Madam President, I regret the late hour for the debate on this topic which is actually going to affect the lives of many of our citizens, but the core group of the 'friends of Regulation 1408' are still here and recognise its importance. This piece of work on the coordination – not harmonisation, as some of my colleagues would like us to believe – of social security systems has been lengthy. It started life in the previous Parliament and then changed to codecision and unanimity in Council in 1999. I trust that this simplification and modernisation of the much-amended regulation in the past will provide a useful and very constructive framework in a further enlarged European Union. I wish to thank sincerely all the shadow rapporteurs and other Members for their serious work and ultimately constructive approach to this regulation. I also want to record my thanks to the Commission for its willingness to support our work with time, information and explanation. In Council, too, we have seen an increasing willingness to approach this reform with some spirit, which I know was not shared by all Members back in 1999 when I first met with representatives and Member States in Helsinki. I would remind Members that Council informed the chairman and members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs – in writing in a letter dated 31 March and indeed verbally after that – of its agreement to the amendments here proposed to the common position and to the Council statement on taxation to be entered in the Council minutes should agreement be reached on the adoption of the regulation. I trust that tomorrow we will confirm the position of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs at its last meeting. As we know, the restrictions concerning this regulation have caused us some problems: the fact that tax cannot be tackled within it raises particular problems for some cross-border workers, especially as we see tax and social protection systems increasingly interlocking in some Member States. The fact that we cannot build bridges between systems means that some people will still feel that free movement is not sufficiently supported and that will mean at least more work for the Committee on Petitions. However, mutual recognition, whether for family status or status as a person with disabilities, for example, will also continue to be an issue. We also recognise in Parliament that we have not achieved the full flexibility we had hoped for with regard to access to benefits in kind for frontier workers and their families. While we realise that the fact that Member States must now explicitly register in Annex 3 if they do not wish to provide such a service demonstrates that this is a deviation from the norm, we view such refusals with concern. I am sure that this is an issue which will be taken up in the next Parliament when we see the Commission's proposals for the currently empty Annexes 2, 10 and 11, and for the implementing regulation. We trust that work will progress as speedily as possible so that the full revised proposal may come into force within the next two years. However, we believe that the common position as amended in committee is a positive step forward. There has been no regression on the status quo: all persons covered by social security schemes are now included – not just paid workers. The positive steps taken for third country nationals – Mrs Oomen-Ruijten's report – are also there and were in the original Commission proposal. There is greater clarity concerning cross-border healthcare, and the European Court of Justice decisions on the criteria concerning medical necessity are there. The adoption of the assimilation of facts and events will be of benefit to frontier workers in particular and the number of derogations and exceptions has been reduced, despite our concern about the future development of the Annexes. There are clear criteria now concerning special non-contributory cash benefits. The principle of good administration has also been introduced. This is a complex but necessary piece of work and it helps to answer the question of what the European Parliament does to benefit people. Despite certain reservations, which many of us in the House feel, I commend the common position, as amended, to the House and wish future rapporteurs on the subject the same degree of support and interest that has been offered to me as your rapporteur. In conclusion, in a strange sort of way, I found this challenging and interesting experience quite fun at times.

Political group: Verts-ALE