Democratic procedures. The initiatives of the EU in favour of the citizen (which I'm in the habit of an outlining in the last of these columns every week) sometimes lead to tricky debates between the three institutions of the EU responsible for the legislative procedure: the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission. The involvement of three institutions at the same time guarantees the democratic functioning and transparency of the procedures. The best-known example of this dialectic at the moment is that of the draft directive on the liberalisation of services (Bolkestein directive), which the Parliament is currently putting some radical changes to, which the Commission will modify in the light of the decisions of the Parliament, and which the Council will become involved with in the autumn. The scale and passion of the debate have allowed all the elements at play to be taken on board, particularly on services of general interest (SGI), which the populations see increasingly as an essential element of the European model of society, which is at the centre of the reflection on the future Europe.
In favour of children. Other cases are worthy of note, such as the draft regulation on paediatric medicines. Doctors and scientists have stated that several drugs for adults have harmful effects on children, even in reduced doses. Specific formulations for children must be developed. In order to create an incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to look into this, it was planned to extend the duration of patents. This is a logical incentive, but producers of generic medicines (which copy the original product once the patent has expired) lose out on this, and health care services may have to face additional costs. It isn't easy to define a point of balance between these different interests. The Parliament's rapporteur, Ms Grossetête, and the committee on public health decided to support the proposal of the European Commission: six months of additional protection, two years for "orphan drugs". The debate in plenary will take place in September and anything remains possible. The producers of generics are trying to ensure that the additional protection will be as short as possible, playing up the additional costs for Social Security. On the other hand, the encouragement to research has been highlighted, in the interest of future generations of children. The fact that an open debate like this is going on is in itself positive. Read the summary of the Parliamentary work in our bulletin 8991; it's not at Member State level that you get public debates of this scale.
Again on the protection of children. The Parliament, Council and Commission have reached an agreement on banning all phthalates in toys and other articles aimed at children. I don't wish to rehash the long and controversial process which led to this decision, just to stress that since it has been announced, claims have been made by the producers of an alternative product, ATBC citrate (which is sold under the name Cirtoflex A4), which is said not to be dangerous for the health of children, whilst having the same plastifying qualities as phthalates. It is up to the competent authorities and the manufacturers of toys to check on these claims. If they are confirmed, it will be to European legislation that we owe the removal of a danger to children and the emergence of a harmless alternative.
On sunshine. In another case, the Parliament put the brakes on an initiative of the Commission which, in the opinion of the majority of members of the European Parliament, stems more from some kind of legislative frenzy than from a genuine requirement. Nobody challenges the starting point: under the European directives on the protection of workers exposed to physical agents, the draft fourth directive relates to protection from the dangers of optic rays. Does this mean rays from artificial sources, such as laser, only, or do we include the sun's rays? This is the controversial point. The Commission states that medical sources have noted an increase in skin diseases related to the sun; the Council went along with this, and the competent European union institute agrees, as does some of the European Parliament. But small and medium-sized companies, craftsmen and women, the construction sector and the majority of MEPs disagree with this line. How can you tell whether sunburn originated at work or whether it happened at a weekend on the beach or by the pool ? We could end up with employers banning any of their employees from taking off their shirt during working hours. The Parliament has not yet decided, it will do so in September (see our bulletin 8992). A reasonable solution ? Allow each Member State to legislate as it sees fit, taking account of the climate of its countries, its customs and traditions, and organise campaigns at European level to highlight the dangers and encourage people to cover up, without binding European standards, because the dangers are not the same from one country to the next. In this case, a certain amount of flexibility could coincide with the interest of the citizens. (F.R.)