BETA

24 Amendments of Thomas MANN related to 2009/2222(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Unequivocally rejects EU framework legislation on services of general interest;

2010/12/15
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that SSGI and their users have a number of special characteristics in addition to the common characteristics of SGI. SSGI encompass, in addition to health services, both statutory and complementary universally available services, provided directly to the person, that play a preventative and social cohesion and inclusion role and make tangible fundamental social rights; whether services are considered to be SSGI or SGI must be decided in each case by the competent national or local authorities, since a clear distinction between the various types of service is in fact impossible and structures in Member States vary very considerably; Europe- wide definitions would therefore mean encroaching upon the subsidiarity principle;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Rejects emphatically the idea of EU framework legislation for social services of general interest;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Emphasises that, in respect of SSGI, the subsidiarity principle must take precedence over internal market rules;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Emphasises that, as a matter of principle, responsibility for decisions on designing, funding and delivering social services of general interest (SSGI) must lie with Member States and local authorities; respects and supports this principle and urges the European institutions also to espouse this position;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that access to SSGI must be regulated by the competent authorities in Member States; they shall decide whether and to what extent access can be universal and independent of wealth or income~~, and are not only for vulnerable users~~;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Highlights the fact that SSGI make a major economic contribution in terms of jobs, economic activity and purchasing power – the Commission’s second Biennial Report indicating that the health and social services sector accounts for 5% of economic output and employs 21.4 million people – and that SMEs in particular are reliant on high quality SSGI; considers that the economic importance of SSGI does not, however, justify applying internal market rules to them;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that national, regional and local authorities have a key role to play in organising, funding and designing social services;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the ~~primary~~usual purpose of SSGI is to achieve social policy objectives and make tangible the social rights of individuals and groups and that SSGI are often an integral part of social security systems; points out that Eurofound Quality of Life Surveys have verified that one of the most important ways of enhancing citizens’ quality of life, ensuring full inclusion in society and providing for social and territorial cohesion is through the provision and development of SGI including SSGI;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that ~~experience demonstrates that the profit maximisation objective of commercial providers of SSGI conflicts with the principles and objectives of SSGI~~competition between the various SSGI providers can lead to lower prices, better quality and greater choice; emphasises, however, that competition in some circumstances conflicts with the principles and objectives of SSGI; takes the view that each case must therefore always be considered separately;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Believes~~Takes the view that for the delivery of quality SSGI ~~requires Member State governments to ensure a~~, an adequate financial framework ~~for SSGI~~is necessary, which guarantees continuity of services and stable financing, as well as decent incomes and working conditions and training for those delivering the services;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Believes there is a broad European consensus that SSGI are essential to the well-being of our peoples and an efficient economy but that there is no agreement within or between the Commission and the Council on the implementation of practical measures to ~~overcome identified obstacles to the delivery and development of~~strengthen SSGI;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Calls for the 2005 Monti-Kroes response to the Altmark case to be broaden~~Urges that the de minimis threshold, at least for social security benefits, should initially be raised sto a~~s to simplify the rules, improve flexibility in their application, and expand the derogations. The de minimis threshold should be raised to at least EUR 500 000 over a three-year cycle;~~ t least EUR 500 000 over a three-year cycle; urges the Commission also, as a second step, to propose a system which takes into account GDP in calculating the de minimis threshold, so that a specific de minimis threshold can be calculated for each Member State; this would prevent distortions of competition caused by the existence of a uniform, EU-wide threshold;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

~~19. Calls for reform of the criteria for classifying economic and non-economic SSGI in the framework of current EU legislation;~~deleted

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission formally to recognise other modalities for the selection of providers, such as ‘in-house’ and ‘service concession’ methods, and explicitly to accord equal value to all options for the contracting and financing of SSGI; calls for the expansion of the ‘in- house’ method to include service providers who meet specific general interest criteria; calls furthermore for recognition of tried and tested Member State procedures based on the principle that all providers which are able to comply with the conditions previously laid down by law should be permitted to provide services, irrespective of their legal form, provided that account is taken of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and transparency laid down in primary law;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Calls for redefinition of the concept of ‘most economically advantageous offer’ ~~so as to make~~: considers in particular that ‘economically advantageous’ should not automatically be interpreted as meaning ‘at the lowest price’; considers that national and local social and quality criteria for the delivery of SSGI should be an obligatory requirement in procurement contracts, including subcontracts;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26

26. Calls for a programme of reform, to include legislative adaptation and clarification at European level, to support the specific characteristics of SSGI; rejects, however, any amendment to European law or any European framework directive for SSGI;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Considers that the Social Protection Committee has made an important contribution to the understanding and role of SSGI~~, but that it is not sufficiently representative or transparent to be the driver of a reform programme~~;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28

28. Proposes the establishment of a high- level multi-stakeholder taskforce – initially with a two-year mandate – that is open, flexible and transparent, to pursue implementation of the policy initiatives identified in this report and in the 3rd Forum recommendations, the Commission’s second Biennial Report and the SPC reports, as well as any other relevant proposals; to initiate a full review of all rules, particularly state-aid and procurement rules, which impact on SSGI and to evaluate how they need to be redesigned so as to respect and support Member States’ responsibilities in the definition and delivery of SSGI, taking account of the current Commission review of rules;deleted

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29

29. Considers that, as part of its mandate, the proposed taskforce would also consider innovations such as a European resource centre for SSGI, a Member State register of SSGI, a pilot scheme on elder care, and action programmes based on the European Voluntary Quality Framework (VQF);deleted

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31

31. Urges that the taskforce be chaired by the Commission’s DG Social Affairs; that its membership include DG Competition, DG Single Market, DG Environment and DG Sanco, the European Social Affairs Council (EPSCO), the social partners and civil society organisations active in SSGI; that, in view of their democratic mandate, both Parliament and the Committee of the Regions must be centrally involved; and that social economy enterprises and stakeholders including voluntary associations, as well as local authorities, must be represented;deleted

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32

32. Welcomes the VQF but insists that ~~application of the principles must be monitored using the proposed quality criteria and that~~ stakeholders must be included in the process;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33

33. Urges that Member States use the VQF to draw up quality accreditation and monitoring systems, and that implementation of the VQF be evaluated with reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Protocol 26 TFEU;deleted

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35

35. Considers that the VQF principles should be used to help define ~~obligato~~voluntary quality criteria for application to revised public procurement rules;

2011/03/28
Committee: EMPL