Madam President, I wish to open my speech by joining others in conveying my deepest sympathy to you, Commissioner, in light of what is happening in your country. Ladies and gentlemen, this report, which concerns the updating of Regulation No 1408/71 and of the Regulation which lays down implementing procedures for the former regulation is, therefore, the subject of debate in our Parliament today. As has just been pointed out, the purpose of the amendments proposed to us is, on the one hand, to incorporate into the document changes that have appeared in the various social security schemes and, on the other hand, to perform the essential task of incorporating the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Communities when the latter has had to give a ruling upon these topics. It should be remembered that the issue of the updating or general modernisation of the Regulation is currently being debated but also that, on many occasions, our Parliament has asked for a general overhaul of the regulations coordinating social security schemes. The proposal that we have to consider today is basically aimed at updating the list of what are termed non-exportable benefits, contained in Annex IIa of the aforesaid Regulation. The decisions of the Court of Justice have made it possible to single out two essential characteristics which these benefits must exhibit in order to be considered as non-exportable and, therefore, to enjoy derogations from the general principle of the exportability of social benefits: their special character in the Member State concerned; the fact that the beneficiary does not contribute to them, in other words that they are funded from, and on the basis of, general taxation in the Member State concerned; and, finally – and as a supplementary factor – the fact that the amount is in line with the minimum necessary income required to live in the economic environment of the country granting the benefits. In practical terms, non-exportable benefits may be talked of in the case of certain additional resources paid to elderly people or designed to offset transport costs or even in the case of benefits linked to disability. We can only note that, when they are not exportable, similar versions of all these benefits exist, in general, in the other Member States and are, therefore, able then to be collected. What is the meaning of this updating? It seems to us that the import of the proposal being put to us is very positive. Firstly, it effectively enables the exceptions to this general principle of exportability to be limited through the strict application of the ‘special’ and ‘non-contributory’ criteria. Once systems predicated upon exceptions are left behind, the conditions are always more favourable for everyone concerned. Secondly, this proposal puts an end to the divergent interpretations of the various national administrations and so ensures legal security for employees induced to move within the European Union. It brings transparency and greater clarity to an area which, as we know, is eminently complex, bordering, as it does, upon both what appear to be social security benefits in the very strict sense of the term and social action, which is a non-compulsory feature put in place by the Member States. It is at this level that the debate must take place and at which all the interpretations are possible. Thirdly, it must be possible for this proposal to be adopted without delay in order to avoid further legal disputes in this area that is very sensitive for the citizens of the European Union. As we know, this issue does, at a social level, sometimes alienate people from the European Union. In their eyes, the EU seems not to respond as quickly as it should to putting everyone on the same footing. Finally, the proposal is a factor that facilitates and promotes the advances expected in the current general overhaul of Regulation No 1408/71. Nonetheless, we have to express a reservation regarding the specific situation of one of the Member States which has not so much seen a benefit removed as a formerly exportable benefit reintroduced in the non-exportable category. This situation should, we think, give rise to a more thoroughgoing study of the citizens concerned. There do not appear to be very many of them, but the simple fact that a number of them are likely to suffer would in our view seem to require that, when cases come to light, thought be given to having a transitional period and a series of bilateral negotiations. Madam President, when, in a moment, we vote, I shall consequently have to table an oral amendment in the form of a supplementary recital along the same lines as the amendments that have been tabled by my fellow MEPs and that the Commission tells us it cannot follow up. This was also the position adopted within the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. This oral amendment should enable us to move forward. I shall conclude by pointing out that, in this scenario, we are faced with delicately balanced situations, linked to the procedure used. It is this open method of coordination that is delicate. We definitely must preserve the gains it affords in cases such as this. That is why I hope that this report is adopted.

Political group: PSE