BETA


2009/2222(INI) Future for social services of general interest

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead EMPL DE ROSSA Proinsias (icon: S&D S&D) BASTOS Regina (icon: PPE PPE), BENNAHMIAS Jean-Luc (icon: ALDE ALDE), DELLI Karima (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), GIEGOLD Sven (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE)
Committee Opinion ECON AUCONIE Sophie (icon: PPE PPE)
Committee Opinion IMCO ABAD Damien (icon: PPE PPE) Matteo SALVINI (icon: ENF ENF)
Committee Opinion REGI ALVES Luís Paulo (icon: S&D S&D) Filiz HYUSMENOVA (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Committee Opinion FEMM OVIIR Siiri (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 52

Events

2011/11/15
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2011/07/05
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2011/07/05
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the future of social services of general interest (SSGI).

Parliament recalls that the provision of universally available, high-quality, accessible and affordable SSGI within the meaning of the Commission’s 2007 communication on services of general interest can therefore be regarded as an essential pillar of the European social model and as the basis for a good quality of life and for the achievement of EU employment, social and economic objectives. In this context, it reaffirms the importance of SSGI and proposes a framework to strengthen their quality and efficiency.

Fundamental Rights and Universality: SSGI encompass statutory and complementary social security schemes and universally available services provided directly to the person, aiming to enhance the quality of life of all . They play a preventative, social cohesion and inclusion role and deliver on fundamental rights as proclaimed in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In this context, Parliament urges the Member States to maintain the availability of accessible, affordable, high quality social services as during the period of fast economic growth, and to guarantee non-discriminatory access to these services regardless of gender, income, race or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age, sexual orientation or employment conditions. It calls on the Member States to ensure the availability, within policies geared to achieving a work-life balance, of accessible, affordable, good-quality, diversified forms of care services for children as described in the Barcelona objectives.

Parliament emphasises that, where SSGI are concerned, the subsidiarity principle must take precedence over internal market rules. SSGI are funded mainly by the Member States, as they fall primarily within their field of competence. It considers, nevertheless, that the European Union can play an important role and assist Member States in their modernisation and adjustment to new conditions. It also regrets the trend of liberalisation in the sector and, in an amendment adopted in plenary, it stresses the importance of conducting, as a matter of urgency, an assessment of the social consequences and impact on people's lives of liberalisation measures in sectors that are essential to social progress.

Economic contribution: noting that SSGI must not be defined by their economic impact, Parliament confirms that SSGI make a major economic contribution in terms of jobs, economic activity and purchasing power and that the health and social services sector accounts for 5% of economic output and employs 21.4 million people. It calls on regional and local authorities to play a role in defining, financing, providing and attributing SSGI within the framework of Member States’ social service and social protection systems: it is estimated that the local and regional government sector is worth 15.9% of EU-27 GDP, with local government alone accounting for 12.9%, and its social protection expenditure accounting for 3% of GDP (EUR 378.1 billion). National, regional and local authorities should extend the application of Public-Private Partnerships in the area of SSGI in order to increase their efficiency and availability.

Social contribution: Parliament highlights the need to promote a policy of social progress, ensuring universal access to high-quality public services, with special consideration for disadvantaged groups, such as single mothers, women, elderly people, children, migrants and those with any kind of disability. It stresses that it is inappropriate for public funds allocated to SSGI to be used otherwise than to fulfil the objectives of the service . The legitimate objective of profit maximisation which underlies private commercial provision of commercial services conflicts unacceptably with the principles and objectives of SSGI. In the event that Member State authorities choose to use indirect delivery of SSGI, the general interest must be protected, and they should, while ensuring quality, innovation, efficiency and cost effectiveness, support social economy enterprises, where any surplus is reinvested in the service and in innovation, and encourage them to operate as providers. It recalls the traditional role of the state as provider of social services of general interest, yet considers that opening up this sector to private service providers will enhance the accessibility and quality of services and increase consumer choice. Overall, Parliament reaffirms its commitment to modern, high-quality SSGI, which are a means of giving effect to many of the values embodied in the European project.

Regulatory constraints on delivery of SSGI: in Parliament’s view, the national, regional and local authorities engaged in providing or mandating SSGI need legal certainty for their services and expenditures. It considers that it is neither efficient nor democratically acceptable that current interpretation of legislation results in the ECJ being continually asked to adjudicate on the limits of single market rules with regard to SGI, including SSGI, which is a clear indication of the lack of legal certainty. This aspect has been the subject of a long-standing and ongoing stakeholder dialogue and Parliament calls on the Commission finally to take action .

Economic and budgetary policy: Parliament emphasises that SSGI are an indispensable investment for Europe’s economic future, and that they are under severe pressure in some Member States as a result of the economic and banking crises and government austerity programmes, which are resulting in even greater demand for them . Parliament believes that in order to guarantee delivery of high-quality SSGI, Member State governments need to provide for an adequate financial framework for SSGI, which guarantees continuity of services with stable financing. Parliament notes that Member States need new income.

Deficiencies in the regulatory framework for SSGI: there is a broad European consensus that SSGI are essential to the well-being of our peoples and an efficient economy and that while there has been some progress in addressing the difficulties that arise for providers in the delivery and development of SSGI from the application of EU rules to such services, there is no consensus so far within or between the Commission and the Council on the implementation of further practical measures to overcome the obstacles identified by stakeholders. Parliament emphasises that it is for Member States and local authorities freely to decide how SSGI are funded and delivered, so as to ensure that their social objectives are achieved. Parliament also calls on the Commission to take the necessary steps, based on impact assessments at national and EU level, to introduce proposals for European statutes for associations, mutual societies and foundations, which would enable them to operate on a transnational basis.

State aid: Parliament calls for the introduction of differentiation in the rules and for a revision of the criteria for calculating compensation of public service obligations that take account of, among other things, social criteria and the social added value of these services. It calls for clarification of basic principles on the control of state aid to enhance legal certainty and transparency for clarity of concepts such as ‘act of entrustment’ and ‘public authorities’ and for the introduction of differentiation in the rules. It calls on the Commission to reassess the appropriate level of the de minimis threshold applicable to SSGI and to propose a system which takes into account Member State GDP in calculating the de minimis threshold, so that a specific de minimis threshold can be calculated for each Member State, thus preventing distortions of competition caused by the existence of a uniform, EU-wide threshold. It points out that neither the sector, the status of an entity carrying out a service nor the way in which it is funded determines whether its activities are deemed economic or non-economic , but rather the nature of the activity itself and its preventive effect.

In a series of amendments adopted in plenary, Parliament rejects all of the proposals regarding public procurement put forward by the Committee responsible (simplification of rules regarding public procurement so that SGI obligations can be efficiently and effectively fulfilled and for alternatives to public procurement for the delivery of SGI).

Initiative to Advance Reform: in the context of the revision already under way of public procurement and state aid rules, Parliament urges the Commission to undertake a programme of reform, adaptation and clarification to support and recognise the specific non-market characteristics of SSGI, to ensure full conformity not only with single market provisions but also with the social obligations of the Treaties. The plenary is of the view (in contrast to the committee responsible) that a compulsory framework for certain categories of SSGI is not a central issue at this time . It proposes the establishment of a high-level multi-stakeholder working group which is open, flexible and transparent, broadly representative of stakeholders and focused on achieving reforms such as the policy initiatives. This working group shall be co-chaired by the European Parliament and the Commissioner responsible for Social Affairs. This group would i) s eek to achieve broad consensus on steps to clarify legal obscurities and ambiguities regarding SSGI; ii) evaluate whether European single market regulations which impact negatively on SSGI provision need to be redesigned; iii) examine how the Member States, when defining social services of general interest, can take account of gender-specific services; iv) consider how Member States can develop forms of home help including support for elderly and vulnerable persons, by both men and women, and reduce the negative employment and pension impact on those who take care of dependent family members.

European Voluntary Quality Framework: Parliament urges Member States to use the VQF to draw up or improve existing monitoring and quality accreditation systems as appropriate for each Member State. It considers that the VQF principles could be used to help define service quality criteria for application to revised public procurement rules for tendering and contracts, including subcontracts. Lastly, it proposes that further improvement of the VQF should include reference to funding and service provider status.

It should be noted that the plenary rejected a proposal for an alternative resolution put forward by the Greens/EFA political group.

Documents
2011/07/05
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2011/07/04
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2011/06/22
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/06/22
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/06/06
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs adopted the own-initiative report drafted by Proinsias De ROSSA (S&D, IE) on the on the future of social services of general interest.

Members recall that the provision of universally available, high-quality, accessible and affordable SSGI within the meaning of the 2007 Commission communication on services of general interest can therefore be regarded as an essential pillar of the European social model and as the basis for a good quality of life and for the achievement of EU employment, social and economic objectives. Social services of general interest (SSGI), and their quality and efficiency, are essential for the achievement of the objectives of the EU's 2020 strategy.

Fundamental Rights and Universality : SSGI encompass statutory and complementary social security schemes and universally available services provided directly to the person, aiming to enhance the quality of life of all . They play a preventative, social cohesion and inclusion role and deliver on fundamental rights as proclaimed in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In this context, Members urge the Member States to maintain the availability of accessible, affordable, high quality social services as during the period of fast economic growth, and to guarantee non-discriminatory access to these services regardless of gender, income, race or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age, sexual orientation or employment conditions.

The report calls on the Member States to ensure the availability, within policies geared to achieving a work-life balance, of accessible, affordable, good-quality, diversified forms of care services for children as described in the Barcelona objectives.

Members emphasise that, where SSGI are concerned, the subsidiarity principle must take precedence over internal market rules. SSGI are funded mainly by the Member States, as they fall primarily within their field of competence. Members consider nevertheless that the European Union can play an important role and assist Member States in their modernisation and adjustment to new conditions. The report stresses the importance of conducting, as a matter of urgency, an assessment of the social consequences and impact on people’s lives of liberalisation measures in sectors that are essential to social progress and urges the Commission to prevent any further liberalisation measures from being taken until this assessment has been submitted. It stresses that it is important to reinforce the social dimension of the single market and to take better account of the special nature of SSGI, with emphasis on a pragmatic approach in which the accessibility, universality, fairness, quality and efficiency of such services are the prime considerations.

Economic contribution : noting that SSGI must not be defined by their economic impact, Members confirm that SSGI make a major economic contribution in terms of jobs, economic activity and purchasing power and that the health and social services sector accounts for 5% of economic output and employs 21.4 million people. They stress that, regional and local authorities play a fundamental role in defining, financing, providing and attributing SSGI within the framework of Member States’ social service and social protection systems: it is estimated that the local and regional government sector is worth 15.9 % of EU-27 GDP, with local government alone accounting for 12.9 %, and its social protection expenditure accounting for 3 % of GDP (EUR 378.1 billion). National, regional and local authorities should extend the application of Public-Private Partnerships in the area of SSGI in order to increase their efficiency and availability.

Social contribution : the report highlights the need to review liberalisation policies in order to promote a policy of social progress, ensuring universal access to high-quality public services. It stresses that it is inappropriate for public funds allocated to SSGI to be used otherwise than to fulfil the objectives of the service .

The legitimate objective of profit maximisation which underlies private commercial provision of commercial services conflicts unacceptably with the principles and objectives of SSGI. Members are of the opinion that where Member State authorities choose to use indirect delivery of SSGI, the general interest must be protected, and that they should, while ensuring quality, innovation, efficiency and cost effectiveness, support social economy enterprises, where any surplus is reinvested in the service and in innovation, and encourage them to operate as providers. They recall that the traditional role of the state as provider of social services of general interest, yet considers that opening up this sector to private service providers will enhance the accessibility and quality of services and increase consumer choice. Overall, Members reaffirm their commitment to modern, high-quality SSGI, which are a means of giving effect to many of the values embodied in the European project.

Regulatory constraints on delivery of SSGI : according to Members, the national, regional and local authorities engaged in providing or mandating SSGI need legal certainty for their services and expenditures. They stress that national and local authorities are responsible for ensuring that SSGI operate properly and for maintaining a high standard of quality. They consider that it is neither efficient nor democratically acceptable that current interpretation of legislation results in the ECJ being continually asked to adjudicate on the limits of single market rules with regard to SGI, including SSGI, which is a clear indication of the lack of legal certainty.

Economic and budgetary policy : Members emphasise that SSGI are an indispensable investment for Europe’s economic future, and that they are under severe pressure in some Member States as a result of the economic and banking crises and government austerity programmes, which are resulting in even greater demand for them. The report points out that the economic and financial crisis and the austerity policies imposed by Member States should not encourage disinvestment in SSGI but that, on the contrary, given their importance and absolutely essential nature, such services need to be consolidated in order to meet people’s needs. Members believe that in order to guarantee delivery of high-quality SSGI, Member State governments need to provide for an adequate financial framework for SSGI, which guarantees continuity of services with stable financing. The report notes that Member States need new income.

Deficiencies in the regulatory framework for SSGI : there is a broad European consensus that SSGI are essential to the well-being of our peoples and an efficient economy and that while there has been some progress in addressing the difficulties that arise for providers in the delivery and development of SSGI from the application of EU rules to such services, there is no consensus so far within or between the Commission and the Council on the implementation of further practical measures to overcome the obstacles identified by stakeholders. The report emphasises that it is for Member States and local authorities freely to decide how SSGI are funded and delivered, so as to ensure that their social objectives are achieved. In this context, Members call on the Commission and the Member States to respect the diversity of the methods of organising and managing SSGI, of their resources and of the methods of funding these services. They call on the Member States to reverse ‘reforms’ which have institutionalised market-based models of welfare provision, with competition and tendering obligations, and to cease promoting public-private partnerships.

State aid : Members call for clarification of basic principles on the control of state aid to enhance legal certainty and transparency for clarity of concepts such as ‘act of entrustment’ and ‘public authorities’ and for the introduction of differentiation in the rules . They call on the Commission to reassess the appropriate level of the de minimis threshold applicable to SSGI and to propose a system which takes into account Member State GDP in calculating the de minimis threshold, so that a specific de minimis threshold can be calculated for each Member State, thus preventing distortions of competition caused by the existence of a uniform, EU-wide threshold. The report points out that neither the sector, the status of an entity carrying out a service nor the way in which it is funded determines whether its activities are deemed economic or non-economic, but rather the nature of the activity itself and its preventive effect.

In the framework of current EU legislation, Members call for clarification of the concepts and reform of the classification criteria used to differentiate between economic and non-economic SSGI, and for a common understanding of SGI with a view to ensuring that their intended aims can be achieved.

Procurement : Members emphasise that public procurement rules need to be simplified so that SGI obligations can be efficiently and effectively fulfilled. Tendering in the field of SSGI can be an acceptable means of selecting a provider, but the report emphasises that other transparent forms of provider selection may allow greater flexibility. The Commission is called upon to recognise alternatives to public procurement for the delivery of SGI, including SSGI, such as ‘in-house’ and ‘service concession’ methods, and explicitly accord equal legal value to all options for the contracting and financing of SSGI. The report calls for the extension of the concept of ‘most economically advantageous offer’ such that calls for tender and procurement contracts, as well as subcontracts for provision of SGI, including SSGI, would have to include the relevant Member State's national and/or local social, environmental and service quality criteria, which should be linked to best international practice.

Initiative to Advance Reform : Members urge the Commission to undertake a programme of reform, adaptation and clarification to support and recognise the specific non-market characteristics of SSGI, to ensure full conformity not only with single market provisions but also with the social obligations of the Treaties.

According to the Members, a compulsory framework for certain categories of SSGI needs to be explored. They consider that an EU framework regulation on SGEI, permissible under Article 14 TFEU, is not the central issue at this time. The report proposes the establishment of a high-level multi-stakeholder working group which is open, flexible and transparent, broadly representative of stakeholders and focused on achieving reforms such as the policy initiatives. This working group shall be co-chaired by the European Parliament and the Commissioner responsible for Social Affairs.

European Voluntary Quality Framework : Members urge Member States to use the VQF to draw up or improve existing monitoring and quality accreditation systems as appropriate for each Member State. They consider that the VQF principles could be used to help define service quality criteria for application to revised public procurement rules for tendering and contracts, including subcontracts. Lastly, they propose that further improvement of the VQF should include reference to funding and service provider status.

2011/04/26
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/04/13
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/04/05
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/03/28
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2011/03/23
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/03/02
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2010/12/06
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Council adopted conclusions entitled "Social Services of General Interest: at the heart of the European Social Model", calling upon the Social Protection Committee to work further on this issue with the aim inter alia of preparing for the next Forum on social services of general interest. The conclusions invite the Commission to further clarify the application of EU rules to social services of general interest, in order to enhance their legal certainty. The Commission should also for instance outline its views on how to identify a social service as an economic or non-economic service of general interest.

Ministers were briefed about a Social Protection Committee document on a voluntary European quality framework for social services ( see Council Doc. 16319/10 ) establishing quality standards which should be met by social services of general interest. They also heard an oral presentation by the Commission of its biannual report on social services of general interest, giving an overview of the initiatives taken by the Member States to improve the quality of such services.

Documents
2010/12/06
   CSL - Council Meeting
2010/03/25
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2010/03/17
   EP - ALVES Luís Paulo (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in REGI
2010/02/16
   EP - ABAD Damien (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2009/12/17
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2009/12/17
   EP - DE ROSSA Proinsias (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in EMPL
2009/11/30
   EP - OVIIR Siiri (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in FEMM
2009/11/24
   EP - AUCONIE Sophie (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in ECON

Documents

Votes

A7-0239/2011 - Proinsias De Rossa - § 3/1

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 551, -: 61, 0: 8
DE IT FR ES RO EL HU PL BE SE BG PT SK AT DK IE NL LT FI GB LU SI CY LV MT EE CZ
Total
92
66
56
39
29
20
20
37
22
15
14
18
13
15
12
9
23
11
9
48
6
6
6
8
5
3
17
icon: PPE PPE
230

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

2

Finland PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

3
2

Malta PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
153
3

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
74

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Lithuania ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
51

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1
3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
21

Greece EFD

2

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
23

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

2

Hungary NI

2

Belgium NI

2

Bulgaria NI

2

United Kingdom NI

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
27

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

3
icon: ECR ECR
40

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

A7-0239/2011 - Proinsias De Rossa - § 3/2

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 559, -: 64, 0: 9
DE FR IT ES RO PT EL HU BE SE AT PL FI BG SK NL DK IE LT LV SI CY MT LU EE CZ GB
Total
95
58
65
40
29
20
19
19
22
15
15
37
13
15
13
22
12
9
11
8
6
6
5
4
4
16
53
icon: PPE PPE
236

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

2

Slovenia PPE

3
2

Malta PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
155

Finland S&D

2
3

Netherlands S&D

3

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
74

Spain ALDE

1

Greece ALDE

1

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1
3

Lithuania ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
50

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1
3

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
30

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1
icon: NI NI
23

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

2

Hungary NI

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium NI

2

Bulgaria NI

2

United Kingdom NI

4
icon: EFD EFD
21

Greece EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

Abstain (1)

2
icon: ECR ECR
42

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

A7-0239/2011 - Proinsias De Rossa - § 63/1

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 572, -: 65
DE IT FR ES RO EL HU PL AT SE BG BE PT FI DK SK IE NL LT GB LU SI LV EE MT CY CZ
Total
94
67
59
39
29
21
20
38
16
15
15
20
20
13
13
13
9
23
11
47
6
6
7
5
5
6
19
icon: PPE PPE
240

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2
2

Czechia PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
156
3

Finland S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Greece ALDE

1
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
52

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

2
3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
20

Greece EFD

2

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2

United Kingdom EFD

3
icon: NI NI
24

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

2

Hungary NI

2

Bulgaria NI

2

Belgium NI

2

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

3
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
30

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

5

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Czechia GUE/NGL

3
icon: ECR ECR
41

Belgium ECR

Against (1)

1

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

A7-0239/2011 - Proinsias De Rossa - § 63/2

2011/07/05 Outcome: +: 582, -: 33, 0: 8
DE IT FR GB ES PL RO PT EL HU BE CZ SE NL FI BG DK SK IE LT AT LV LU SI CY MT EE
Total
92
67
56
49
38
36
28
20
21
19
19
18
14
21
13
15
13
13
9
11
16
7
6
6
6
5
4
icon: PPE PPE
237

Czechia PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Ireland PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

3

Slovenia PPE

3
2

Malta PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
icon: S&D S&D
154

Netherlands S&D

3

Finland S&D

2
3

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
73

Greece ALDE

1
3

Slovakia ALDE

For (1)

1

Lithuania ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
49

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Greece Verts/ALE

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

3
3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Finland Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

2

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
40

Denmark ECR

For (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
28

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Greece GUE/NGL

2

Netherlands GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
21

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

3

Spain NI

1

Romania NI

2

Hungary NI

Abstain (1)

1

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1
3

Bulgaria NI

2
icon: EFD EFD
20

United Kingdom EFD

3

Greece EFD

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Netherlands EFD

Against (1)

1

Finland EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark EFD

Against (1)

1

Slovakia EFD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

2
AmendmentsDossier
407 2009/2222(INI)
2010/12/15 ECON 30 amendments...
source: PE-452.844
2011/03/01 IMCO 34 amendments...
source: PE-458.561
2011/03/04 REGI 18 amendments...
source: PE-460.649
2011/03/28 EMPL 325 amendments...