WRITTEN QUESTION E-2949/01 by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Spending on health and personal social services in Member States of the European Union.
Date: 2001-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, OECD, access to information, health expenditure, public expenditure, public health, social-security benefit

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/213

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Commission considers that the development of voluntary standards in this area makes perfect sense,
but would point out that there are already hands-free kits which can be used with various mobile
telephones. The Commission would also point out that basic hands-free kits are now available on the
market for as little as € 20. There are therefore no economic or technical reasons for not using hands-free
kits. As in the case of seat belts, it seems that it will be necessary to bring home to the public the
importance of using this equipment and to monitor the regulations effectively.

(2002/C 93 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2949/01

by James Nicholson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Spending on health and personal social services in Member States of the European Union

1. What was spent as a percentage of GDP on health and personal social services in each of the
Member States during the last four years?

2. What was the per capita spent on health and personal social services (excluding capital projects) in
each of the Member States during the last four years?

3. What percentage of that was funded:

5 directly by government,

5 privately,

5 through insurance schemes?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The Commission does not collect all the information that the Honourable Member requests. In particular
data on health expenditure is not collected routinely at the moment and the same applies to data on
personal social services.

Data on health expenditure is collected by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), but great caution should be exercised in making comparisons between countries on the basis of
this data because of the important differences in definitions between countries. The Commission is
working with OECD to improve the quality and comparability of the data for example in relation to
introducing a new framework,
(SHA). Moreover, a key objective of the
proposed public health programme is to provide a more comprehensive health information system for the
Community.

‘System of Health Accounts’

Specific issues concerning the data provided in response to the Honourable Member are set out in the
following paragraphs for health expenditure. Personal social services however are not a specific function in
the European System of Social Protection Statistics. For this reason these data are not available.

The following data come from OECD and are sent direct
Parliament’s Secretariat general.

to the Honourable Member and to the

The most recent reference year varies across Member States; data from 1994-1999 are provided to

1.
ascertain sufficiently long time series for each of the Member States.

2.
The funding of health expenditures by (a) government, (b) private parties, and (c) through insurance
schemes as requested is only available for Total Health Expenditure (THE). Per capita expenditures are
provided in National Currency Units.

C 93 E/214

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

Comparisons across countries should be made with caution for the reasons mentioned above. First
3.
SHA prototype data for selected Member States indicate that the data may change substantially, when
harmonised definitions are applied.

(2002/C 93 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2950/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: The promotion of regional assemblies in the UK

(25 October 2001)

Has the Commission provided any funds to support campaigns for new elected regional assemblies in the
UK?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

As far as the programmes supported by the European Union under the Structural Funds are concerned, the
financing of campaigns of the type referred to by the Honourable Member is not an eligible expenditure.
The management of programmes supported by the Structural Funds is a responsibility decentralised to the
designated authorities in the Member States and regions. These authorities are responsible for the selection
of projects. They also carry the primary responsibility for the financial management and control of
European programmes.

(2002/C 93 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3005/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Motorway concessions

What view does the Commission takes of the decision by the Italian government on the arrangements, that
have existed for decades, for granting concessions to motorway companies, which are now enjoying
extensions of several years without there having been any tender procedure? Is this how market rules are
applied? Is this how competition is protected? Is this how users subjected to unjustified frauds are
protected? Why does the European Union not intervene vigorously?

Reply given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

that

The Commission would like to point out
the provisions of Community directives on public
procurement do not apply to the granting of concessions for services such as those cited by the
honourable member. Nevertheless, public administrations in such circumstances must adhere to the
principles and rules of the EC Treaty, and in particular, to the general principles of non-discrimination,
equal treatment, proportionality and transparency, as well as to the provisions governing the right to
provide services and the right of establishment. These rules and principles were set out in detail by the
Commission in its interpretative Communication on concessions under Community law, published in the
Official Journal (1).

As far as the motorway sector in particular is concerned, the Commission considers that in line with the
above-mentioned principles, the extension of a concession can be justified only by the need to compensate
the concession holder for damages or losses suffered as a result of unilateral decisions taken by the state to
deal with emergencies or situations due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the concession
holder. These include, in particular, measures to freeze charges which are taken for social reasons or to
combat inflation, or decisions making it obligatory to perform work to adapt the motorway to new
requirements for safety, urban planning, or environmental protection which did not apply at the time the
concession was granted.