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

Link to the Green/EFA Group press release before the vote