We will gradually publish the updates of the treatment of the DDL770 that will be published. In this case, here is how the Constitutional Affairs Committee expressed its opinion on the bill and the amendments presented.
Basically, it is asked to define what is meant by "significant variances" of vaccination coverage.
In fact, Article 32 of the Constitution refers to this (Article 32: The Republic protects health as a fundamental right of the individual and an interest of the community, and guarantees free treatment to the most deprived. No one can be obliged to a specific health treatment except by law. The law cannot in any case violate the limits imposed by respect for the human person.)
Legislature 18th - 1st Standing Committee CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - Summary Report n. 31 of 19/03/2019
The rapporteur BORGHESI (L-SP-PSd'Az) illustrates the bill in title, proposing to express, as far as he is concerned, a non-impeding opinion with the following conditions:
- in article 5, paragraph 1, where the obligation to carry out one or more vaccinations is established within the framework of extraordinary intervention plans adopted by decree of the President of the Republic, it is necessary:
- in compliance with the legal reserve laid down in the second paragraph of article 32 of the Constitution, in the matter of compulsory health treatment, define unequivocally the extent of the "significant deviations from the objectives set by the PNPV" deemed likely to "generate the risk of compromise group immunity "and, consequently, remove the wording" where necessary ";
- clarify the regulatory nature of the decree pursuant to article 87, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution and article 17, paragraph 1, letter a), of law no. 400 of 1988;
- to provide, for the adoption of the decree, the agreement in the State-Regions Conference;
- in article 5, paragraph 3, specify the subjects to whom the administrative sanction is to be imposed.
The Subcommittee agrees.
Having also examined the related amendments, the rapporteur proposes, as far as he is concerned, the following opinions:
- on amendments 5.8, 5.10, 5.16 and 5.17, a non-impeding opinion conditioned by a reformulation which provides for the agreement in the State-Regions Conference for the adoption of the ministerial decree;
- on amendment 5.27, non-impeding opinion conditional on a reformulation specifying the persons to whom the administrative sanction is expected to be imposed.
Finally, it proposes a non-impeding opinion on the remaining amendments.
The Subcommittee agrees.