Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-303"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.12.2-303"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I am very grateful to the rapporteur, Professor Trakatellis, and to the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and other committees involved for all their work on this important and ambitious programme which is a crucial element in the Community's overall health strategy.
Secondly, on implementation, the precondition for the delivery of all these objectives is implementation capacity. Let me say at the outset that I fully accept that the Commission does not currently possess the technical capacity to meet the challenge of implementation.
There is no doubt that we will have to make significant efforts to put in place coordination, monitoring and implementation of capacity which is adequate to the technical challenge offered by this programme. Without any doubt the issue is a priority for the three institutions in this process.
The success of the programme will depend very much on our ability to bring together the necessary resources and expertise at Community level, within Member States and in international organisations. The Commission will do everything it can to ensure the smooth running of the programme by creating the effective coordination and monitoring capability which is essential to make the programme a success.
I am currently investigating various options for ensuring this capability, for example, ways to strengthen internal capacities or the new possibility offered by the externalisation initiative to establish one or more specialised bodies for different implementation tasks. However, the amendments include a substantial number of references to the creation of a health coordination and monitoring centre in the programme decision.
Let me be very clear about our position on this. As I have said, I wholeheartedly agree with the need for an identifiable mechanism to ensure effective coordination and monitoring to make the programme a success. I also agree that this must be under the auspices of the Commission. But the proposal of Parliament to set up a centre within the Commission, which is named in a number of amendments to the programme decision, raises a number of serious legal and institutional difficulties. In particular, it infringes on the Commission's right to determine its own organisation. Therefore I cannot accept Amendments Nos 11 and 49, nor can I accept those parts of other amendments which contain a reference to a "health coordination and monitoring centre".
To summarise our position, I believe we are largely in agreement on what needs to be done but we need to reflect carefully on how we achieve this, given the legal, institutional and budgetary implications. In keeping with this agreed objective let me confirm my commitment to work actively with Parliament and the Council in the weeks ahead to find agreed solutions so that adequate structures, expertise and resources will be available for the proper implementation of the programme.
That brings me to the third point – the budget. The Commission's proposal is for a total budget of EUR 300 million over a period of six years. There are two amendments on the table today to increase this amount respectively to EUR 500 million – Amendment No 72 – and EUR 380 million – Amendment No 109. The decision on this is for the Council and the European Parliament, as the budgetary authority. At this stage I would simply say that the Commission is keeping to its original proposal. This was drawn up on the basis of a cost estimate for the actions included in the programme, and is in conformity with the financial perspectives. It is clear that any proposals to add to the actions foreseen will have budgetary implications.
I cannot, therefore, accept Amendments Nos 37, 72 and 109 on the total budget for the programme. In addition, Amendments Nos 72, 103 and 109 seek to set limits on how we spend the programme budget. Amendments Nos 72 and 109 stipulate that each strand of actions must receive at least 25% of the budget. Amendment No 103 proposes a restriction on the use to be made of calls for tender and, in addition, raises the ceilings for the percentage of a project's costs that can be covered by a subvention. Such restrictions undermine the essential principle that the programme must be flexible and able to respond to new challenges, emerging risks and public concerns over the coming six years.
Therefore I cannot accept either a minimum amount for expenditure on each strand or the limit on the use of calls for tender. I am, however, prepared to raise the limit on subventions to the 70% permissible under the Commission's established financial rules, but I cannot go beyond this.
Finally, on comitology, a number of amendments concern the type of committee to be established. We had originally proposed an advisory committee as this would minimise the bureaucracy and procedural work required. Amendments Nos 42 and 73 call for a mixed committee combining management and advisory procedures. From our existing public health programmes we have experience of working with a mixed committee. Furthermore this is in line with the Council Decision 1999/468. Therefore the Commission can accept these amendments.
This programme represents a fundamental step forward in the development of effective European public health policies. It is important because protecting and improving public health is at the very centre of our citizens, concerns and expectations. As we are all aware, the relevance of our public health policy is fast becoming a litmus test of the European Union's credibility for our citizens. The programme will address these preoccupations by providing the means, support and actions in those areas where the Community can make a real difference as foreseen in Article 152 as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty.
However, Amendment No 74 specifies a large number of tasks for the committee to perform in management mode. The sheer number of tasks would be counterproductive with regard to our flexibility, in implementing the programme and the proper functioning of the committee. For this reason I cannot agree to some of the provisions in this amendment, for example on the annual budget and arrangements and procedures for selecting and financing projects as according to Article 234 of the EC Treaty the Commission is responsible for the implementation of the budget. Therefore I can only accept it in part.
Furthermore, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 105 concerning the submission of annual work programmes to Parliament for opinion. I can, however, accept to submit them for information, as is set out in Amendment No 46.
In summary, for the reasons I have set out, 28 amendments are not acceptable. These are: Amendments Nos 33, 36, 37, 41, 62, 65, 66, 71, 72, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 97, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113. I accept only in part Amendments Nos 6, 11, 12, 14, 27, 29, 32, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 63, 70, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 93, 103 and 106. On the other hand, as I have indicated I can accept in full the remaining 61 amendments.
I repeat my appreciation for all the constructive work that the rapporteur and the committee have put in. Many of the amendments will improve this proposal. For those points where difficulties remain the Commission is ready and willing to assist in finding solutions quickly. I am confident that we can work together to resolve the outstanding issues in the course of the codecision process. Indeed, the fact that the Commission can accept in whole or in part 85 of the 113 amendments shows our willingness to take on board Parliament's substantial policy contributions and our confidence that together we will be able to get this important programme off the ground as quickly as possible.
The programme under consideration today responds comprehensively to the shared concerns which the Commission, Parliament and the Council have expressed in the past about the shortcomings of the previous programming approach. Consequently, we are moving away from the fragmented disease-oriented, project-driven measures of the past, where resources were spread thinly, the impact on public health was diminished and financial management requirements were multiplied. In its place, we are moving to improve the health policy focus and streamlining programme management, which will minimise bureaucracy, improve coordination, increase transparency and maximise impact. The architecture of the new programme will also ensure a degree of flexibility, so that we can respond to unforeseen health policy issues if and when they arise. It provides a horizontal framework which will allow a policy-driven approach to be taken in the future on the basis of a broad view of public health. In other words the programme will provide an invaluable support to health policy-making in the Community.
The programme identifies three strands of action that together will enable us to identify and tackle the major health problems that we face. First, improving knowledge about people's health, about health interventions and about the functioning of health systems. Second, anticipating and reacting quickly to major threats to health. Third, confronting the key underlying causes of ill-health related not only to personal lifestyles, but also to other key determinants: social, economic and environmental factors and so on.
I am pleased to see that very many of the amendments you are debating are in line with this broad view of public health and the way that we should address it at Community level. We can therefore accept, in full, 61 amendments. There are in addition a further 24 amendments which include valuable ideas that we can endorse, but which as drafted are not fully acceptable. This is either because they contain specific points of substance which conflict with the approach of the programme, or because they raise difficult issues. With so many amendments, it is not feasible for me to make specific comments on each of them. I will, therefore, concentrate on four key areas where there are several amendments which we cannot accept and where I believe that some clarification of the Commission's position will be particularly helpful.
First, the scope and structure of the programme. Even though most amendments respect and indeed reinforce the horizontal or policy-driven approach of the programme, several, such as Amendments Nos 12, 65, 66, 85, 91, 100, 111, 112 and 113, go against this approach. They introduce into the decision references either to specific diseases and conditions or to very precise actions to be taken.
Providing some illustrations of major health burdens and activities in a recital may prove to be helpful, but the greatest caution is needed to ensure that the programme does not become so overcrowded with priorities and actions that it loses not only its general orientation, but also the flexibility necessary to respond effectively to new developments and threats as they arise. Events in recent years have clearly demonstrated the need to retain such flexibility. Consequently, it is important to focus on key priorities where real added value can be produced. Activities duplicating the work of other Community programmes should be avoided, and this will also avoid the unnecessary use of scarce resources. For this reason Amendments Nos 86, 88, 89, 92, 94 and 110 are not acceptable. They all touch on subjects such as setting up programmes in eastern Europe, violence against women, risks from mobile telephones, complementary therapies and research, which are covered by other Community programmes.
Efforts have been made by Parliament not to infringe the principle of subsidiarity, that is to say, the responsibilities of Member States in the area of public health. The programme has a clear role in relation to information about how health systems are working, but this should not be interpreted as the Community having a role in the operation of specific health services. These are matters for the Member States. For this reason, Amendments Nos 79, 99 and 102 in relation to protecting the rights of patients and setting up centres of excellence on environmental toxicology and on gene therapy and cloning are not acceptable; and whilst I agreed that the right of patients to simple, clear and scientifically valid information concerning their illness, is in itself a valuable objective, regrettably, the Community has limited competences under Article 152 of the EC Treaty.
Turning now to another issue in connection with the basic structure and scope of the programme. Amendment No 106, on the table today, sets out some actions intended to develop links between the programme and other policies. The ideas it contains, for example on health impact assessment, are welcome, but for me this work should not be approached separately from the other actions in the programme. In fact, health in other policies is a fundamental feature of the entire health strategy as such. Activities related to health impact assessment should thus be firmly placed within the proposed structure of the programme and not added as a further separate strand of action. To be consistent, the mainstreaming of health in other policies should form part of the mainstream of our three programme strands. Therefore, this amendment is acceptable only in part."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples