Documents considered by the Committee on 9 December 2009 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


13 Seasonal influenza vaccination

(30797)

11970/1/09

COM(09) 353

Draft Council Recommendation on seasonal influenza vaccination

Legal baseArticle 152(4) EC; — ; QMV
DepartmentHealth
Basis of considerationMinister's letter of 2 December 2009
Previous Committee ReportHC 19-xxvi (2008-09), chapter 5 (10 September 2009)
To be discussed in CouncilDecember
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionCleared

Previous scrutiny of the document

13.1 When we considered the Commission's draft of the Recommendation in September,[38] we noted that, in 2003, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended targets for the vaccination of elderly people: 50% by 2006 and 75% by 2010. Although some countries have already achieved the latter target, most have not.

13.2 We also noted that recital 11 of the draft Recommendation said that:

    "Seasonal influenza can lead to a pandemic and cannot be confined to a geographical region or Member State. Coordinated action at Community level can therefore help Member States achieve their national targets."

13.3 Paragraph 1 of the Commission's draft of the Recommendation provided that each Member State "should" prepare and implement a national plan in order to achieve as soon as possible and no later than the winter of 2014-2015 a vaccination coverage of 75% in all "at risk groups". The plan "should" allocate the necessary resources to enable the target to be reached.

13.4 Paragraph 2 of the Commission's draft said that Member States "should" use the definitions of at risk groups specified in that paragraph. It also said that Member States "should" organise annual surveys of the take-up of the vaccination by the at risks groups. The surveys "should" use the guidelines to be issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Member States "should" also foster education, training and information for healthcare workers and people at risk and their families.

13.5 Paragraph 3 of the Commission's draft provided that Member States "should" send the Commission a report on their implementation of the Recommendation by the end of May every year.

13.6 In her Explanatory Memorandum on the draft Recommendation, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health (Ann Keen) told us that the UK Government recognised the importance of increasing vaccination rates among the groups most at risk from the effects of seasonal influenza. Scotland and Northern Ireland had already attained the WHO 75% target for people aged 65 or more. In 2008/09, the rate in England for those aged 65 or over was 74.1% and for those under 65 with clinical risk conditions the proportion was 47.1%. The UK already had a well-established seasonal influenza vaccination programme; detailed uptake surveys were done; and information about vaccination was available to the public and healthcare workers. The UK was, therefore, among the best placed of Member States to implement the Recommendation.

13.7 But the Government had reservations about the Commission's draft because:

  • Recommendations are not legally binding but this draft Recommendation said that Member States "should" do this or that, as if the Recommendation could impose mandatory duties.
  • Member States are responsible for deciding policies on public health and, in the Government's view, the Commission had not provided a sufficient reason why EC legislation was necessary. The UK doubted that the proposal was consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.[39]
  • The list of chronic medical conditions in paragraph 2 of the Commission's draft was different from the list used in the UK, which is based on the advice of the UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

13.8 We shared the Minister's concerns about the Commission's draft of the Recommendation and decided to keep it under scrutiny pending progress reports from the Minister on the negotiations.

The Minister of State's letter of 2 December

13.9 In her letter of 2 December, the Minister of State at the Department of Health (Gillian Merron) tells us that the draft Directive was discussed by representatives of the Member States and the Commission in September and October. All the amendments proposed by the UK were accepted. The Minister encloses the revised draft of the Recommendation. The main changes are as follows:

  • wherever the Commission's draft said "Member States should", the words have been deleted from the revised version and replaced by "Member States are encouraged";
  • the revised text recognises that health services in some Member States are devolved;
  • the list of "at risk groups" has been deleted from paragraph 2, leaving Member States free to decide their own lists;
  • the vaccination coverage rates are not presented as mandatory targets but as desirable aims; and
  • the requirement for Member States to make an annual report to the Commission on the implementation of the Recommendation has been deleted.

13.10 The Minister tells us that in the course of the discussions, the Commission and the Presidency of the Council made it clear that the purpose of the Recommendation was to bring other Member States up to the same level on flu immunisation as countries such as the UK and Netherlands which currently have the highest uptake rates.

13.11 Finally, the Minister says that the Swedish Presidency hopes that the Council will be able to adopt the revised Recommendation before the end of this month.

Conclusion

13.12 We welcome the Government's success in negotiating a revised text which omits the objectionable features of the Commission's draft. We understand that the UK was alone in questioning whether the proposal was consistent with the principle of subsidiarity. We recognise that an arguable case for its compliance with the principle can be made for the reason given in recital 11 (see paragraph 13.2 above).

13.13 We have no further questions to put to the Minister and we are now content to clear the draft Recommendation from scrutiny.


38   See headnote. Back

39   Article 5 of the EC Treaty provides that, in matters which do not fall within its exclusive competence:

"The Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community." Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 17 December 2009