Mr President, I would like to extend warm thanks to Mr Rocard for his question and moving speech. As for the rapporteur, I would like to say that perhaps it would have been better for her to occupy a seat in the Council section rather than our section as far as the defence of Parliament’s interests is concerned. After all, the free movement of persons is still very badly regulated in Europe. The brochure seems to be painting a rosy picture, but the reality is very different indeed. People who make use of the free movement of persons are brought down to earth with a shock. Just ask journalists in Brussels, for example. They are now being covered by Belgian social security, but lose all their rights elsewhere. They are with the choice of paying twice or else leaving, unless the Belgian government shows mercy. Journalists are, of course, a group of people who can fend for themselves to some extent; others fare much worse. I would like to cite the example of a Swedish lady who lives in the Netherlands, is insured in the Netherlands, returns to Sweden but cannot benefit from the health care system there because the Netherlands refuses to include the so-called private patients in the regulation. Examples of this are legion. People who experience this kind of treatment end up in a Kafkaesque situation. Who are the architects of this system? They are in the Council and are keen to keep things as they are. This is also evident from the replies. The question now arises as to whether we want to change this or not? We have had precious little opportunity to do anything so far, for the only right Parliament has had has been advisory. The only thing we could do if extremely bad changes were announced was to settle for a recommendation which prevented discussion in the Council. We now have another right: that of codecision. That is why our group is of the opinion that we should use this right at long last to force a dialogue with the Council. That is exactly what the rapporteur has tried to prevent with all his might, with all possible means, and backed by the UK representatives. I believe that that is not right. This is today’s topic of discussion. That is why we are in conflict, and not so much in terms of the objectives. There are naturally always differences between the way in which the one amendment would have been worded compared to the other, but they boil down to the same thing. It is extremely odd that if we discuss a legislative matter, we at the same time want to express our true interests in the form of a resolution. If we were to adopt this approach in other codecision matters, we would not make much progress. This morning, we managed to conclude quite a few codecision matters successfully, and I do not believe that there is a resolution in these, the exact meaning of which would need to be reiterated. That proves just how odd this procedure is here today. That also proves that we are on the wrong track. Someone might say that perhaps this is the last time. I do hope so. I hope that this will prove to be the case in a year’s time. If that is so, Council, you will really need to watch your step, because you will be unable to continue in the same vein. You will really need to look after those ordinary people who are continuously at the receiving end of your stipulations. Then, there will be no need to give less consideration to the interests of the bureaucracies which so far, the parties to the have valued more than the interests of the electorate and the people they represent. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE