consumer protection into two
separate programmes. It appears to us that this, together with
the reduction in the budgets for the action, has led to greater
clarity in the drafting of the objectives and the activities to
receive financial support from the programmes.
3.30 We note that, because the Commission has
accepted so many of the European Parliament's amendments, the
Recitals to the draft Decision on the health programme now occupy
almost seven pages. We doubt the value of such extensive Recitals.
In our view, legislation is not the proper place for rhetoric.
It is our impression that there is a general tendency for longer,
more discursive Recitals. We ask the Government to encourage the
Commission to confine them to what is essential.
3.31 We note the points in both draft Decisions
on which the Government will seek clarification. We ask the Government
to stress the importance of ensuring that the performance indicators
for both programmes measure impacts rather than activities.
3.32 We withdraw our recommendation for debate
of document (a) because it has been superseded by documents (b)
and (c). For the same reason, we clear document (a) from scrutiny.
3.33 We ask the Government:
- to tell us the clarification
it receives from the Commission in answer to its queries;
- to tells us the outcome of its consultations
on the draft Decision on consumer protection;
- to provide us with its Regulatory Impact Assessment
of the draft Decision on the health programme; and
- to send us progress reports on the negotiations.
Meanwhile, we shall keep documents (b) and (c)
under scrutiny.
6 See headnote. Back
| 
