Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-02-Speech-2-152"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030902.7.2-152"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, as we have been hearing, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 is the mechanism for the coordination of social security systems between Member States, not their harmonisation. For example, it is the regulation which gives you the right to reimbursement of emergency health care costs when you are taken ill in another Member State, providing you have your E111 form with you, as I am sure all of us here do.
The lives of many disabled people have been made an absolute misery by the current situation in which disability benefits cannot be exported. These people have not been able to exercise their freedom of movement because they cannot afford to.
Another area where the work of colleagues has been very helpful has been on the subject of frontier workers who face particular difficulties in juggling two systems. The revised text of recital 4 makes a particular reference to the taxation issue. I want to make the point here that this is a reference and not an attempt to harmonise taxation across the European Union. It points out that there are difficulties faced which need resolution, even though this regulation may not be the place to do it. It is a problem that can only increase as some Member States merge their tax and social security payment systems, and where people may find that they are paying twice for a service that they can only receive once.
The amendments concerning Articles 57 and 59 also pick up on the need to deal with potential problems before they affect individuals, and are indeed linked to previous European Parliament decisions.
As I mentioned earlier, the scope of the regulation is limited: it cannot answer all questions relating to frontier workers or access to healthcare, particularly when this is currently dealt with under the Treaties as a set of goods and services rather than universal social service. We can, however, aim to ensure that the regulation is as clear and comprehensive as possible so that employers cannot side-step their obligations to their employees and ask them, for example, to become self-employed to avoid payment of social security. The regulation should be a support to free movement, not a barrier, and we hope that our joint work will lead in that direction.
The basis of the regulation is to provide those people from one Member State living or working in another with the same right to social security provision as a national living in that Member State. It is parity of treatment. It does not mean that your national system comes with you – which is something that people do not understand – but that you switch to the new system, where you should be treated on an equal footing with others.
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: definitions of social security and not social welfare in general, for example. It is true to say that as a committee we found this a frustration.
The inability to build bridges between national systems is problematic and it leads many people to feel poorly served when gaps appear between the systems. They feel it is Europe's job to provide those bridges.
One of the three main issues we are told that advice services 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 entitlement to unemployment benefits by doing so; hence Amendments Nos 2 and 43 from the committee. Member States could help by recognising this as a valid reason for unemployment.
As we have heard, the Commission's proposals aim to simplify and modernise the regulation. The Council has been working through those proposals since 1999 and Parliament has followed the workings with a view to cooperation where there is progress for people and where it aligns with ECJ rulings.
However, we have also looked to signal where there are problems and seek solutions where possible within the regulation's limited scope. I have been very grateful for that cooperation with both the Council and the Commission and, of course, for the very supportive cooperation of colleagues within the committee. We have a mutual desire to see the necessary revision of the regulation within this legislature.
Our committee supports the extension of the scope of Regulation 1408/71. We support the move to include pre-retirement benefits for however long they continue to exist, given current moves to extend working lives, and paternity benefits. The majority of the committee deeply regrets that a weak legal base has meant that the extended family definition we wish to see in Amendment No 20 is so problematic. We look forward to seeing a progressive solution being found in the Council in its response to the European Parliament's vote on the Santini report. If this persists it is the view of many of us that we shall see cases brought before the European Court concerning the lack of mutual recognition of marital status for same-sex couples.
The committee is pleased, however, that in the European Year of People with Disabilities there appears to be progress on the cross-border export of certain disability benefits. I appreciate the action of Mrs Oomen-Ruijten in bringing forward the proposed new Article 55, which is supported by many political groups. This means that Amendment No 42, the committee's bridging, and, to some extent, warning amendment, can be replaced by Amendment No 55."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples