As the Member States discussed the reform of the Regulation on the coordination of social security systems (see EUROPE 13603/13) again on Wednesday 19 March, the European Parliament rapporteurs, led by Germany’s Gabrielle Bischoff (S&D), took stock of the situation on the evening of 19 March and reiterated their impatience and willingness to make progress on this issue, as the rapporteur explained to Agence Europe on 20 March.
“We still think that it is possible to strike a deal here”, said the MEP, pointing out that the Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU is already halfway through and that any potential agreement, which still requires fine-tuning, would take time.
The rapporteur is also waiting for a concrete signal from the Presidency that the work is really progressing. “We are a bit impatient, like other Member States, because three months have already gone by. If you really want to achieve something, you need to speed things up. I’ve had meetings with the minister, with the secretary of state, and yes, they want to reach an agreement, but then they asked questions (to the Member States) in January, and nothing has happened”, commented the MEP.
The rapporteur also stressed that it would be a good idea to first discuss the compromise options with the European Parliament before proposing a new mandate to the Council of the EU to avoid failure.
On the substance, Parliament wants to be open to discussions, but no longer wants to go back over things that have already been discussed at length under previous presidencies, such as under the Spanish Presidency at the end of 2023 on the specific question of the construction sector and whether or not to exempt postings of less than three days from prior notification obligations.
“They know our position very clearly. We moved so much with the three days, but it was always the condition. And we made that very clear with the construction sector to exclude it. We have studies, there are also new studies produced by the ELA, on the problems within the sector. The European Construction Industry Federation, also in Poland, and even BusinessEurope, and all trade unions insist that in case there is an exemption from the obligation to notify posting of a worker prior than construction sector to be excluded. That will be a critical point. We looked at the risk sectors. And construction is a sector where we have the highest level of fraud. That would be really irresponsible from our side. And this is why we said we are willing to open the three days, and that’s a huge move, but only under the condition that the construction sector is out of this scheme”.
While the Polish Presidency has asked the Member States whether they would agree to o reduce the duration of the export of benefits from 10 to 6 months in cases where a worker has completed 24 months of contributions in a country of employment, the rapporteur believes that this would be unfair to those people who have contributed for such a long time in a country and have also helped to stabilise its system. She reiterated the European Parliament’s position, which is a “two-digit” position.
“It was under the German presidency, and that was also a big move from the Parliament that we said that people that paid much, much longer contributions into a national social security system – and here we came to the 24 months – should also have the possibility to export of unemployment benefits for longer. To try to go back on this point is not the smartest move. Six months is what we’ve already discussed for everyone. So people that would pay much longer would have no difference. I think here we need to discuss, but we always said two digits. And that was where we were under the German presidency, both sides agreed to it. This is something that we need to discuss with the Polish presidency when we know with what proposal they will come up”, stressed the rapporteur.
With regard to the period of affiliation to a national system before it becomes responsible for paying a cross-border worker’s unemployment benefits, the European Parliament originally wanted to “cover more cross-border workers. We wanted three uninterrupted months and/or six interrupted months. We also want to cover seasonal workers. This has always been a crucial point. But we know the difficulties in the Council. Germany was the toughest, with 25 weeks. The others wanted fewer than 20. By negotiating this number, there will be a way to meet somewhere, if both sides are willing to do so; that’s the precondition. We know there are some Member States that don’t want an agreement, and that makes it also quite complicated”. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)