Mr President, I would like to echo the sentiments of those who have congratulated Michel Rocard on this excellent initiative, which is in the best tradition of Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. The report is based on the intention expressed by the Council in 1992 to achieve convergence of objectives and policies in the sphere of social security, and it links these with the existing objectives announced in Lisbon with regard to social cohesion and economic progress. I think the connection between these two elements is a very sound one. I expressly included a third element in my contribution in the committee, which I believe makes another strong case for European action in the field of health insurance; in particular, the removal of obstacles to freedom of movement, and not just the free movement of services that Bartho Pronk talked about, but also the free movement of persons within the EU. In particular, these sentiments are to be found in recital J and Paragraphs 11 e) and f) and 14 of this report. Many sometimes distressing problems and examples from real life prompted me to table these amendments. I am delighted that the rapporteur and the committee have adopted them. It is not by chance that I am particularly used to facing such problems by virtue of my Dutch background. We have a special combination of private, public, individual and collective types of health insurance system, which have undergone quite some upheaval in recent times. Leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether these changes were for the better, one thing is for sure: far too little attention was given to the effects of these changes on cross-border workers, retired Dutch nationals living abroad, and for example, Germans and Belgians working in the Netherlands. In terms of European coordination, the current combination of fiscally financed national insurance for nationals, compulsory insurance for employees up to a certain income level and, in addition, private insurance with collective or individual regimes, is a downright disaster. The national insurance system is not subject to the coordination rules because it is not employees’ insurance and only applies to nationals. The private system has to do with the directives for the insurance sector in the sphere of competition. There is at present an on-going discussion in the Netherlands about structural changes to the system. An opinion is being prepared on this in the Social and Economic Council. It looks as if employers and employees are at last to reach agreement on basic health insurance in which market forces and competition between insurers will be combined with agreements on a compulsory basic package and, in addition, a broad package with optional elements which must, at the very least, be subject to an acceptance obligation and an average premium. This is with a view to avoiding risk selection and exclusion, and to secure optimum accessibility for everyone. Fortunately, the parties in the SER have realised that creating such a hybrid mixture of private and public elements might run up against conflicting legislation from Brussels. People have been doing some fact-finding on this ahead of time, and have reached the sensible conclusion that, whatever happens, the entire system must now fall within the scope of the social insurance system. Coordination at European level would certainly make this a whole lot simpler for those who live and work over the border. I believe this fits in with the convergence strategy that the rapporteur has in mind. I also feel that the increase in labour mobility in Europe is necessary and lends weight to our argument in favour of producing the aforementioned Green Paper and measures on the cost of public health.

Political group: PSE