Mr President, when the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs decided to present this question to the Council, it wished to focus on two specific and interrelated points: firstly the free movement of third-country nationals following the decision of the Tampere European Council and secondly, the expected legal base for this. At the time, our question was also, of course, related to the preparations for the Nice Summit, since we hoped that decisions in favour of social policy and freedom of movement would be taken. Since then, particularly in the lead-up to that European Council, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has had occasion to look into the issue of freedom of movement in more general terms. This more general consideration has proved useful in indicating to us that, before extending freedom of movement to third-country nationals, we must, of course, ensure that it operates smoothly for European Union citizens. We were concerned to note, however, that Regulation 1408/71 was becoming less and less appropriate, and that every month saw further postponement of moves to modernise and simplify it. This is a serious situation, for freedom of movement is one of the truly fundamental principles of the European Union. This is what enables EU citizens to move, reside and work without obstruction. That is why Regulation 1408/71 – which was originally designed to coordinate national social security systems – is one of the keystones in Citizens’ Europe, and any obstacle or delay to its being modernised is a serious matter. Permit me, Mr President, to take these three aspects in turn. Firstly, let me hark back to the wording of our question. Firstly, what do we have to say regarding the extension of Regulation 1408/71 to third-country nationals? We are forced to note that the action taken by the Council does not always, or rather does not yet – which is not quite the same thing, reflect the expressed political will of the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999 to create within the Union, I quote, an “area of freedom, security and justice” in which “the legal status of third-country nationals should be approximated to that of Member States’ nationals.” Indeed, I would remind you that Parliament had already decided the same thing in October 1998, when the Commission proposal under review at that time was adopted, without amendments, by Parliament. In other words, the Commission had taken the initiative, Parliament had supported the proposal in a clear vote and the European Council at the highest level, in Tampere one year later, gave legitimacy to this policy direction. Yet, in 2001, the Council has still not adopted a common position to enable us to continue the procedure. What is the reason for this intolerable delay and this denial of political will by the Heads of State and Government even though, for once, there is perfect agreement between the three institutions, when this is not always the case? Apparently this is due to the question of the legal base of this text, which sets the Council against the position adopted by the European Council and the Commission. But if you will permit me to express this legal dispute in readily accessible terms, what is the Council after in opposing this legal base? It is seeking to take the European Parliament out of the codecision procedure (you will tell us that it could do this). That is what is at issue. So, do not shake your head! You are rejecting our right to take part in codecision. This business does not affect just the role of the European Parliament; it is of direct political interest to the citizens of Europe. The extension of Regulation 1408/71 to third-country nationals is such a sensitive issue that the citizens of the European Union ought to be fully involved in the form of the European Parliament, which represents them. That is why the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs cannot accept the reference to other legal bases other than those given in the Commission proposal, and would like to point out that Regulation 1408/71 cannot be amended except through the codecision procedure. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, what we are challenging in the Council proceedings is one and the same issue, whether it concerns European Community citizens or third-country nationals. In both cases, the slow progress of work in the Council is obstructing the development of free movement. The Council cannot shirk its responsibilities; it must apply the decisions of the European Council and apply them transparently with regard to public opinion and in proper compliance with democratic rules while respecting the role of the European Parliament. Failing to go down this route, Mr President, would doubtless impel the Members of the European Parliament to respond firmly – and with public support, we have no doubt – and to take action to oppose these obstacles to free movement. I would add that my protest is not, of course, directed at the Swedish Presidency as such but at the Council. Indeed I believe that the Swedish Presidency, on the basis of its traditions, may make a great contribution towards solving this problem. Finally, I would like to conclude on another matter relating to the imminent future of the European Union, enlargement. The Committee on Employment deems it essential for the countries involved in the next wave of enlargement to be informed of the various outstanding proposals regarding reform of the relevant article in Regulation 1408/71. The issue of freedom of movement is, as we are well aware, one of the sensitive aspects of the accession negotiations. What are the Council’s plans in this area?

Political group: PSE