Gabriele Bischoff (S&D, German) is the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the revision of the Regulation on coordinating social security systems (883/2004). Frustrated with the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU, which no longer considers it possible to reach an agreement on a general reform covering, in particular, the outstanding chapters on unemployment benefits for cross-border workers and the applicable legislation (see EUROPE 13350/27), she told Minister Frank Vandenbroucke that there was still time to achieve this and was waiting for a new impetus from him. (Interview by Solenn Paulic)
Agence Europe – On Wednesday, the Deputy Prime Minister for Social Affairs, Frank Vandenbroucke, rejected Parliament’s “take it or leave it” approach, accusing it of causing the dossier to fail. How would you respond?
Gabriele Bischoff – We’ve had 18 trilogues on this issue [since the revision was presented in 2016, editor’s note], with different presidencies working really hard, like the Slovenian Presidency in 2021. At the end of that year, we had a provisional agreement and all that was missing was one Member State... But at the time, Belgium and Germany abstained, which is equivalent to a ‘no’ vote.
The Spanish have also been hard at work. And they came very close to an agreement, but ran out of time. Then the Belgians arrived, forgetting what the previous Presidency had done and with the idea of dividing up the text and removing the parts they didn’t like, also because there are different positions within the Member States, but also in Parliament.
It was proposed that we close the chapters where there is an agreement and continue to negotiate the rest under the next period (unemployment benefits and applicable legislation), but the minister also told us on Wednesday that he believed there would never be an agreement on these two chapters!
Parliament, which has moved a long way towards the Council’s position, is asking Belgium to help it and, with its experienced negotiators, to do its job by trying to pick up where the Spanish left off, to see if an agreement can be reached.
The Belgian Presidency must be an honest broker and not put its own national interests first.
Can we realistically reach agreement in such a short time on such a technical and sensitive regulation?
We still have a little time with the so-called ‘corrigendum’ procedure, which can last until the second week of March (confirmation of an agreement in trilogue would then take place in October, according to this procedure). If it so wishes, the Belgian Presidency can still try, and this is what we are proposing. Things will be over when they’re over!
Parliament is ready, but it’s not ready to accept a ‘take it or leave it’ with just four chapters either. The chapter on applicable legislation is very important for combating social fraud by letterbox companies and ensuring fairer mobility.
As for unemployment benefits for cross-border workers, the Commission’s proposal is based on the principle of ‘lex loci laboris’ (a person working in the territory of a Member State is subject to the legislation of that State), which means that Member States pay unemployment benefits where people have worked and paid contributions to their social security and unemployment systems.
Yes, regulation 883 is really complicated. It always has been, because it’s about money, social rights and the basis of free movement. But it’s still possible if you have the will.
An agreement was within reach in December with Spain. How far had Parliament gone in the negotiations when the discussions on unemployment seemed to focus on a period of affiliation in a Member State of between 22 and 25 weeks and when certain rumours indicated that Parliament would drop its red lines on the construction sector?
We agreed on compulsory prior notification and on exemptions (from time-based derogations from prior notification) in the construction sector. This was also a very important point for employers and trade unions in this sector, in which fraud is rife.
We have studies from the European Labour Authority and others on this subject, and it’s very clear. Agriculture has also been the subject of debate, already under the Finns, but has never been finalised; the French and other members have told us that it could be important.
We were open to the idea, but for us, construction was particularly important because of the scale of fraud. And we have never talked about abandoning this compulsory notification procedure for this sector.
We were able to accept this exemption for other postings of less than three days because the Council really wanted it. And we’re not at all happy with this three-day rule, because it’s going to increase fraud! But we accepted it to simplify procedures. But our position has always been ‘no’ for construction.
The transport sector has also already been the subject of debate. We have held discussions with the social partners in the transport sector, as well as in agriculture, and they have told us that it would not be necessary to exclude them from these exemptions from prior notification. However, we could also have reconsidered our position.
We have also made progress on the digitisation of procedures, a very important point for Parliament. The Commission has also presented a proposal for the immediate introduction of an intermediate stage of digitisation, based on applications during Covid-19. But the Member States are very reticent about this idea.
In the next few years, we will also have a digital portfolio, and we can already try to digitise prior notification procedures and A1 forms.
On Wednesday, Mr Vandenbroucke announced a study on digitisation. But we are already in this era and already have the tools to digitise procedures even further. The added value of a study is therefore very limited.
On unemployment and the number of weeks required (to designate the State of activity responsible for benefits), this was not easy for us, in fact, because we wanted to give greater protection to vulnerable groups, such as seasonal workers, who find themselves excluded with longer periods of required contributions, but in a spirit of compromise we are moving closer to the Spanish Presidency.
On Tuesday, the shadow rapporteurs adopted the ‘unfinished business’ rule for this case. What exactly are we talking about?
This has already been done during the last mandate, when the provisional agreement reached under the Romanian Presidency failed in the Council. It was unfinished business and we took it up again following a decision by the Conference of Presidents. And I took over from my French colleague Guillaume Balas.
We had agreed that the four chapters that were almost complete would not be dealt with and that we would concentrate solely on the two remaining chapters.
On Tuesday, we informed the coordinators that we would proceed with this rule, taking note of the progress made to safeguard them for the next period. That way, the next Parliament can pick up where we left off.
Were you able to count on your country, Germany, in these negotiations?
The major progress we have made in approximating unemployment benefits and qualification periods was achieved under the German Presidency, but Germany in general, like Belgium, was reluctant to accept the principle of ‘lex loci laboris’.
But a lot of work has been done under the Spanish Presidency to find a compromise. And there is, in my view, a more general problem linked to the system of rotating presidencies. I’ve been there. There is no real continuity.
And we find ourselves in a situation where the Spanish have worked very hard, and then the next Presidency decides something completely different. That doesn’t help with an issue as complex as 883.
After the failure of the Slovenian Presidency, subsequent Presidencies also dropped the ball. This shows the limits of the concept of a trio Presidency, which does not work on this issue.
Starting from scratch wouldn’t be the solution either, because we’d run into the same difficulties when everything is almost ready and we need to try and reach agreement on two outstanding chapters.
Let’s see if anything can still happen under the Belgian Presidency. The Minister was well aware of the reactions in Parliament on Wednesday. I think he’ll think again. We’ll see if anything happens.