As already emphasised in the Opinion on the\nCommunication, the ESC recognised the need for Community action in\nthe field of public health, and considered this move essential for\ndisease prevention, the dissemination of health information and\nhealth education. It believed that a consistent prevention plan,\nbased on an improvement in habits and lifestyles, could not only\nenhance the health care rights and quality of life of European\ncitizens, but also help to curb medical treatment and care costs,\nwhich was a major problem currently facing all Member States. The\nESC supported the reference to the principle of subsidiarity and\nproportionality in paragraph 65 of the Communication. It emphasised\nthat the Community should act as a driving force and enhance the\nvalue of national and local initiatives in order to guarantee a\nhigh level of public health protection in Europe. The Commission\nshould set up appropriate structures to encourage directly the\norganisation and management of national and trans-national pilot\nschemes, involving non-governmental organisations representing all\nparties concerned and scientific or training associations operating\nwithin Europe. In the first instance, national and European\nscientific associations operating in the sphere of public health\nshould be involved, and they should be allowed to play an active\nrole in training health professionals and, by extension, in health\neducation. Finally, the ESC recommended that the schemes promoted\nshould have a solid, scientific underpinning, that they be subject\nto cost-benefit analysis, and that special attention should be paid\nto the authenticity of public information, so as to avoid\nover-simplification and distortions.
\nThe rapporteur called for the vote on his\nreport to be postponed to the March 1995 part-session.
\nPointing out that today one person in five\ndies prematurely, in other words before the age of 65, as a result\nof circulatory problems, a heart attack, an accident or suicide,\nCommissioner Flynn reiterated that the programme in question sought\nto improve health and the quality of health protection. The\nCommission could take over 10 of Parliament's 22 amendments -\nAmendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19 - as they\ncomplemented the common position. Amendments Nos 10, 11, 20 and 21\ncould be taken over in part. Amendments Nos 20 and 21 had to be\nrejected as the reference to sex education was superfluous in a\ngeneral programme that covered many elements of health promotion,\nincluding sex education. Similarly, the other 6 amendments had to\nbe rejected: Amendments Nos 8, 9, 13, 14 (on the prevention of\nallergies, which was already included in another programme on the\nprevention of the effects of pollution) and 15 (on the use of\nmedicines and self-medication, which were already included in Annex\n6).
\nThe Council noted that it was unable to accept\nall the amendments approved by Parliament concerning the proposals\nfor decisions adopting three action plans or programmes of action\nin the health field (combating cancer; health promotion,\ninformation, education and training; prevention of AIDS and certain\nother communicable diseases). It therefore decided to convene the\nConciliation Committee on this matter in accordance with\nArticle 189b of the Treaty.
\nThe Council took stock of progress, in the\ncontext of the codecision procedure with Parliament, on the\nproposals for decisions on the adoption of action plans or\nprogrammes of action in the fields of: - combating cancer; - health\npromotion, information, education and training; - the prevention of\nAIDS and certain other communicable diseases. Specifically, the\nCouncil was briefed on the informal talks that had taken place\nbetween Parliament, the Council and the Commission with a view to\nthe meeting of the Conciliation Committee on the matter scheduled\nfor 19 December 1995. It will be recalled that the Council adopted\nits common positions on the proposals in question at its meeting on\n2 June 1995. In the meantime, Parliament approved a number of\namendments at second reading at the end of October. Some of those\namendments concern the financial package for the programmes (for\nthe 'cancer' plan, Parliament is proposing ECU 64 million instead\nof the ECU 59 million envisaged in the Council's common position;\nfor the 'health promotion' programme, Parliament is proposing ECU\n35 million instead of ECU 30 million). Other Parliament\namendments relate to the specifics of the programmes and to a\nnumber of general basic provisions.
\nThe rapporteur welcomed the outcome of the\nconciliation process. Of the 22 amendments tabled by Parliament at\nfirst reading, eight had been accepted as they were, eight had been\nsubject to a satisfactory compromise, two relating to the procedure\nwithin the committee had been covered by the modus vivendi on\ncomitology and a further two had been covered by commitments in the\nform of a declaration. As regards content, Mr CABROL welcomed the\nfact that Parliament had succeeded in increasing the financial\nallocation from ECU 30 million to\nECU 35 million. The involvement of NGOs in the programme,\nthe importance being given to projects in favour of disadvantaged\npopulations, the attention being paid to research projects aimed at\ninvestigating the effect of nutrition on schoolchildren's health,\nthe studies designed to prevent diseases associated with ageing and\nthe inclusion of sex education in school health programmes, these\nwere all positive elements that had been included thanks to\nParliament's actions. On the other hand, the rapporteur regretted\nthat it had not been possible to retain the proposal for setting-up\na health watchdog. Commissioner Flynn stated that he was pleased\nthat the financial sum initially proposed by the Commission had\nfinally been approved by the Council, thanks to joint pressure from\nParliament and the Commission. When it came to implementing the\nprogrammes, the Commission would do everything in its power to\nencourage cooperation between the Member States. The measures\nconcerned were extremely important for achieving improvements in\nthe area of public health.
\nAs already emphasised in the Opinion on the\nCommunication, the ESC recognised the need for Community action in\nthe field of public health, and considered this move essential for\ndisease prevention, the dissemination of health information and\nhealth education. It believed that a consistent prevention plan,\nbased on an improvement in habits and lifestyles, could not only\nenhance the health care rights and quality of life of European\ncitizens, but also help to curb medical treatment and care costs,\nwhich was a major problem currently facing all Member States. The\nESC supported the reference to the principle of subsidiarity and\nproportionality in paragraph 65 of the Communication. It emphasised\nthat the Community should act as a driving force and enhance the\nvalue of national and local initiatives in order to guarantee a\nhigh level of public health protection in Europe. The Commission\nshould set up appropriate structures to encourage directly the\norganisation and management of national and trans-national pilot\nschemes, involving non-governmental organisations representing all\nparties concerned and scientific or training associations operating\nwithin Europe. In the first instance, national and European\nscientific associations operating in the sphere of public health\nshould be involved, and they should be allowed to play an active\nrole in training health professionals and, by extension, in health\neducation. Finally, the ESC recommended that the schemes promoted\nshould have a solid, scientific underpinning, that they be subject\nto cost-benefit analysis, and that special attention should be paid\nto the authenticity of public information, so as to avoid\nover-simplification and distortions.
\nThe rapporteur called for the vote on his\nreport to be postponed to the March 1995 part-session.
\nPointing out that today one person in five\ndies prematurely, in other words before the age of 65, as a result\nof circulatory problems, a heart attack, an accident or suicide,\nCommissioner Flynn reiterated that the programme in question sought\nto improve health and the quality of health protection. The\nCommission could take over 10 of Parliament's 22 amendments -\nAmendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 19 - as they\ncomplemented the common position. Amendments Nos 10, 11, 20 and 21\ncould be taken over in part. Amendments Nos 20 and 21 had to be\nrejected as the reference to sex education was superfluous in a\ngeneral programme that covered many elements of health promotion,\nincluding sex education. Similarly, the other 6 amendments had to\nbe rejected: Amendments Nos 8, 9, 13, 14 (on the prevention of\nallergies, which was already included in another programme on the\nprevention of the effects of pollution) and 15 (on the use of\nmedicines and self-medication, which were already included in Annex\n6).
\nThe Council noted that it was unable to accept\nall the amendments approved by Parliament concerning the proposals\nfor decisions adopting three action plans or programmes of action\nin the health field (combating cancer; health promotion,\ninformation, education and training; prevention of AIDS and certain\nother communicable diseases). It therefore decided to convene the\nConciliation Committee on this matter in accordance with\nArticle 189b of the Treaty.
\nThe Council took stock of progress, in the\ncontext of the codecision procedure with Parliament, on the\nproposals for decisions on the adoption of action plans or\nprogrammes of action in the fields of: - combating cancer; - health\npromotion, information, education and training; - the prevention of\nAIDS and certain other communicable diseases. Specifically, the\nCouncil was briefed on the informal talks that had taken place\nbetween Parliament, the Council and the Commission with a view to\nthe meeting of the Conciliation Committee on the matter scheduled\nfor 19 December 1995. It will be recalled that the Council adopted\nits common positions on the proposals in question at its meeting on\n2 June 1995. In the meantime, Parliament approved a number of\namendments at second reading at the end of October. Some of those\namendments concern the financial package for the programmes (for\nthe 'cancer' plan, Parliament is proposing ECU 64 million instead\nof the ECU 59 million envisaged in the Council's common position;\nfor the 'health promotion' programme, Parliament is proposing ECU\n35 million instead of ECU 30 million). Other Parliament\namendments relate to the specifics of the programmes and to a\nnumber of general basic provisions.
\nThe rapporteur welcomed the outcome of the\nconciliation process. Of the 22 amendments tabled by Parliament at\nfirst reading, eight had been accepted as they were, eight had been\nsubject to a satisfactory compromise, two relating to the procedure\nwithin the committee had been covered by the modus vivendi on\ncomitology and a further two had been covered by commitments in the\nform of a declaration. As regards content, Mr CABROL welcomed the\nfact that Parliament had succeeded in increasing the financial\nallocation from ECU 30 million to\nECU 35 million. The involvement of NGOs in the programme,\nthe importance being given to projects in favour of disadvantaged\npopulations, the attention being paid to research projects aimed at\ninvestigating the effect of nutrition on schoolchildren's health,\nthe studies designed to prevent diseases associated with ageing and\nthe inclusion of sex education in school health programmes, these\nwere all positive elements that had been included thanks to\nParliament's actions. On the other hand, the rapporteur regretted\nthat it had not been possible to retain the proposal for setting-up\na health watchdog. Commissioner Flynn stated that he was pleased\nthat the financial sum initially proposed by the Commission had\nfinally been approved by the Council, thanks to joint pressure from\nParliament and the Commission. When it came to implementing the\nprogrammes, the Commission would do everything in its power to\nencourage cooperation between the Member States. The measures\nconcerned were extremely important for achieving improvements in\nthe area of public health.
\n