Documents

Why is the Dutch economy finding it so much more difficult to recover from the financial and economic crisis than its neighbours? It is because the Netherlands – much more than neighbouring countries – is affected by the negative interaction between the housing market, the banking sector, and the pensions system. This exploratory survey attempts to clarify these macro-economic interactions. One important conclusion is that these problems are typically “Made in Holland” and will therefore need to be tackled with our own “Dutch Design”. SER’s exploratory survey Dutch economy in calmer waters: A macro-economic exploratory survey is has been presented by to the Ministers of General Affairs, Economic Affairs, Finance, Social Affairs and Employment, and Housing and the Central Government Sector.

This is the seventh time that the Council has given an opinion on a Ministerial Order on this subject, and over this period it has been evident that the system of reference prices applied has contributed considerably to restraint in public spending, and more recently in a reduction. The opinion notes that public pharmaceutical spending has fallen from 12.21 billion euros in 2010 to 9.77 billion in 2012 (nearly 20% less). And last year the number of prescriptions fell by 6.1% (the largest fall in the last few decades), while the average cost per prescription fell by 6.6%, according to Health Ministry data.But fifteen years after the introduction of the system of reference prices the Council believes that a careful analysis should be made of its utility and limitations as part of the measures taken to reduce pharmaceutical expenditure, and in the broader context of a desirable long-term policy strategy for a rational use of medicinal products. Nonetheless the opinion stresses, as on previous occasions, that the right to health and to pharmaceutical quality should come first.As to the contents of the Order submitted for consultation, with a decrease in the price of 11,322 forms of medicinal product, the Council questions the removal of the lower threshold in the price of such products. It deems that the absence of this threshold could give rise to undesirable risks such as the withdrawal from the market of certain medicinal products due to lack of profitability and a consequent trend in prescriptions towards more expensive products. The Council therefore sees a need to restore a minimum price threshold under which a reference price for medicinal products cannot be set.As to the sets of products, the Council considers that they should be made up more homogeneously, as some have been created without the existence of a generic product, involving medicines which have the same active ingredient and administration route but different uses or therapeutical forms. Thus the possibility should be provided to differentiate between products within the sets according to their various pharmaceutical forms.The Council takes the opportunity to note, as it did in its earlier opinion 2/2013, that it does not seem reasonable for the pharmacist to be obliged to necessarily substitute branded medicinal products with generic ones. In this event the substitution principle could also be open for other branded options that do not exceed that price.

The opinion endorses the aims of the future law as regards guaranteeing market unity, though it deems that such unity should not mean uniformity, as the Constitutional Court has stated. Thus a balance must be sought to make nationwide economic unity compatible with the juridical diversity arising from Spain's system of autonomous regions. The Council considers that the bill may be hard to apply and may give rise to litigation between the various spheres of government. It supports a harmonisation of legislation across the various spheres of government, but it believes that such harmonisation should not entail just a standardised bare minimum or a lack of legislation. Unlike the government, the Council believes that bill's implementation will result in extra public spending, so such expenses should be calculated.The Economic and Social Council's plenary session adopted by a majority vote its opinion on the Draft Bill for Guaranteeing Market Unity, submitted by the Economy and Competitiveness Ministry on 15 March for mandatory consultation. The Council agrees with the future law's purpose of ensuring market unity by removing distortions and overlaps which in practice unjustifiably discourage business initiative and job creation. In previous documents the Council has advocated the removal of such distortions in the internal market involving differing costs for companies according to their location, and a check on growth. The Council considers, however, that such unity, as the Constitutional Court has stated, should not entail uniformity, as the configuration of the Spanish State involves a diversity of legal systems. Accordingly the opinion asserts that a balance should be sought so as to allow for plural and diverse measures and regulations across Spain's regions in the economic sphere.As to the contents of the bill, the Council considers that it may be hard to apply and may give rise to litigation given that it affects a large number of regional and local competences, and not only between central and regional governments but also between regional governments themselves and local authorities, as the regulations in the economic operator's region of origin are to take precedence.The Council is in favour of a harmonisation of economic regulations across the various spheres of government, while respecting their various spheres of competence, so as to limit the undue multiplicity of legislation, simplify procedures and remove overlaps and unnecessary requirements as well as unjustified or disproportionate impediments or restrictions. In this respect the Council sees a need to review the legislation enacted by regional and local authorities directly or indirectly entailing discriminatory treatment for companies from other regions. But the Council considers that the bill opts for a legislative alignment that may result in a convergence with a bare minimum or absence of legislation, which the Council cannot endorse. Moreover, enshrining the region-of-origin principle in the order of regulatory precedence may encourage companies to relocate in regions with less regulation, or regulations that favour their business. The opinion warns of the many grey areas in the bill's text which may generate legal insecurity. For example the Council would prefer a clearer definition of the bill's scope, determining the economic sectors and activities affected. The same applies to the penalty procedure, which generates uncertainties where the regulations of the location where a service is provided differ from those of the firm's location of origin. The Council also calls for greater precision regarding the procedures involved in applying for, monitoring and verifying statements of regulatory compliance.The Council also asks that, given the importance of the aim of guaranteeing market unity, explicit account be taken of the need for the economic and social partners to participate in the process and that the bill's articles should include some reference to the future law's implications for consumers.Finally the opinion expresses scepticism at the assertion in the bill's impact analysis that its implementation will not involve extra costs. Accordingly the Council considers that its budgetary repercussions should be properly calculated.

Collective agreement No. 43 terdecies Collective agreement modifying collective agreement No. 43 of 2 May 1988 modifying and consolidating collective agreements No. 21 of 15 May 1975 and No. 23 of 25 July 1975 on the guarantee of an average monthly minimum wage

Collective agreement No. 106 Collective agreement determining, for 2013 and 2014, the conditions for granting a supplementary benefit, within the context of unemployment with company allowance, to some dismissed older workers who have worked night shifts for 20 years or who have been employed in the construction industry and are unable to work

Collective agreement No. 43 duodecies Collective agreement modifying collective agreement No. 43 of 2 May 1988 modifying and consolidating collective agreements No. 21 of 15 May 1975 and No. 23 of 25 July 1975 on the guarantee of an average monthly minimum wage

Collective agreement No. 105 Collective agreement determining the conditions for granting a supplementary benefit, within the context of unemployment with company allowance, to some older disabled workers and some older workers with serious physical problems when they are dismissed