MEPs in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee will vote on the thorny proposal for a regulation revising the coordination of social security systems on Tuesday 20 November.
The dossier is very complex, and the negotiations have been delayed (see EUROPE 12044), with variable majorities depending on the provisions of the legislative act.
Some people expect "a big fireworks display" and "a tidy battle", the results of which are difficult to predict. The EPP shadow rapporteur, Sven Schulze (Germany), tabled a series of amendments two weeks ago to counter some compromise amendments by rapporteur Guillaume Balas (S&D, France), in particular on applicable legislation.
"Today, it is difficult to say that we have secured anything," the rapporteur told EUROPE a few days ago.
For the MEP, the legislative dossier suffers from the proximity of the European elections, a deadline that would push some MEPs - within the EPP and ALDE groups and some social democrats in northern Europe - to adopt polemical positions, for example on the issue of 'social tourism' or immigration.
Regardless of the outcome of the vote, Mr Balas sets a red line: the legislation applicable to so-called "sent" workers, which includes in particular posted workers.
The rapporteur wants the legislation of the first host country to be applied to any worker sent on a mission of up to 18 months (duration equivalent to that of the Posted Workers Directive), having proved that he is affiliated to a social security system at least three months before the start of a mission.
However, Mr Balas proposes an exemption for business travel.
Mr Schulze suggested a 1-month affiliation, evidenced by an A1 certificate notified no later than the day of the start of the mission. Above all, the German MP proposes that any assignment as a "sent" worker of less than 5 days should not be covered.
This amendment is described as inept by the French socialist, who sees it as the introduction of a "generalised laxity" allowing "generalised fraud".
There was no shortage of points of disagreement and they should reappear during the vote. The question of the requalification of the A1 certificate (which makes it possible to certify the affiliation of a sent worker to social security) would be discussed. Mr Balas would have liked the possibility for a Member State to re-qualify a certificate when it does not obtain details on a certificate from the sending country in time.
But the proposal is not acceptable to the EPP, ALDE and ECR and Greens/EFA groups. The latter consider that such a provision would amount to punishing the worker for a lack of responsiveness on the part of the national authorities.
Similarly, Mr Balas would like to grant freedom of choice to frontier workers to decide which Member State will be responsible for unemployment benefits and employment support services. The proposal would be debated in the EPP Group, where the French delegation would be on Mr Balas' line, unlike the EPP shadow rapporteur.
Family benefits instead of living for children
Among the points at the more or less certain end, it should be noted that the indexation of family benefits instead of children's lives, which would have resurfaced for a while under the impetus of Mr Schulze, would no longer be on the agenda for the vote.
Such an 'export' of unemployment benefits would be set at 6 months, and the aggregation of entitlements would be done from the first day.
Finally, the deletion of the chapter planned by the Commission on long-term sickness benefits is also noted.
On Monday, a meeting was held within the EPP group, in which only four MEPs reportedly participated. These MEPs spoke in favour of a free vote on the draft report and the negotiating mandate with the Council. The decision would have irritated Mr Schulze, who would have insisted that his counterparts reject the rapporteur and the mandate, so that this matter could be submitted to a Parliament plenary session for consideration. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)