deputising for the author. – Mr President, firstly I should like to apologise for the absence of our committee chairman, Mr Bouwman, who unfortunately is ill this week, so that, as Parliament's rapporteur on this issue it has fallen to me to introduce the question. Parliament has long been aware of the problems concerning the legal base for the inclusion of third country nationals on the same footing as European Union citizens under the proposed simplification of modernisation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. As Members know, this regulation seeks to coordinate social security systems between Member States for people moving and working across borders. Some of the reservations I have heard voiced about the extension of this regulation to third country nationals border, at times, on the xenophobic rather than the rational. You will be aware that the legal opinion provided by Parliament's Legal Services felt that Articles 42 and 308 of the Amsterdam Treaty, as initially proposed by the Commission, formed the appropriate legal base for this extension as well as for the regulation as a whole. The European Parliament agreed, as did the majority of the Member States, and that legal base provided for the equal treatment of third country nationals legally resident in the European Union and for the full involvement of Parliament through the codecision procedure. Additionally, this parity of legal base seemed to many of us to provide a strong signal in terms of the recognition of the contribution from third country nationals to the life of the European Union and certainly met the twin aims of simplification of the process and natural justice. To me that parity was a clear signal of an inclusive Europe. I and many others find ourselves at a loss, on reading the Khalil judgment from the European Court of Justice, to understand why this should materially change the legal base on which Council and Commission are now proposing the extension of the regulation. The Khalil case, insofar as legal experts have explained it to me, involves people covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 already, should they be allowed to legally reside in another Member State and thus cross borders. They are included under this judgment because they are stateless people with rights to social security equivalent to those of nationals in the state in which they now reside as a result of international historical agreements. But no right of free movement is provided for by their inclusion under the regulation. The regulation does not grant freedom of movement. It maintains certain rights for those who move through coordination of social security systems. Council's statement last December and the Commission's new proposal do not explain the change in the legal base. They simply state it. It is an explanation that Parliament is now seeking. What specifically in the Khalil judgment has led Council to its conclusion that Article 63.4 is the correct base, when this was not the majority opinion before? Has the European Court of Human Rights case of Gaygusuz v Austria providing for nationality being no barrier to equal treatment to nationals in relation to social security not led to a conclusion of equal treatment in relation to the regulation and thus the parallel legal base? And why should the European Parliament not be involved in this area which is directly relevant to the lives of so many people? Hence our desire as well also to clarify the situation of workers in accession countries during any transition period when they will not be enjoying freedom of movement. Council and Commission will also be aware of this House's concern for the complex situation facing cross-border workers. The Belgian Presidency had put forward a number of proposals in this area, yet the agreement reached at present is only minimal, as parameter 8 concerning medical treatment shows. So what are the prospects for further improvements for this group of workers? We are also asking the Commission for its perspective on a number of issues where Council seems to be less enthusiastic about the Commission perspective as well. We would also ask whether the increasing links between the tax and the social security systems are being addressed by Council and Commission, either within the context of the regulation or elsewhere. We are all well aware of the desire of Council and Commission to see increased mobility within the workforce and, as a Member of Parliament's Committee on Petitions, I know as well that a number of those who work in other Member States find their situation made more difficult by the lack of effective information, but also by anomalies within the coordination system. Many of us are concerned that Council appears reluctant to make free movement an easy reality. We know this is a complex administrative issue, but many of the niceties of exclusion of certain benefits and complex rules simply appear as barriers. It appears at times that it is easier to move ball-bearings around the European Union than it is to move people.

Political group: Verts-ALE