July 2003, Written Amendments for Convention’s Public Debate on Policies

Plenary to Debate Policies

The European Convention will hold two additional plenary sessions on 4 and 9-10 July to discuss Parts III and IV of the draft Constitution, dealing with the EU’s policies, the issue of ratification by Member States and the procedures for the revision of the Constitution.

Some 1.700 amendments were tabled. Proposals concern the division of powers between the Member States and the Union’s institutions and their competences over a complete range of policies, including public health (16 amendments).

 Agenda to the additional plenary session of 4th July.

 Draft text that will be discussed in the plenary next Friday 4th July, including the most supported amendments tabled by the members of the Convetion up to the 27th June (The article on public health is in page 90).

Tabled Amendments to Article III-174 (ex article 152)

Summary of the amendments to article III-174 (ex article 152) dealing with public health:

 Joachim Wuermeling and Peter Altmaier tabled an amendment demanding to delete the expression ’in particular’ from paragraph 4, as they believe that the proposed change is a very negative step.

They argue that article 152 was more precise, ie it contained a definite list of diseases. In the proposed new art III-174 diseases are listed just as examples, and this particular expression would be an obstacle to any extension of EU competences.

The same argument is stated in Erwin Teufel’s amendment. This may be rather be a translation issue.

 Lone Dybkjær tabled an amendment demanding the inclusion of ’interpersonal violence and in particular violence against women’ in the article dealing with public health.

The same issue raises Proinsias de Rossa in his individual amendment.

As well as Josep Borrell, Carlos Carnero and Diego Lopez-Garrido in their common amendment.

 Gijs de Vries and Thom de Bruijn tabled a common amendment specifying ’physical and mental’ public health and adding ’as well as to combat and prevent communicable diseases and to protect consumers on health and nutrition’ and ’including food safety’ to point 4(b).

 Anne Van Lancker, Roger Briesch, Olivier Duhamel, Carlos Carnero-Gonzalez, Ben Fayot, Ornella Paciotti, Pervenche Beres, Maria Berger and Caspar Einem submitted an amendment on which they suggest a new wording for the article.

They substitute ’public health’ for ’physical and mental health’.

They emphasize the respect for national competences on health care systems.

They distinguish as shared competences the fight against pandemic diseases and health threats (including obesity and nutritional issues).

Supportive measures will be the prevention of health threats and fight against communicable diseases and bioterrorism (by surveilling the diseases and creating vaccine stocks).

On the same line is the common amendment tabled by Louis Michel, Elio di Rupo, Anne Van Lancker, Pierre Chevalier and Marie Nagy.

 Teija Tiilikainen, Antti Peltomäki, Kimmo Kiljunen, Jari Vilén, Hannu Takkula and Esko Helle tabled an amendment demanding the inclusion in paragraph 4(c) of:

’measures aming at prevention and control of harmful public health effects of tobacco and alcohol; these measures shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures’.

Arguing the need of legal basis for harmonising the regulations concerning marketing, sales and labelling of these otherwise freely moving products.

 Peter Hain tabled an amendment declaring that the ’UK may wish to consider further article III-174.

 Marietta Giannakou and Evripidis Stylianidis tabled a common amendment demanding to include a new paragraph on drugs related harm to health:

’multidisciplinary, balanced and integrated approach, based on the relevant information available, promoting the coordination of the Member State actions, both inside and outside the territory of the Union, as well as the exchange of good practices’.

 Joscha Fischer tabled an individual amendment on which he demands the creation a rapid alert and reaction system’ to prevent and control communicable diseases.

 Andrew Duff tabled an individual amendment demanding to re-write the article to create a legal basis to fight against threats to health of European dimension (such as SARS) and focusing on human health rather than on animal health.

 Dominique de Villepin tabled two individual amendments.

In the first amendment he refers to the inclusion of ’public health’ in article 3 of the Constitution (objectives of the Union), he mentions the need to ’fight the risks to health of european dimension’, he refers to article 11 (shared competences Union/Member states), and he requests the inclusion of ’medical products’ and ’products that harm health and affect public health’ in article III-174.

In the second amendment he demands the creation of a new article on ’cross-border health care’.

 Michel Barnier, Antionio Vitorino, David O’Sullivan and Paolo Ponzano got together to table a common amendment on which they demand to explain the division of competences (EU/Member States) better and to take into account the conclusions of the Working Group on Social Europe chaired by Mr Katiforis.

EPHA’s View

EPHA’s position remains as follows:

 Inclusion of ’a high level of human health’ in Article I-3, Objectives of the Union.

 A formulation of Article 174 (ex 152) that is flexible enough to allow the EU to respond effectively and using all available measures including legislation in order to protect and promote health.

Major health burdens in Europe are cardiovascular diseases, cancer, mental illnesses and other chronic conditions. Additionally communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis threaten health. Therefore Article 174 on public health should not to be an exclusive list but address the critical health issues in Europe as they emerge.

 Organisation of healthcare system remain the responsibility of Member States.