23 Prevention of injuries and promotion
of safety
| (a)
(27626)
10950/06
COM(06) 328
(b)
(27624)
10938/06
COM(06) 329
|
Commission Communication: Actions for a safer Europe
Draft Council Recommendation on the prevention of injury and the promotion of safety
|
| Legal base | (a) —
(b) Article 152(4) EC; — ; QMV
|
| Department | Health |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 25 May 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxxvii (2005-06), para 10 (11 October 2006)
|
| Discussed in Council | 30-31 May 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (Both) Cleared
|
Previous scrutiny of the documents
23.1 The Communication (document (a)) contains the Commission's
proposals for a Community Action Plan to help reduce the suffering
and loss caused by injuries. The Commission argues that action
is needed because injuries are, for example, the principal cause
of the death of children and young people; the cause of 11% of
all hospital admissions; and the cause of 20% of sickness absence.
Moreover, there is a wide variation between Member States in the
number of deaths from injuries.
23.2 The Communication says that a Community Action
Plan is needed to complement what Member States are doing. It
proposes that the priorities of the Action Plan should be:
- to promote the safety of children,
adolescents, elderly people and vulnerable road users (such as
cyclists); and
- the prevention of sports injuries, self-harm,
interpersonal violence and injuries caused by products and services.
The Communication also describes the contribution
the Commission intends to make to the Action Plan.
23.3 In addition, the Commission proposed document
(b), a draft Recommendation, as a first step to combine the efforts
of the Commission with those of the Member States. It recommended
that Member States should:
- develop national injury surveillance
and reporting systems;
- produce National Plans for Accident and Injury
Prevention which are consistent with the priorities of the Community
Action Plan; and
- ensure that injury prevention and safety promotion
are included in the training of health care professionals so that
they can be competent advisers to their patients and the public.
23.4 The draft Recommendation also invited the Commission
to:
- establish a Community-wide
injury surveillance system and disseminate the information it
collects;
- create a mechanism for the exchange of information
about good practice;
- provide Member States with evidence for inclusion
in the injury prevention training of their health professionals;
- use the Community Public Health Programme, the
R&D Framework Programme and the Consumer Protection Programme
to support the development of good practice and action on the
prevention of accidents to the priority groups identified in the
Community Action Plan; and
- four years after the adoption of the Recommendation,
evaluate whether the action has been effective and assess the
need for further action.
23.5 When we considered these documents in July 2006,[71]
the Minister of State for Public Health at the Department of Health
(Caroline Flint) drew our attention to examples of action the
Government and the Scottish Executive have taken to promote safety
and prevent accidents. She also commented on the importance of
the exchange of information between Member States and the advantages
of sharing best practice. She added that the Government would
aim to work constructively with the Commission to ensure that
the costs of the proposed Community-wide surveillance and information
systems were minimised.
23.6 In our report on the documents, we said that
we did not doubt the potential benefits of sharing information
and best practice between Member States. We noted, however, that
the prevention of injury is an aspect of many other Community
programmes and initiatives, such as those on road safety, consumer
protection, health and safety at work, and violence to women and
children. It was not apparent to us how the proposed new Community
Action Plan on injury prevention would add usefully to what is
already being done. We welcomed the Minister's intention to consider
carefully how far the Government could support the proposals for
new data collection systems. We asked the Minister to take account
of our comments in the negotiations on the documents and to provide
us with progress reports on the discussions. Meanwhile, we kept
both documents under scrutiny.
23.7 In September 2006, the Minister replied. She
agreed with us that the prevention of injuries and the promotion
of safety are elements of some existing Community programmes.
She said, however, that they focus on particular types of risk
(such as road accidents), leaving other types of risk or groups
of people uncovered (such as accidents at home or to children).
This fragmentation had, to some extent, obscured the importance
of injury prevention. The Commission's proposals were intended
to fill the gaps, and to add value. The Minister added that the
Government was impressing on the Commission the need for data
collection and reporting to make use of existing collections wherever
possible.
23.8 In our further report on the documents, we welcomed
the Minister's statement about avoiding duplication of work.[72]
We asked what mechanisms were proposed to achieve that aim. We
also asked about the estimated costs of the action listed in the
draft Recommendation and the proposed arrangements to evaluate
its effectiveness.
23.9 We remained doubtful about the justification
for a new Community Action Plan. We decided to keep both documents
under scrutiny pending receipt of the further information for
which we had asked and reports on the progress of the negotiations.
23.10 In her letter of 7 December 2006, the Minister
told us that the documents were being discussed in the Council's
Public Health Work Group. She said that UK officials had asked
for clarification of the points we had raised and would also press
for them to be dealt with by amendments to the draft Recommendation.
The Minister's letter of 25 May 2007 and the revised
Recommendation
23.11 The Minister encloses with her letter a revised
text of the Recommendation. The amendments include:
- The insertion in recital 11
of "It therefore seems necessary to make better use of
existing data and develop, where appropriate, an injury surveillance
and reporting mechanism".
- The deletion of the previous draft of Recommendation
1 and its replacement by "Make better use of existing
data and develop, where appropriate, representative injury surveillance
and reporting instruments to obtain comparable information, monitor
the evolution of injury risks and the effects of prevention measures
and over time assess the needs for introducing additional initiatives
on product and service safety and in other areas".
- The deletion from Recommendation 3 of "Ensure
that injury prevention and safety promotion is introduced in a
systematic way in vocational training of health care professionals"
and its replacement by "Encourage the introduction of
injury prevention and safety promotion, in schools and in training
of health and other professionals".
23.12 In addition, the revised text moderates the
tasks the previous draft invited the Commission to perform.
23.13 In her covering letter, the Minister says that:
"The text of the Recommendation now focuses
on utilising existing systems to minimise costs and avoid duplication,
except where new work would add value."
She adds that the Commission will produce a report
in four years time on whether the action proposed in the Recommendation
is working effectively.
23.14 The Minister also tells us that the Presidency
intended to propose the adoption of the revised Recommendation
at the Health Council's meeting on 30-31 May. She apologises for
her Department's failure to realise sooner that this was the intention.
She regrets that it would not be possible to obtain our clearance
of the document before the Council meeting because of the Whitsun
Recess and our visit to Lisbon to learn about the Portuguese Government's
priorities for its Presidency of the Council in the second half
of this year. She assures us that it had not been the Government's
intention to override the scrutiny reserve and she hopes that
we will understand why the Government would take part in the adoption
of the Recommendation.
Conclusion
23.15 We welcome the amendments that have been
made to the text of the Recommendation. The new emphasis on the
use of existing data and the replacement of mandatory requirements
by exhortation is particularly welcome, although it remains to
be seen whether a new Community initiative on injury prevention
is necessary. We now clear the documents from scrutiny.
23.16 We are concerned that the Department did
not notice until shortly before the Council meeting that the documents
remained under scrutiny. By then, it was too late for the Minister
to obtain clearance. We accept the Minister's apology and can
understand why the Government took part in the adoption of the
revised text of the Recommendation. We ask her, however, to tell
us what systems she has put in place to ensure that there is no
repetition of the oversight which led to this breach of scrutiny.
71 See HC 34-xxxv (2005-06), para 3 (12 July 2006). Back
72
See HC 34-xxxvii (2005-06), para 10 (11 October 2006). Back
| 
