JEAN LAMBERT MEP
SPEECH TO PLENARY
VOTE ON REGULATION
1408/71 - COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
Thank
you, President.
1. Regulation 1408/71 is the mechanism for the coordination
of social security systems between member states. For example, it is the regulation
which gives you the right to the reimbursement of emergency healthcare costs when
you are taken ill in another member state - providing you have your E-111 form
with you, as I am sure we all do.
2. The basis of the Regulation
is to provide those from one member state living or working in another with the
same rights to social security provision as a national living in that member state
- parity of treatment. It does not mean that your own national system comes
with you, which is something people do not always understand: you switch to the
new system, where you should be treated equally with others in that system.
3.
In amending this Regulation, we are constrained by a strict legal base within
the Treaties and by numerous Court of Justice rulings about the scope of the Regulation,
social security and not social welfare in general, for example. We have found
this a frustration.
4. The inability to build bridges between national
systems is problematic and leads many people to feel poorly served when gaps appear
between systems: they feel that it is Europe's job to provide those bridges. You
have only to look at the numerous cases brought to the Petitions Committee and
the various advisory services such as EURES and ECAS (representatives of some
of these present in the building today).
5. One of the 3 main issues
they deal with is that of people who have resigned from their job in order to
move to another country with their partner or spouse and who lose their entitlement
to unemployment benefit by doing so. Hence our amendments 2 and 43. Member states
could help, of course, by recognising this as a valid reason for unemployment.
6.
The Commission's proposals aim to simplify and modernise the Regulation. Council
has been working through the proposals since 1999 and Parliament has followed
their workings with a view to co-operation where there is progress for people
and it aligns with ECJ rulings: however, we have also looked to signal where there
are problems and to seek solutions where possible within the Regulation's limited
scope.
7. Personally, I have been very grateful for that cooperation with both Council and Commission and also, of course, for the supportive cooperation of colleagues within the Committee and their desire to see the necessary revision of the Regulation within this legislature.
8. Our Committee supports
the extension of the scope of Regulation 1408/71 to cover all those within the
EU included in a social security system. We regret the separate rather than inclusive
solution found for 3rd Country Nationals which has necessitated a more complex
formulation for Article 1 and subsequent definition clauses.
9. We support
the move to include pre-retirement benefits (for however long these continue to
exist, given current moves to extend working lives!) and paternity benefits.
10.
The majority of the Committee deeply regrets that a weak legal base has meant
that the extended family definition we wished to see is so problematic. We look
forward to seeing a progressive solution being found in Council is response to
the EP vote on the Santini report. It is the view of many of us that we shall
see cases brought to the ECJ concerning the lack of mutual recognition of marital
status for same sex couples, if this persists.
11. The Committee is
very pleased that, in the European Year of People with Disabilities, that there
is progress on the cross-border export of certain disability benefits. I appreciate
the action of Ms. Oomen-Ruiten in bringing forward the proposed new Article 55,
which is supported by many political groups. This means that the Committee's bridging
amendment 42 can be replaced by amendment 55. The lives of many disable people
have been made an absolute misery by the current situation in which disability
benefits cannot be exported: they have been not been able to exercise their freedom
of movement because they cannot afford to.
12. Another area where the
work of colleagues has been very helpful to us has been on the subject of frontier
workers, who can face particular difficulties in juggling two systems. The revised
text of Recital 4 makes particular reference to the taxation issue.
13.
This is not a step to harmonise taxation. It is a signal to Council that there
is a need to sort out the increasing problem of double taxation for some cross-border
workers in a more general way than in bi-lateral agreements. This is a problem
that can only increase as some member-states merge their tax and social security
payment systems - people may find that they are paying twice for a service that
they can only receive once.
14. The Amendments concerning Articles 57
and 59 also pick up on the need to deal with potential problems before they affect
individuals and link to previous EP decisions.
15. As I mentioned earlier,
the scope of the Regulation is limited. It cannot answer all questions relating
to frontier workers (tax, working conditions etc) or to access to healthcare,
especially when this is currently dealt with under the Treaties as a set of goods
and services rather than as a universal, social service.
16. We can
aim, however, to ensure that Regulation 1408/71 is as clear and comprehensive
as possible, so that employers cannot sidestep their obligations to their employees
and ask them to become self-employed to avoid payment!
17. The Regulation
should be support to free movement not a barrier.
Jean Lambert
2.9.2003