Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, making the European labour market possible is in fact the goal of all the Member States, and, since 1971, we have also had an instrument for this purpose, that being Regulation No 1408. How, though, do things stand in practice? A number of Member States have set up various obstacles and allowed them to remain in place. That is why I am glad that the long-overdue reform of Regulation 1408 is at last on the table. Had it not been for this nonsensical unanimity rule in the Council, it would have been there much sooner. That notwithstanding, we have proved that we are capable of coping, shortly before the end of the parliamentary term, not only with enlargement, but also with giving a social policy reform greater depth. The first thing to be said about it is that it makes everything simpler, which is what both the public and Parliament want, and it also incorporates rulings by the European Court of Justice on such things as the entitlement to medical services. Secondly, there are also qualitative reforms, and this House and the committee have encouraged and emboldened the Commission to formulate these as such. They include, for example, the right of unemployed people to remain in Europe for up to six months for the purpose of seeking work; this involves family members and people who are no longer involved in economic activity being included in the scope of the Regulation. It involves all these things, because we are of course inviting to Europe not only workers but also their families. Like Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, I am especially glad that we have made a special arrangement for people with disabilities, something that the Council was initially unwilling to accept. I hope that we will now be able to reach a compromise. What is important is that nobody who wants to avail themselves of the mobility option and whom we wish to support in their desire to do so, should fall through the social security system’s net. It is also important that we should reiterate that this is about coordination and about the acknowledgement of entitlements, and not about the transfer of social benefits from one state to another. There were also, of course, a number of conflicts – not with Mrs Lambert, whom I thank for her cooperation, and nor even that much with the Group of the European People’s Party , apart from the point relating to families, which Mrs Oomen-Ruijten has just mentioned. Some Member States take a very narrow view of what constitutes a family – I would say they have a twentieth-century view of it – whilst others have a more modern approach in line with the twenty-first. What we, in fact, regard as important is that this definition, when we decide on one, will have no legal significance in terms of the Regulation, and that we will not be enforcing some sort of acceptance of a lifestyle on any Member State. For that reason, we should perhaps show a bit more tolerance. My final point is that it matters a great deal both to me and to my group that we should now – great and important though this reform is – keep this Regulation open-ended. There will without doubt be more cases in which we will have to get involved, particularly when we are joined by ten new Member States next year, when we will gain experience and perhaps have to make more changes. It is for this reason that we also support the Commission’s idea of flexible action in areas that are left open and also of regulating those matters that have not been sorted out, such as taxation and the occasional possibility of double taxation – which will perhaps happen in the next legislative period.

Political group: PSE