Ausführliche Sitzungsberichte

Dienstag, 22. Oktober 2013 - Straßburg

16. Mobilität der EU-Bürger und Sozialfürsorgesysteme der Mitgliedstaaten (Aussprache)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt folgt die Erklärung der Kommission zu Mobilität der EU-Bürger und Sozialfürsorgesysteme der Mitgliedstaaten [2013/2894(RSP)].

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. − The free movement of citizens is one of the fundamental freedoms of the European Union and is enshrined in the Treaties. Intra-EU mobility is crucial to the achievement of the single market; it can contribute to fighting unemployment, and it ultimately benefits the citizens of all Member States. Yet today, despite the fact that 20 % of EU citizens are interested in moving to another country, fewer than 3 % (14.1 million) live in another Member State on a permanent basis. Many obstacles still exist for people who decide to move to another Member State to work or to look for employment.

This is why, last April, the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive with measures facilitating the exercise of the right of free movement of workers. These measures include, for instance, the provision by Member States of information, assistance and advice to EU migrant workers and employers, as well as of appropriate means of redress at national level.

As you know, at the end of this year the transitional measures relating to freedom of movement for Romanian and Bulgarian workers will come to an end, and they will be able to fully enjoy the same rights as other EU citizens. I know that concerns have been expressed – even by some Members of this House – about the risk of an increased flow of people putting an excessive burden on the social security systems of some Member States. However, previous experience with the 2004 enlargement has shown that people migrate mainly to take jobs and not benefits.

Regarding expectations, we should understand that the biggest wave of EU citizens from Bulgaria and Romania moving to other countries has already taken place. Future flows are likely to be smaller and to continue to be driven mainly by employment opportunities. Mobile workers from these two Member States will fill job vacancies in the receiving countries. It is also likely that a significant proportion of existing undeclared work will simply be recognised.

Freedom of movement is also about ensuring that citizens do not lose their social security cover – such as pensions, health assistance, family benefits and unemployment benefits – when they move to another Member State, including when they return to their home country. EU rules on the coordination of the social security systems of Member States ensure that citizens moving to another country are covered by one – and only one – social security system and receive the same treatment as the nationals of the country providing the benefits.

There have been declarations by some politicians and the media about alleged exploitation of Member States’ social security systems by newly-arrived EU citizens. These declarations are often coupled with the allegation that these EU citizens move to another Member State with the sole, or main, objective of gaining access to higher welfare benefits, rather than to find work, all this leading to the final allegation that they represent a substantial financial burden for host Member States.

Even when asked, no Member State has so far provided any data to the Commission supporting the claim that mobile EU citizens represent a substantial financial burden for host countries’ social security systems. On the contrary, a recent study commissioned by the European Commission confirms – once again – that the main motivation by far for EU citizens to move is to work, and that they are generally more likely to be employed. As a consequence, we can say with confidence that EU citizens do not represent a burden for the receiving Member States.

This is in line with recent findings from the OECD, which show how migrants in general (including third country nationals) tend to be net contributors to the budget of the host state – and EU citizens, in particular, are even more likely to be net contributors. Some Member States report challenging situations in specific towns or regions, where low employment prospects and other difficult situations – coupled with the arrival of flows from nationals from other EU Member States – may put a strain on education or housing systems. The Commission stands ready to help municipal authorities and others to use the European Social Fund to its full extent to address those issues. In this respect, the social assistance that is provided normally depends on more or less generous national or local systems.

The Commission also stands by the national authorities when they fight abuse and fraud: free movement entails rights and obligations. In this context, full use of the possibilities offered by EU law is essential. Free movement and the freedom to work in another country within the EU is our joint responsibility. The Commission is discussing concrete actions with the Member States, including the development of guidance on EU rules, for example; a guide clarifying social security coordination rules; or a handbook to tackle abuses of free movement – for example, marriages of convenience. The Commission is willing to promote other specific actions to help local authorities fully apply the rules on free movement, develop social inclusion and make effective use of available funding.

In conclusion, please allow me to reassure you that the Commission remains committed to upholding the right of free movement, so that EU citizens who would like to move and work in another EU country can do so without facing discrimination or obstacles.

  Frank Engel, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, la liberté de mouvement des travailleurs est un principe fondateur du marché unique. Nul dans cette maison ne saurait le remettre en question. Je viens moi-même d'un pays qui compte 45 % de résidents non luxembourgeois, qui sont dans leur très large majorité des citoyens de l'Union. Ces gens sont là pour travailler, non pas pour profiter de quoi que ce soit. S'ajoutent à cela 150 000 travailleurs frontaliers, ce qui fait que pendant la journée, la population du Luxembourg compte en majorité des étrangers. Sans ces gens-là, notre système de sécurité sociale se serait déjà effondré, tout comme les recettes fiscales.

Toutes les statistiques démontrent ce que le commissaire vient de toute façon de nous réexpliquer. Je ne connais que très peu de gens qui se déplaceraient d'un endroit à un autre pour une raison autre que d'y gagner leur vie. Je connais très peu de gens qui voyagent de cette façon pour le profit ou pour le bénéfice. Je connais beaucoup de gens qui le font parce qu'ils y sont contraints et parce que d'autres problèmes les y incitent.

Un autre problème que je soulèverai dans ce contexte est que le sud de notre continent se trouve à l'heure actuelle confronté à une situation de difficulté économique extrême qui pousse les gens à prendre la fuite, littéralement, vers le nord. L'un des véritables problèmes dont nous aurons à nous préoccuper dans cette maison très bientôt est la fuite des cerveaux, qui pourrait conduire à ce que ces pays se trouvent, d'ici quelques mois ou quelques années, dans une situation d'impossibilité de redressement économique.

  Pervenche Berès, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, merci de vos éléments d'éclaircissement. Je crois en effet que dans le contexte de crise et d'inquiétude où nous sommes, il faut tordre le cou à ces allégations qui voudraient que les Européens qui sont obligés de se déplacer soient avant tout des profiteurs. Les chiffres que vous avez rappelés – à savoir que les travailleurs mobiles sont responsables, en moyenne, d'une part de 0,2 % des dépenses de santé, soit 0,01 % du PIB dans les pays où ils se trouvent – et qui sont frappés du sceau de l'autorité de l'OCDE sont des chiffres qu'il faut avoir en tête lorsque certains veulent agiter des peurs et des fantasmes plutôt que trouver les vraies solutions. Et les vraies solutions, c'est de faire face aux besoins des pays de la périphérie.

Si nous parlons tant aujourd'hui de cette mobilité, c'est parce que beaucoup, dans les pays où ils sont, ne trouvent pas le travail auquel ils aspirent. Je constate que ceux qui, aujourd'hui, s'inquiètent d'un tourisme en matière de santé ou de protection sociale sont aussi les pays qui sont les derniers à voter en faveur d'un vrai budget d'investissement, qui permette d'investir dans les pays de la périphérie pour que les gens puissent y vivre et y travailler, puisque c'est exactement ce à quoi ils aspirent.

  Phil Bennion, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I am very glad the Commission has made this statement and that I have an opportunity to reply. It is time for us to bring some evidence-based clarity into this discussion on EU citizens’ mobility and Member States’ welfare systems, instead of allowing the Eurosceptics to band around misleading statistics and inflammatory arguments, which are sometimes used by UKIP and Tory Eurosceptics in the UK as a reason for the UK to leave the EU.

Last week in the UK, a newspaper article claimed that there are 600 000 unemployed EU migrants living in the UK. In fact the latest figure shows that there are just 38 000 EU nationals in the UK claiming job-seekers allowance. The initial inflated shocking press-worthy statistic actually included schoolchildren, students, pensioners and stay-at-home parents. It has also recently been revealed that there are approximately 10 000 Brits currently drawing unemployment benefit in Germany, so it does work both ways.

In addition, Eastern European migrants have paid 37 % more in taxes than they have received in government spending and are 59 % less likely to receive welfare benefits than UK nationals in the UK. Furthermore, a recent report by Birmingham University found that there was little or no evidence that EU migrants have had a negative impact on the employment of UK workers.

It is definitely right that we have a full and rigorous debate on the pros and cons of EU migration, but it should be based on facts and not on misrepresentation. We must remember that free movement is a fundamental right and one of the great successes of the Union.

There is now a big debate about access to welfare systems across the EU; but whatever we do in the future, we should neither compromise the principle of free movement nor make it difficult for Member States to determine the strength and depth of their own welfare systems. The reality is that hard-working migrants and immigrants have been coming to Birmingham in the West Midlands in my constituency for centuries, just as hard-working people from the West Midlands have travelled in search of work and new opportunities for centuries. Long may this continue.

To finish, I would like to ask the Commission if there are any trends that show that Member States with a higher number of migrants have increased welfare spending on those migrants or whether there are increased contributions to the economy from those migrants.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card question. – Mr Bennion, does your speech mean that you support more immigration from Eastern European countries into the UK and, in particular, into your own constituency of the West Midlands?

  Phil Bennion (ALDE), blue-card answer. – The principle of free movement does not include supporting or rejecting more immigration. People will move where the jobs are, and if there are more jobs outside the West Midlands and we have high unemployment, then the flows will be in the other direction. At the moment, some of the companies in my constituency are having trouble finding the relevant skills that they need, and they are looking outside the West Midlands – Jaguar/Land Rover for instance. So it depends on where the demand for labour lies.

  Marije Cornelissen, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Nederland, Duitsland, Oostenrijk en het Verenigd Koninkrijk maakten zich zorgen over het misbruik van uitkeringen door mensen elders in de EU. Dat kan natuurlijk. Er waren ook wat incidenten, dus het is goed om dat te onderzoeken. Onlangs kwamen de resultaten en de conclusie luidt: die vier landen hebben heel weinig om zich zorgen over te maken.

Je zou dan denken dat zij staan te juichen! Want het is natuurlijk heel fijn om te horen dat je zorgen overbodig zijn, lijkt mij. Maar dat gebeurde helemaal niet. Want zij waren helemaal niet blij, zij waren eerder boos! Zij waren boos dat het onderzoek hun stelling dat er grote problemen zouden zijn met uitkeringstoerisme, niet bevestigde. De Nederlandse staatssecretaris Teeven zei, en ik citeer: "het domste wat je kunt doen is problemen ontkennen".

Welnu, ik denk eigenlijk dat het domste wat je kunt doen is vasthouden aan je eigen stelling, terwijl de feiten bewijzen dat die stelling niet klopt. En dan al je energie steken in een probleem dat verwaarloosbaar is, terwijl er veel grotere problemen zijn die aangepakt moeten worden. Want vrij verkeer van werknemers, uitzendkrachten, gedetacheerden en zelfstandigen is helemaal niet probleemloos. Er is sprake van onderbetaling, uitbuiting en verdringing, met name omdat het vrij verkeer van diensten een aantal van die dingen legaal toelaat. De enige manier om dit soort zaken het echt te bestrijden is gelijke beloning voor gelijk werk in álle constructies. Landen kunnen nu ook zelf al van alles doen om de problemen aan te pakken, zoals bijvoorbeeld controleren op rechten. Maar in Nederland wordt juist bezuinigd op arbeidsinspectie. En Duitsland weigert vooralsnog een minimumloon in te voeren.

Voorzitter, vrij verkeer moet in goede banen worden geleid en dat doen wij door échte problemen aan te pakken en niet door tegen alle feiten in loze retoriek te spuien voor een paar stemmen extra bij de volgende verkiezing.

  Adam Bielan, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałbym poruszyć pewną palącą sprawę związaną z kwestią mobilności obywateli. Za kilka dni zacznie obowiązywać szalenie ważna dyrektywa o leczeniu transgranicznym. Oznacza to otwarcie granic dla pacjentów, którzy od tej pory będą mogli podejmować leczenie w dowolnie wybranej placówce na terenie całej Wspólnoty.

Chociaż w większości krajów członkowskich przeprowadzono stosowne zmiany, niestety implementacja tego prawa w Polsce pozostawia wiele do życzenia. Wciąż nie ma odpowiedniej ustawy. W obawie o stan finansów resort zdrowia dąży do ograniczenia uprawnień pacjentów. Przykładowo zwrot kosztów leczenia prawdopodobnie wymagał będzie każdorazowo uzyskania zgody krajowego ubezpieczyciela, co stanowi ewidentne zaprzeczenie charakteru dyrektywy.

Uważam przedmiotową dyrektywę za istotne osiągnięcie prawne, realizujące interesy obywateli. Liczę na konstruktywne działania polskiego rządu dla zagwarantowania korzyści z niej wynikających.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard, for GUE/NGL-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! I EU er der to meget forskellige sociale systemer. Det ene system bygger på lave offentlige ydelser og lav skat. I stedet kommer de sociale ydelser fra forsikringsordninger, enten private eller via arbejdspladsen. Det andet system bygger på høje offentlige ydelser og en relativ høj skat. Det er den model, som man først og fremmest har haft i Skandinavien, men lad os bare her kalde det den kollektive velfærdsmodel.

Forskellen mellem de to systemer fremgår tydeligt af, hvor stor en del af bruttonationalproduktet, som opkræves i skat. I 2010 var det fx 28,2 % i Irland og 27,1 % i Litauen. Omvendt var det fx 45,8 % i Sverige og 47,6 % i Danmark.

Jeg skal ikke gøre mig til dommer over, hvilket system som er rigtigt. Det må være op til landenes befolkning at afgøre. Det er det, der kaldes demokrati. Men problemet er, at EU helt entydigt har valgt side mod den kollektive velfærdsmodel.

På den ene side har EU-Domstolen dikteret Vaxholm-dommen – at et land ikke kan kræve, at tilrejsende arbejdstagere skal aflønnes med den samme høje løn som fastboende. Det betyder lavere løn til de tilrejsende arbejdstagere, men det betyder også færre skatteindtægter til værtslandet.

På den anden side har EU dikteret, at tilrejsende arbejdstagere selv efter kort tids beskæftigelse skal have adgang til værtslandets sociale ydelser på samme høje niveau som de fastboende.

Færre indtægter, men højere udgifter – det hænger ikke sammen, og derfor er min opfordring til Kommissionen: Stop undermineringen af det kollektive velfærdssystem.

  Morten Messerschmidt, for EFD-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Tak til Dem, kommissær Andor, for at komme og tage denne vigtige debat i dag. Jeg må indrømme, at jeg vidste godt, vi boede langt fra hinanden, men at vi faktisk befinder os på to fuldstændig forskellige planeter, det er nyt for mig. Dog må det være konklusionen, når jeg hører, hvad De siger.

Fri bevægelighed er godt. Det er der ingen, der stiller spørgsmålstegn ved, siger De. Ja, men hvad er fri bevægelighed andet end den seneste afgørelse fra EU-Domstolen, som vi så uden nogen som helst demokratisk debat, uden noget som helst demokratisk mandat er tvunget til at følge? Hvad der var fri bevægelighed for et år siden, er ikke det samme som i dag i forhold til SU-rettigheder, kontanthjælprettigheder, og hvad ved jeg – rettigheder til velfærdsydelser helt generelt. Det er ikke det samme, som det vil være om fire år eller om fem år, for hele tiden rykker Domstolen grænsen for, hvad vi ude i vores medlemslande må reservere til vores egne borgere.

De siger, der ikke er noget problem. Det har de nemlig fået konsulentfirmaer til at lave en rapport, som påviser – konsulentfirmaer, der igennem de seneste seks år har fået for en halv milliard kroner af tjenesteydelser fra dette hus, fra Deres hus, fra EU-systemet generelt. Rent bestillingsarbejde, som kun udstiller, hvor skandaløst Deres Kommission overhovedet forholder sig til dette problem.

De siger, at vi, der påpeger, at vi gerne vil beholde velfærdsydelserne for vores egne borgere og os selv, der har betalt skatter i vores egne lande, bare er EU-skeptikere og populister. Javel, i givet fald, ja så er den britiske regering, den hollandske regering, den østrigske regering, den tyske regering altså ikke andet end populister.

Jeg håber, at De på et eller andet tidspunkt – måske efter næste Parlamentsvalg, hvor De ikke længere tjener det høje embede, De har i dag – vil sidde med røde ører over den måde, hvorpå De har håndteret den fri bevægelighed og retten til velfærdsydelser i EU!

  Edit Bauer (PPE) - Örömmel látom Önt újra az elnöki székben. Biztos Úr! Kedves Kollégák! A személyek szabad áramlásának elve az EU egyik alappillére. Mint ilyet, alapvető hiba lenne megkérdőjelezni, mint ahogy senkinek sem jut eszébe megkérdőjelezni az áruk vagy a tőke szabad áramlásának elvét, annak ellenére, hogy ezen a területen is található megoldandó probléma. A négy alapelv közül mégis a személyek szabad áramlása a legproblémásabb. Csak az EU-s állampolgárok – ahogy Andor biztos úr is említette – mindössze 3%-a él ezzel a lehetőséggel. Annak ellenére, hogy érvényben van a 492-es számú rendelet, a valóságban rengeteg akadállyal szembesül, aki ezzel a szabadsággal élni akar. A rendelet gyakorlati alkalmazását célzó irányelven a Parlament keményen dolgozik.

Remélem, a közeljövőben sikerül elfogadnunk. Igaz, létező valóság a jóléti turizmus is, a megoldás azonban nem az új határok építése. A létező 2004/38-as rendelet 7. cikkelye a tagállamoknak bőven ad megfelelő alapot a helyzet kezelésére.

  Birgit Sippel (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Wir diskutieren heute über eine Grundfreiheit, die nach Überzeugung vieler Menschen eine der größten Errungenschaften der EU ist: Die Freizügigkeit für alle Europäerinnen und Europäer. Diese gilt es zu verteidigen. Das hat auch Kommissarin Reding beim Rat der Justiz- und Innenminister am 8. Oktober unterstrichen.

Die mitunter sehr emotionale Debatte um Freizügigkeit und Migration ist faktisch kaum nachzuvollziehen. Insgesamt leben nur etwa 2,8 % der EU-Bürger in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat. Die Höhe der Sozialleistungen im Zielstaat spielt keine nachweisbare Rolle. Rund 80 % der mobilen EU-Bürger leben in Haushalten, in denen mindestens ein Familienmitglied beschäftigt ist. Sie kommen, um zu arbeiten, zahlen Steuern und Beiträge für die Sozialsysteme.

Die Innenminister aus Deutschland, Österreich, den Niederlanden und Großbritannien hatten wiederholt von sogenannter Armutsmigration und Zuwanderung in die Sozialsysteme gesprochen. Doch nur 1 bis 5 % der Empfänger von beitragsunabhängigen Sozialleistungen sind mobile EU-Bürger. Eine massive Zuwanderung in Sozialsysteme findet nicht statt.

Darüber hinaus wird übersehen, dass wir Zuwanderung brauchen, und dass der Zuwanderung oft auch eine beträchtliche Zahl an Auswanderungen gegenübersteht. Stellen wir uns also falschen und populistischen Anschuldigungen entschlossen entgegen! Und wo denn tatsächlich ein Missbrauch der Sozialsysteme belegt wird, gibt es auf europäischer Ebene bereits Maßnahmen, die die Mitgliedstaaten nutzen können. Das geht von der Ausweisung bis hin zu einer Wiedereinreisesperre.

Für die Mitgliedstaaten als Ganzes ist die Zuwanderung kein Problem, doch gerade ärmere Gruppen sammeln sich in wenigen großen Städten. Diese brauchen bei ihren Bemühungen um Integration konkrete Unterstützung ihrer Staaten. Ergänzend können dabei Mittel des Sozialfonds mobilisiert werden. Freizügigkeit ist ein unverzichtbares Grundrecht. Für seine positive Ausgestaltung tragen alle politischen Ebenen Verantwortung.

  Renate Weber (ALDE). - Mr President, I want to express today in this plenary three feelings: appreciation, anger and disappointment.

I appreciate the constant support that this House has shown to freedom of movement, and I especially appreciate the constant support for Romania’s and Bulgaria’s bid to join Schengen. We all know that, technically, those two countries have deserved to be inside the Schengen area for years now, but it has proved too good an electoral campaign theme to be passed up.

I am angry at all the European politicians and parties and governments which, abusing the natural fears of their citizens due to the financial crisis, have talked about Romanians and Bulgarian preparing to come in huge numbers in 2014 to steal jobs and abuse the welfare systems of the host countries. What a lie.

As for my disappointment, that is for the Commission, which should have done more to lay to rest the nationalistic angle that now makes life difficult for many Romanians and Bulgarians living in other EU Member States.

My country, Romania, may not enter Schengen in 2014 due to political games, but our freedom of work will finally be equal to that of all the other EU citizens, and I will fight with all my strength to keep it that way.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir Grüne begrüßen die Ergebnisse der Kommissionsstudie. Sie zeigt, dass der Anteil der mobilen EU-Bürger und -Bürgerinnen, die in einem anderen EU-Land Arbeitslosenunterstützung bekommen, wirklich verschwindend gering ist. Den großflächigen Missbrauch, den der deutsche Innenminister Friedrich den Roma und Sinti, die aus Rumänien und Bulgarien kommen, schon vorsorglich vorwirft, gibt es laut dieser Studie nicht.

Der Kommissar hat vollkommen recht: Die Ergebnisse der Studie zeigen, dass über die Hälfte der EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürger, die in einem anderen als ihrem Heimatland Arbeitslosenunterstützung beziehen, zuvor in diesem Gastland gearbeitet haben, was heißt, sie haben in die Kassen dort eingezahlt. Und damit ist auch belegt, dass es das von Minister Friedrich heraufbeschworene Phänomen des Sozialhilfetourismus nicht gibt. Seine verbalen Versuche, das Grundrecht an Freizügigkeit einzuschränken, rüttelt an den Grundwerten der EU, stört empfindlich das friedliche Zusammenleben in der EU und bedient den rechten Rand der Gesellschaft. Wir Grüne distanzieren uns ganz klar von solchen Äußerungen.

Die Ergebnisse der Studie haben mich nicht überrascht. Der rechtliche Rahmen der Freizügigkeit ist doch klar definiert. Nach diesem Recht können Menschen, die aus einem anderen Mitgliedstaat kommen, in einem Mitgliedstaat innerhalb von sechs Monaten Arbeit suchen, und in dieser Zeit bekommen sie dort die Unterstützung. Deswegen gibt es diesen Sozialhilfetourismus nicht.

Ich finde es unverantwortlich, dass die alte und neue deutsche Kanzlerin dazu schweigt. Wir Grüne schweigen nicht, sondern unterstützen die Kommission in ihren Bemühungen, die Hürden für mobile Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer abzubauen und ihnen ihre sozialen Rechte zukommen zu lassen.

  Nigel Farage (EFD). - Mr President, not one in a thousand British people would know who Commissioner Andor was. They would not be able to pick him out of a line-up and yet he is really rather powerful. He is the governor. He is the man who decides who can come to Britain and who can claim benefits. He has more power than a British Government Minister.

But I have to thank him for his study, because he is the one who has told us that there are 600 000 economically-inactive Eastern Europeans in Britain – something our own government was not able to tell us. I suppose I have to admire his commitment to his job. After all he is going to take the UK Government to court to make sure that we do not treat Eastern Europeans any differently to our own people. So it is certain that he means business.

I know that this is a very complex area, but let us just look at one in-work social benefit, shall we? Child benefit. From Eastern Europe, at the moment, there are people to whom we are now paying child benefit for 50 000 children who do not even live in the United Kingdom. There is no possible justification for us doing that. It is costing us GBP 1 million a week, and it is yet another pull factor.

But of course, this whole issue is going to get bigger, because we appear to have learnt nothing from 2004. If you allow the unrestricted free flow of people between poor and rich countries, do not be surprised when you get a big result. We had a government prediction of 13 000 people a year, and it was something like 400 000 a year for the first two years. So we open the doors next year to Romania and Bulgaria. It means more oversupply in the unskilled labour market, a greater burden on the National Health Service and our schools and, yes – sadly – it is going to mean more crime too.

This issue will be the central issue of the European elections next year. It will be the central issue of whether Britain remains a member of the European Union. We are not against anybody from Eastern Europe, but we do believe that it is right and proper that we should restrict and decide who comes to live in our country.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, with great respect to the Chair, it is simply a convention of you and one other chairman that people on the speakers list cannot have blue cards. This is a debate and a matter of great interest to our constituents, so can I respectfully submit to the Chair that the blue card be permitted, even if people are on the speakers list? This does not apply to me, by the way.

  President. − Dear colleague, I do not have any doubt that those who can speak, will speak, but it is not a convention. The Rules of Procedure stipulate that it is up to the chairing President to decide when and how it is allowed. Excuse me, but that is for clarification.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Chciabym Pana poprosić o podanie przepisu, który mówi o tym, że może Pan podjąć decyzję o tym, czy możemy używać niebieskiej kartki, czy nie możemy jej używać wówczas, kiedy mamy także możliwość wypowiadania się.

  Der Präsident. − Das kann ich durchaus. Es ist Artikel 149 Absatz 8. Dies ist eine „Kann-Vorschrift”, die lautet: „Der Präsident kann Mitgliedern, die durch das Hochheben einer blauen Karte anzeigen usw”. Ich vermute einmal, dass die Redezeit der anderen wichtiger ist, als dass ich hier den gesamten Text vorlese. Aber wie gesagt, Artikel 149 Absatz 8, um Ihre Frage zu beantworten.

  Verónica Lope Fontagné (PPE). - Señor Presidente, llevamos muchos años luchando para que Europa sea una verdadera unión de países que trabajan conjuntamente por el bien común y no solo por intereses nacionales, por lo que no podemos permitirnos desandar lo que tanto nos ha costado conseguir. Hemos dado importantes pasos.

El espacio Schengen refuerza la libertad de movimientos de los ciudadanos y ayuda a avanzar en la dimensión comunitaria, incrementando la cooperación entre los Estados miembros. El derecho a la libre circulación es uno de los derechos europeos más valorados por los ciudadanos y está claro que la movilidad, dentro y fuera de las fronteras nacionales, es necesaria, tanto económicamente como para la creación de empleo.

Pero necesitamos garantizar a aquellas personas que se desplazan una serie de requisitos básicos. Se está trabajando para mejorar las condiciones laborales y de seguridad de los trabajadores desplazados y hemos aprobado un informe sobre pensiones en el que destacamos la necesidad de garantizar la adquisición y la conservación de los derechos de jubilación de los trabajadores móviles dentro del mercado de la Unión Europea.

La Unión Europea no es perfecta, pero en nuestra mano está mejorarla. Espero que la Directiva permita reducir las diferencias entre los mercados de trabajo y los sistemas de seguridad social y también permita evitar fraudes que existen, como existe lo que llamamos en España el turismo sanitario.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). - Dėkoju už atliktą studiją, kuri dar kartą parodo, kad nėra jokio socialinio turizmo. Turime kartą ir visiems laikams užkirsti populistinį Europos Sąjungos piliečių supriešinimą, kuris yra žeidžiantis mūsų darbščių žmonių, iš kokios Europos Sąjungos šalies jie bebūtų, orumą. Piliečių judumas Europos Sąjungoje vyksta dėl geresnio darbo paieškų ar savirealizacijos bei tarptautinės darbo patirties galimybių, o tikrai ne dėl siekio pasinaudoti kitų šalių socialinės apsaugos sistemomis ir gyventi iš pašalpų. Aš Lietuvoje labai daug bendrauju su žmonėmis, kurie yra išvykę dirbti į kitas ES šalis, ir jie tikrai vyksta dėl darbo, o ne dėl pašalpų. Atliktos studijos rezultatai parodo, kad iš kitų ES šalių atvykę piliečiai daugiau prisideda prie priimančios šalies biudžeto, mokėdami mokesčius ir įmokas į socialinę apsaugą, nei ta socialine apsauga iš tiesų pasinaudoja, nes į tas šalis atvyksta darbingi žmonės. Šiuo metu rengiu pranešimą dėl socialinės apsaugos visiems, įskaitant ir savarankiškai dirbančius, ir todėl raginu Komisiją peržiūrėti Socialinės apsaugos koordinavimo reglamentą ir atkreipiu valstybių narių dėmesį į tai, kad siekiant riboti piktnaudžiavimą socialinėmis išmokomis neturėtų būti taikomos diskriminacinės socialinės apsaugos ribojimo priemonės judiems darbuotojams. Ir baigdama, gerbiamas Komisijos nary, siūlau apmąstyti, ar nereikėtų kitos studijos, kuri įvertintų, kaip emigracija įtakoja šalių, iš kurių išvyksta daug darbingų gyventojų, socialinės apsaugos sistemų tvarumą. Mažėjant mokesčių mokėtųjų nemažėja tų, kuriems reikia socialinės paramos.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, if we had a cross-section of citizens from different Member States in the plenary today, I think the question many of them would ask is: how does mobility affect the welfare system in my country? I think they would not be so interested in asking about how they would be affected if they moved, because we know that fewer than 3 % move. In my opinion, that question needs to be answered specifically and not just in general.

I agree with Commissioner Andor that mobility of EU workers is of benefit to Member States, but we need to be able to quantify this. I come from a country which is well acquainted with emigration, yet I sometimes hear stories about people coming from other EU states who gain immediate access to all benefits and try to abuse the system. Now I know that that is not true, but I need the figures to prove it. In each Member State, the Commission and Parliament offices – I believe – have an obligation to clarify the different types of benefits available to citizens. I agree with Phil Bennion: we need evidence-based statistics; we need clarity. The figures he quoted today should be in the public domain.

I believe it is the responsibility of Parliament’s and the Commission’s offices to ensure that accurate statistics are in the public domain and to keep hammering them home. There is hysteria about benefit tourism. It has been stoked up, especially by anti-EU parties trying to work on people’s fears and pretending that closed borders in a globalised world will deliver greater benefits, when in fact we know that that is not true. This will be an important issue in the next European elections. We must not lose the argument because we do not have the facts at our fingertips.

  Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, people have spoken about their areas. London, which I represent, is home to one million EU nationals, and many will tell you that one of the problems is a lack of awareness of rights, not people abusing them. Also, free movement is one of the most popular rights of the European Union, which may explain why certain people are so busy attacking it at the moment.

I wanted to say a couple of words about coordination of social security, given that I worked on that for 10 years in this Parliament. It is about the same rights as nationals; it is about the same qualifying periods as nationals; it has been the practice for years – possibly the sixth piece of legislation ever put in place by the European Union – and the current rules were passed by unanimity in Council.

We have heard a lot about why people move. It is not just about salaries, when they take that into account – it is also the cost of living. So do not assume that a higher salary automatically means that people get a better quality of life if they choose to move.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i cittadini italiani vedono ogni giorno aumentare le tasse e diminuire i servizi, devono ogni giorno tirare la cinghia, rinunciare a visite mediche e a curarsi perché non possono pagarsele, oppure devono aspettare mesi per una semplice visita medica. Sempre in Italia, poi, ci sono ambulatori medici particolari, riservati solo agli emigrati e ai clandestini. E questi emigrati, gratuitamente, sono visitati e curati subito, senza aspettare mesi, a differenza dei cittadini italiani.

Cosa ne pensa la Commissione di questa discriminazione? Cosa ne pensa la Commissione degli emigrati che arrivano in Italia e pretendono subito casa, sussidi e assistenza medica gratuita?

Il Commissario afferma che i cittadini si spostano da un paese all'altro per lavorare. In Italia aumentano i disoccupati, i poveri sono 4 milioni e nonostante tutto, grazie a un governo italiano sempre troppo accogliente, continuano ad arrivare nuovi emigrati.

Quale sarà il risultato? Aumenteranno le tensioni sociali e non basteranno le sue belle parole, signor Commissario, e qualche finanziamento europeo a tranquillizzare i cittadini.

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, prošloga tjedna u studiji koja je objavljena u Bruxellesu o neaktivnim odnosno nezaposlenim migrantima unutar Europske unije koji koriste socijalnu pomoć u drugim državama mogli smo vidjeti da takvih neaktivnih EU-migranata je manje od 1 %, pa i u nekim zemljama poput Velike Britanije gdje je ovo pitanje očito postalo predmet političkih rasprava broj takvih EU-migranata je samo 2,6 % ukupnog broja nezaposlenih. Sve brojke pokazuje da poštovanje temeljnog ljudskog prava na slobodu kretanja unutar Europske unije ne ugrožava sustav socijalne skrbi država članica. Dakle glavni razlog za mobilnost europskih građana nije dobivanje socijalne pomoći u bogatijim članicama Europske unije, već je glavni razlog dobivanje posla u tim članicama. Gospodine predsjedniče, socijalna država kakvu smo poznavali u Europi jest u krizi, ali za to nisu krive migracije unutar Europske unije, naprotiv, mobilnost unutar EU-a pa i pametna imigracijska politika mogu biti dio rješenja za europski model koji je u krizu upao zbog odgađanja strukturnih reformi, zbog relativizacije temeljnih društvenih vrijednosti i naravno, kao posljedica toga, zbog izuzetno loše demografske slike Europe. To su ključni problemi o kojima moramo više voditi računa i o tome raspravljati bez tabua. Populistički napadi na EU-migrante i na useljenike zapravo nas udaljavaju od prave rasprave o strukturnim reformama, udaljavaju nas od snažnije, na primjer, obiteljske politike u Europi. To su rasprave koje moramo otvoriti u ovom Parlamentu, to su rješenja koja su nam potrebna da bi Europa krenula s novim valom gospodarskog rasta, a povrh toga, to su rješenja koja su nam potrebna da bi Europi i mlađim naraštajima vratili nadu.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). - Mr President, I would like first to thank Commissioner Andor for his intervention. Intra-EU mobility contributes to addressing the job mismatch and helps to even out the EU’s demographic deficit. Figures show that mobile EU citizens are more likely to be of working age and more economically active than nationals. They contribute their fair share to national social security schemes. We should not let ourselves be distracted by populist speeches which create fallacious links between mobility and supposed burdens on social benefits systems.

From January 2014, labour restrictions currently imposed by ten EU Member States on EU citizens from Romania and Bulgaria will finally be lifted, and citizens from those two countries will be able to enjoy fully their right to free movement. Recent studies have shown that the enlargement did not bring about any dramatic changes in immigration flows across Europe. They show that mobile EU workers are net contributors to the public purse and that they tend to work in jobs where there are severe labour shortages.

However, despite the crisis, the EU is faced with two million unfilled vacancies. It shows that we should keep fighting in order to ensure better matching between labour demand and supply across Europe. Free movement is a key factor in tackling this situation.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). - Hr. formand! Kommissionens rapport afviser, at der er et problem med den såkaldte velfærdsturisme, og andre rapporter og andre eksempler, som vi har hørt om i dag, viser det samme. Dermed kan man jo så sige, at debatten om velfærdsturisme nok er ude af proportioner, ude af trit med virkeligheden.

Men Kommissionens rapport drejer sig jo om, hvorvidt borgerne rejser til et andet land med det formål at hæve velfærdsydelser i det nye og ofte rigere land. Og det sker ikke. Den frie bevægelighed er for borgere, der søger arbejde, og som bidrager positivt til værtslandets økonomi.

Men frygten for velfærdsturisme har også et andet udspring, nemlig frygten for, at EU-borgere fra andre lande får en masse rettigheder uden at bidrage tilsvarende til samfundet. Det er altså et spørgsmål, om man synes, at systemet er fair.

Der skal være en tæt sammenhæng mellem rettigheder og pligter. I mit land kræver det en ret stor indsats at blive berettiget til arbejdsløshedsdagpenge, og det er ikke holdbart, hvis EU-borgere fra andre lande får en lettere vej ind i systemet, der er ganske givtigt. Når man først har kvalificeret sig, kan man få dagpenge i op til to år.

Det er sådanne spørgsmål, Kommissionen og medlemslandene må forholde sig til og undersøge nøje, inden det går hen og bliver et problem. Den frie bevægelighed for arbejdskraften er et stort gode, og vi skal alle sammen kunne blive ved med at se det som et gode.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Unabhängig von sehr viel Wahlkampfpolemik, die man hier heraushört, ist es offensichtlich, dass es unterschiedliche Sichtweisen gibt. Einzelne Mitgliedstaaten berichten von teils enormen Problemen, die sie durch 1 bis 5 % Einwanderung mit hohen Kosten für Schulunterricht, Gesundheitsversorgung und Unterbringung erleben, wobei sie Einwanderer meinen, , die keine Arbeitsleistung erbringen. Diese 1 bis 5 % lesen sich umso dramatischer, wenn Sie sich z. B. in Berlin mit 40 % oder in München mit 60 % Steigerung darstellen. Aber auf der anderen Seite gibt es Positionen wie die der Kommission und auch meine, die solche Probleme durch bestimmte Vorgänge gar nicht erkennen.

Wir haben in Österreich – einem Land, das sich der Kritik angeschlossen hat – keine Probleme dieser Art. Wir haben in diesem Zusammenhang zwar immer gehört, dass es Rumänen, Bulgaren und Roma sind, aber in meinem Land haben wir diesbezüglich keine Probleme. In anderen Regionen aber sehr wohl! Und darum müssen wir die zwei Sichtweisen anerkennen.

Es gibt 60 % der Einwanderer, die qualifiziert sind und Leistungsbeiträge zahlen, und 80 %, die auch Arbeit haben. Dem stehen aber Menschen ohne Schulausbildung und ohne Berufsausbildung entgegen, die keine Chance am Arbeitsmarkt haben. Ich ersuche die Kommission, diese Frage sehr rasch mit den betroffenen Mitgliedstaaten in einem Problemlösungsdialog zu lösen.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Auf der einen Seite prangern manche Mitgliedstaaten Armutseinwanderung an. Aber sind es nicht auf der anderen Seite genau diese Mitgliedstaaten, die am meisten davon profitieren, dass wir die Freizügigkeit in Europa haben, dass wir Wanderarbeitnehmer haben? Und sind es nicht auch genau diese Staaten, in denen diese Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer am meisten ausgenutzt werden? Es ist extrem gefährlich und kalkulierte Manipulation zum eigenen politischen Vorteil.

Auch die deutsche Bundesregierung hat ja in einem Brief an die Kommission genau die Frage nach dem Ausnutzen der Sozialsysteme gestellt, und sie musste in einer Anfrage im Bundestag zugeben, dass es eben nicht so ist. Ich bin auch der Kommission dankbar, dass sie das klargestellt hat. Die Sozialsysteme werden nicht durch Armutseinwanderung ausgenutzt, eher im Gegenteil.

Wir brauchen die Freizügigkeit. Aber soziale Ausbeutung, Lohn- und Sozialdumping, illegale Machenschaften müssen bekämpft werden durch den Grundsatz „gleicher Lohn für gleiche Arbeit am gleichen Ort“, aber auch durch gute Arbeitskontrollen, die verbessert und an den europäischen Arbeitsmarkt angepasst werden müssen.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je suis fière d'appartenir à une Europe où la liberté de circulation est une liberté fondamentale garantie par la Charte et constitutive du marché unique. Mais je veux poser une question à tous les frileux. Quelle logique aurions-nous à développer un programme comme Erasmus, pour promouvoir la mobilité des jeunes, et à nous refermer et nous replier ensuite dès qu'il s'agit de mobilité des travailleurs?

Ce qui est en cause, c'est bien le clivage entre les pays d'origine et les pays d'accueil, entre les États riches et les États pauvres. Ce qui est en cause, c'est la cohésion sociale au niveau européen. C'est la raison pour laquelle je défends la part du Fonds social dans les Fonds de cohésion, parce que c'est comme cela que nous règlerons ces problèmes.

Travailler, c'est s'intégrer dans la société, et je voudrais dire, après ce que j'ai entendu tout à l'heure, qu'il y a beaucoup d'Anglais qui sont venus s'installer en France, qui profitent certes de notre sécurité sociale, mais qui, parallèlement, développent les campagnes, refont des maisons, font marcher l'économie. Il ne faut pas cultiver les peurs. Cultiver les peurs, ce sont des propos de campagne. Je suis contre les europhobes, je suis contre les eurosceptiques, je suis contre les euromoches.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). - Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, il lavoro della Commissione che ci ha qui illustrato è molto importante e utilissimo per approfondire temi a volte malamente posti e affrontati in tempi più recenti.

Non bisognerebbe tuttavia mai prescindere – e Lei, correttamente, non lo ha fatto – dallo stato delle cose, dalla realtà. In questa parte del mondo, se vorremo mantenere per il tempo che verrà lo stesso livello di ricchezza oggi ridistribuita fra i cittadini europei, dobbiamo mettere in conto il fatto di dover accogliere milioni e milioni di persone nate in altri paesi e che verranno a lavorare qui con noi, per una ragione semplice: il calo demografico che ha colpito l'Europa è già in corso da tempo e ha già aperto vuoti rilevanti.

Parliamo di milioni di persone. A queste persone vanno costruite condizioni di accoglienza degne di questo nome e funzionali. Dunque, tutto ciò che riguarda lo stato sociale deve essere uniforme per ragioni riguardanti sia i diritti delle persone sia la coesione sociale. Pertanto noi che siamo i più ricchi non dobbiamo immaginare di utilizzare le risorse che ci porteranno e le loro fatiche che ci lasceranno semplicemente per risolvere le nostre contraddizioni.

Questo è anche affermato nel lavoro che Lei ci ha illustrato: non siamo di fronte a un turismo che punta ad avere condizioni di privilegio, ma semplicemente a persone che decidono liberamente di venire a lavorare e a vivere con noi.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). - Opublikowany niedawno raport Komisji Europejskiej potwierdza jasno, że znakomita większość obywateli Unii Europejskiej przeprowadza się do innego państwa członkowskiego głównie w celu podjęcia pracy. Komisja jasno podkreśliła także, że tak zwana turystyka zasiłkowa nie jest ani rozpowszechniona, ani systematyczna. Badania pokazują, że obywatele migrujący w ramach Unii Europejskiej są wielką korzyścią dla kraju przyjmującego. Tylko w latach 2004-2009 migranci przyczynili się do wzrostu PKB krajów piętnastki o 1%. Dodatkowo ciężko pracując, płacą w krajach przyjmujących podatki i składają się do wspólnego budżetu, w wyniku czego mają prawo do nabytych świadczeń socjalnych. Należy też podkreślić, że imigranci z Unii Europejskiej stanowią tylko niewielki odsetek osób pobierających zasiłki, a ich wpływ na budżety krajowe jest również mało znaczący.

Oczywiście zawsze znajdą się jednostki, które będą chciały wykorzystać system i chyba wszyscy na tej sali się zgodzą, że z takimi praktykami należy walczyć. Nie pozwólmy jednak, aby takie zachowania podsycały antymigracyjną i antyeuropejską retorykę, z którą mamy ostatnio do czynienia. Przygnębiający jest także fakt, że krytyka skierowana często wobec pracowników z Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej jest populistyczną próbą pozyskania elektoratu lub przejawem nieodpowiedzialnej postawy niektórych rządów, co skutecznie utrudnia obywatelom wspólne funkcjonowanie w Europie.

Szeroko dyskutując o domniemanym nadużywaniu systemów socjalnych państw członkowskich, bardzo rzadko mówimy o tym, jak często pracownicy migrujący są pozbawiani swoich praw i z jakimi trudnościami musza się zmierzyć zanim podejmą pracę. Wiele państw członkowskich wciąż mnoży przeszkody w dostępie do swoich rynków pracy zapominając o tym, jak dużą wartością są osoby chętne do pracy, dynamiczne, pełne pomysłów. Nie zniechęcajmy ich więc na samym początku i w zamian skupmy się na odpowiednim wdrożeniu i przestrzeganiu prawa.

  Илияна Малинова Йотова (S&D). - Надявах се днес да говорим с реалните цифри и факти от изследването, далеч от лозунгите и популизма. Направи се опит дебатът за движението на гражданите да бъде изместен от антиевропейските партии и техните политически игри, каквато е партията на

г-н Фараж. Въпросът е риторичен. Коя сума е по-голяма – за социалните помощи за българи или тази, с която българските лекари и медицински сестри подпомагат британската икономика. Популизмът в някои държави членки стигна дотам, че се измислят абсурдни правила и политики за лишаване на румънци и българи от пазара на труда, дори с цената на нарушаване на Договора за функциониране на Европейския съюз.

Мотивът за трудовата миграция в повечето случаи е намиране на по-добра работа и по-добро заплащане, а не социални помощи. В същото време трябват категорични мерки срещу пазара на черен труд, който наема емигранти-работници, които излизат евтино, без осигуровки, без социални гаранции и с по-ниски заплати.

(Catch-the-eye-Verfahren)

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Swoboda przepływu osób jest jednym z podstawowych osiągnięć i filarów Unii Europejskiej. Zdecydowana większość obywateli państw członkowskich pytana o to, co dla nich znaczy Unia, na pierwszym miejscu wskazuje możliwość swobodnego przemieszczania się, podejmowania pracy czy też uzyskania lepszego wykształcenia w wybranym przez siebie państwie członkowskim. Taka mobilność obywateli Unii wielokrotnie była przez nas popierana i nadal zasługuje na to, by ją promować, ponieważ służy rozwojowi gospodarczemu i postępowi społecznemu. Czynnikiem ograniczającym prawo do korzystania z niej na pewno nie powinny być zdarzające się rzadkie przypadki zmiany miejsca zamieszkania po to, by móc skorzystać z lepszego systemu pomocy socjalnej w kraju przyjmującym. Dlatego bardzo się cieszę, że Unia publikuje takie badania. Pan poseł Farage powiedział, że pan komisarz ma władzę decydowania o tym, kto w Wielkie Brytanii płaci podatki i w jakiej wysokości, dlatego chciałam zapytać pana komisarza, czy to prawda, czy może po raz kolejny obywatele Unii Europejskiej są wprowadzani w błąd.

  Piotr Borys (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Swobodny przepływ obywateli jest jednym z najważniejszych praw zagwarantowanych traktatem, jakie przysługują wszystkim nam, obywatelom. Dyskusja ta jest niezwykle ważna, dlatego że kryzys i problemy ekonomiczne zmuszają dziś ludzi do mobilności. Wszystkie działania, które prowadzimy, mają sprzyjać właśnie mobilności. Obecnie dwa miliony miejsc pracy wciąż czeka na wykwalifikowanych pracowników z całej Unii Europejskiej. Podobnie jak wiele osób z mojego kraju, Polski, zasila rynek pracy w Anglii czy Irlandii. Trudno sobie dzisiaj wyobrazić chociażby sektor budowlany, sektor usług, gdyby nie migranci z Polski, którzy pomagają gospodarce Wielkiej Brytanii. Są to osoby, które płacą podatki, mają też oczywiście prawo do zasiłków. Dlatego uważam, że ważne jest, aby zająć się przede wszystkim pomocą dla migrantów pracujących nielegalnie. Emigranci, głównie spoza Unii Europejskiej, to teraz największe wyzwanie.

  Sandra Petrović Jakovina (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, dopustite mi da se usredotočim ovdje na dio koji se odnosi na mobilnost građana Europske unije u potrazi za zaposlenjem. Kao predstavnica u ovoj instituciji smatram da se na ovoj razini kao zakonodavnoj i političkoj trebamo realno suočiti s određenim problemima i pronaći najbolji način kako pokrenuti njihovo rješavanje. Svi smo vrlo dobro upoznati s politikom Europske unije koja se odnosi na mobilnost njezinih građana, međutim praksa određenih država članica zapravo je u nekim slučajevima kontradiktorna navedenoj politici i ograničava primjerice i samo načelo kretanja osoba u svrhu zapošljavanja. Recentan primjer ove prakse je Hrvatska, čiji su građani od trenutka punopravnog članstva suočeni s vremenskim ograničenjem od dvije ili više godina od strane nekih država članica s obzirom na zapošljavanje u dotičnim zemljama. Ovo ističem kao jedan od primjera kontradiktornosti bez obzira na njegovu legitimnu osnovu ili pak ekonomsku opravdanost uvjetovanu gospodarskom krizom, ali koja u stvarnosti svojim ishodom zapravo predstavlja kršenje jednog od temeljnih načela na kojima se Unija temelji. Mislim da bismo trebali razmisliti o ovom kao i o sličnim pitanjima.

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, slažem se s povjerenikom Andorom koji kaže da mobilnost znači nezaposlenost. Dakle, ne sele ljudi u druge zemlje zato što dobro žive u svojoj zemlji nego zato što trebaju posao i oni nisu teret socijalnog sustava. Sloboda kretanja je vrlo važna, jedna od osnovnih sloboda. Ja bih postavila jedno pitanje. Kako to da Erasmus nije problem, a migracije za zaposlenje su problem? Dakle, radi se o različitim stavovima različitih zemalja. Zemlje nisu uvijek konzistentne u svojoj politici i pozdravljam situaciju kad će Komisija pomoći koristiti sredstva iz europskih fondova lokalnim i regionalnim vlastima da bi se pomoglo kod ovog ujednačavanja socijalnog sustava. Dakle, bitno je da postoji koordinacija socijalnih sustava u svim zemljama članicama i ja vjerujem da ćete uspjeti u tom Vašem naumu, u protivnom ćemo govoriti o različitim kriterijima i o dva različita aršina.

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE). - Chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, ne nous trompons pas d'enjeu. Ce ne sont pas les risques d'abus de système de protection sociale nationaux qui fragilisent la mobilité. C'est au contraire le manque de coordination et d'harmonisation de nos systèmes sociaux qui constituent un obstacle.

Il est vrai que certains citoyens au sein de l'Union européenne ont plus besoin de prestations sociales que d'autres. Cependant, la politique d'austérité n'a fait qu'augmenter ces besoins et les États ne règleront rien en tentant d'imposer ces restrictions à la liberté de circulation, qui est un de nos acquis fondamentaux.

Nous avons besoin d'une réponse sociale européenne à la crise. Il est temps pour les États membres de se tourner vers les propositions de la Commission, que je salue, et notamment la publication d'indicateurs sociaux, première étape vers la garantie d'un seuil de protection sociale. La garantie d'une protection sociale minimale et d'un revenu minimum, quels que soient les États membres d'accueil, serait une solution beaucoup plus ambitieuse et solidaire, en cohérence avec nos valeurs et notre projet d'une Union solidaire.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). - Arvoisa puhemies, työvoiman vapaa liikkuvuus on tärkeä perusperiaate. Tässä keskustelussa ei ole kuitenkaan vielä sivuttu sitä seikkaa, että sosiaaliturvajärjestelmät poikkeavat maasta toiseen.

Asumisperusteisen järjestelmän periaate on myöntää sosiaaliturvaetuuksia maassa asuville, ja siihen perustuvat sosiaaliturvaoikeudet ovat muun muassa Suomessa, Ruotsissa ja Tanskassa erittäin laajat muihin EU-maihin verrattuna, joilla vakuutusperusteinen järjestelmä rajaa nämä oikeudet lähinnä työttömyys- ja eläketurvaan. Kun työvoima liikkuu maasta toiseen, tämä tarkoittaa muun muassa sitä, että terveyspalveluita tulee järjestää samoin asiakasmaksuin ja ehdoin samassa laajuudessa kuin kunnan vakinaisille asukkaille, vaikka työntekijät työskentelisivät maassa vain neljän kuukauden ajan. Samoin lapsilisiä ja lasten kotihoidontukea joudutaan maksamaan ulkomaille, vaikka perhe ei asuisi työskentelymaassa.

Minun mielestäni on tärkeää, että nämä sosiaaliturvakoordinointiasiat selvitetään, koska tämä ruokkii muuten rasistista keskustelua.

  Erik Bánki (PPE) - Egy nagyon fontos kérdésről van szó! Hiszen ha kampánytémává vált, és a következő hónapokban sajnos arra lehet számítani, hogy ez felszínen fog maradni, hiszen számos országban nemzeti választásokat tartanak a parlamentekben. Ahol sajnos bizonyos pártok a választók megtévesztésére használják fel a külföldi munkavállalókkal kapcsolatos témakört. Nagyon örülök annak, hogy a Bizottság tanulmánya azt támasztja alá, hogy nem arról van szó, hogy itt a szociális szolgáltatásokért mennének a munkavállalók Európa különböző országaiba, hanem elsősorban a biztos munkahely és a jobb fizetés, a jobb megélhetés reményében választják ezt. Mindössze 3%-át teszik ki a munkaerőpiacnak, miközben 2 millió munkahely nincs betöltve az Európai Unióban.

Mi a megoldás? A megoldás az lenne, hogy elsősorban a közép-európai országokban, így Magyarországon is gyorsítani kéne a felzárkóztatást. Meg kéne tenni mindent annak érdekében, hogy a leszakadt régiók – mint pl. Baranya megye nálunk – minél hamarabb tudjanak a munkaerőpiacon érdemi előrelépéseket tenni. Erre kell koncentrálni!

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, é evidente que qualquer trabalhador num país, independentemente da nacionalidade, deve ter garantidos todos os direitos sociais e laborais dos demais trabalhadores.

Não pensar assim é pura e simplesmente pensar desumanamente e de forma discriminatória. Hoje, os movimentos migratórios dentro da União Europeia crescem devido ao desemprego, à falta de condições de vida que as famílias sentem em muitos países.

São muitas vezes situações de desespero cada vez mais comuns e são cada vez mais as situações em que os trabalhadores da União Europeia apenas encontram exploração e ilegalidades. Em março deste ano, 7 portugueses que trabalhavam na construção civil, nos arredores de Berlim, foram espancados por se terem insurgido contra as condições da empresa de prestação de serviços, subcontratada na empreitada, e na qual trabalhavam em condições laborais precárias.

Estes sim são os abusos invisíveis e inaceitáveis que cada vez mais acontecem na União Europeia, a cidadãos da União Europeia.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). - Voorzitter, ik ben een absolute voorstander van vrij verkeer, want dat heeft ons welvaart gebracht en het brengt ons nog steeds welvaart. Maar het probleem dat voor ons ligt is dat wij onze Europese burgers ervan moeten overtuigen dat alle misbruik wordt gestraft. En dat betekent dat er veel meer en veel beter gecontroleerd moet worden. Als de Nederlandse minister van Sociale Zaken opmerkingen maakt, dan zou ik die als ik de commissaris was, terugverwijzen en zeggen: beter controleren!

Maar dat wil niet zeggen dat wij onze ogen moeten sluiten voor de problemen. Als ik zie dat bijvoorbeeld mensen uit Bulgarije vanuit Nederland een ziektekostenvergoeding krijgen, terwijl zij niet in Nederland wonen, dan weet ik dat op de gemeente ook niet gevraagd is: heeft hij een ziektekostenverzekering elders in Europa? Als er in Maastricht een tunnel wordt gebouwd, waar Poolse en Portugese werknemers hun werk doen, waar sociale zekerheid niet betaald wordt en waar bovendien veel te hoge vergoedingen in rekening worden gebracht, dan weet ik dat dit soort problemen moeten worden opgelost. En dat moeten de EU en de lidstaten zelf doen.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, in recent years the Commission has been exploring the question of the relationship between free movement in the European Union, the freedom to work in other EU countries and access to various social benefits. We have had a long dialogue, in particular with the government of the United Kingdom, and in recent years we have looked into the question of increased concerns about migrating poor people, whether it is in Germany, the Netherlands or other countries.

What I can say is that we now have a huge amount of statistics which help us to understand what exactly is happening in the Member States. This supports the Commission’s position, namely that there is no widespread or systematic benefit tourism in the European Union. But what we also know is that we have to look behind the statistics, because it is not enough to discuss average figures, total sums or the various trends. We also need to look into individual lives. In many cases, these are people who need to find a livelihood in another country because the domestic situation is very difficult.

But fundamentally, this discussion today has been about rights. We have to be very clear about what EU law allows or demands in the current context. This also needs to be clarified. For example, contrary to what Mrs Bizzotto said, the Commission does not simply want EU citizens to move from one country to another but to have the right to move and to work in another country to be sustained and respected, together with the rights that this implies.

These rights must be respected – not challenged or violated. There are also other kinds of misunderstanding, partly because of the lack of information about what the EU law says on particular issues. For example, it is a very common misunderstanding to assume that EU law would require any country to provide social benefits from day one – for example, when someone arrives in Dover or any other border station. In fact, under EU law, the host countries in the EU are not obliged to grant social assistance to non-economically active EU citizens during the first three months of residence. We could look, item by item, into the specific conditions in EU legislation in order to clarify the picture, because in many cases there are examples of misinformation in the public discourse.

To Mr Farage, I would say that it is not the individual Commissioners who have to have the power but EU law which has to be powerful. EU law has to be applied in all Member States. We have the responsibility to defend EU law, both in the United Kingdom and in other countries. We are defending the rights of mobile EU workers in the UK, but we are also defending the rights of UK citizens when they go to other countries.

For example, in Spain there are 162 000 economically non-active British citizens, and when there is any kind of concern, who defends their rights? It is the Commission which defends the rights of UK citizens. The most recent example of this was when we launched an infringement case in May. The Commissioner requested information from Spain about complaints – many of them received from UK citizens – because Spanish hospitals providing public health care were refusing to recognise the European health insurance card. The Commission did what the Commission is supposed to do in such situations.

Clarifications about EU law are very important, also because EU law differentiates between EU workers and, on a temporary basis, there are different conditions for EU workers from new Member States until unilateral distinctions expire. The situation of third-country nationals is also different, but sometimes the public discourse does not differentiate between them. For example, in the UK they do not take note of the fact that in recent years, net immigration was three times more than the net inward mobility from EU countries. Very often, the discussion focuses on a smaller group rather than seeing the whole picture. I will not even mention EU posted workers, which is again a specific category.

In order to clarify this very precisely and to ensure that it is properly implemented on the ground, the Commission has launched two enforcement directives which are also before Parliament and the Council – one concerns the so-called EU migrants, the mobile workers, and the other the posted workers – in order to ensure that workers do not suffer abuse, either by nationals or foreigners, and that the system is not abused either by nationals or foreigners in individual Member States.

At the end of the day, what should also be discussed – and perhaps decided on – is what exactly the problem is. What do we have too much of in the EU – especially when some countries, as participants in this discussion have mentioned, have so-called ‘poverty migration’? Is there too much poverty or too much migration? I am convinced that in the European Union, there is not too much mobility. We have to expect and anticipate more mobility – hopefully more balanced mobility – but we have too much poverty. We have to do a lot more to combat poverty. We need more cooperation and more solidarity in the European Union in order to tackle poverty and social exclusion.

This is what I also want to emphasise to Mrs Weber. Romania should not only fight for others to respect free movement but also do better with the absorption of EU funds, which are supposed to promote economic and social development. For example, the integration of the Roma should also be supported in Romania and other countries by using the European Social Fund and other financial instruments for better education and employment opportunities and other purposes.

So, while the focus today is on rights, the subject obviously concerns not only rights but also economic development, job creation and the Youth Guarantee, which is a very important instrument of structural reform in order to ensure that young people also see opportunities in their own region, in their own country and not only elsewhere. If they prefer to look around elsewhere to find jobs and employment, they should have that right, and that right has to be respected. We have to expect more mobility, not least because we want to boost student mobility – mobility of learning in the European Union – and that will in time lead to more professional mobility as well.

But I am speaking about balanced mobility – not a flood, not an influx and not a repeat of previous experiences when, in the case of previous enlargement, there was a short period with large numbers of mobile workers coming to individual countries. Why did this happen? Because countries did not open up simultaneously, and then accession brought new opportunities. This will not be repeated. It has already happened with countries where there was a high potential for outward migration. That applies to Poland, the Baltic States and Romania. But as far as Romania and Bulgaria are concerned, two thirds of those who left Romania and Bulgaria – and this was more than ten percent of the workforce in both countries – went to Spain and Italy, rather than the United Kingdom or Denmark.

I believe this discussion today has been extremely helpful in clarifying the specific situations we are facing. If we are talking about poverty, we have to do more against it. If crime is the concern, of course the answer should not be the restriction of free movement or of the right to work in another country but more EU cooperation between the Member States in the area of justice and law and order. This can certainly resolve some of the problems that have been observed recently.

  Der Präsident. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149 GO)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), în scris. – Politicile Uniunii trebuie să sufere în mod necesar adaptări în situaţii care impun măsuri de urgenţă sau care au în vedere restabilirea unor situaţii de echilibru social şi economic. Nu trebuie să uităm cu toate acestea faptul că uniunea Europeană s-a dezvoltat ca spaţiu al libertăţilor – iar libertatea de mişcare a cetăţenilor europeni este un punct important în această privinţă. Orice măsură luată în acest domeniu trebuie să cântărească cu seriozitate riscurile pe care modificarea regimului mobilităţii le poate aduce. Este evident că problema sistemelor de asistenţă publică şi fiabilitatea lor este o problemă de interes legitim pentru mulţi cetăţeni europeni. Trebuie însă să avem în vedere faptul că Uniunea şi-a asumat aproape de la fondare promovarea unui model de dezvoltare durabilă, centrat pe coeziune. În acelaşi timp, nu putem omite din calcul faptul că mobilitatea cetăţenilor europeni este probabil cel mai dinamic element care contribuie la amplificarea procesului de integrare şi la crearea unei identităţi europene efective.

  Eduard-Raul Hellvig (ALDE), în scris. – Mobilitatea cetatenilor europeni este nu doar o libertate fundamentală a UE, ci și un deziderat al institutiilor europene. Criza economică și nivelul somajului din numeroase state membre a pus sub presiune sistemele de protecție socială. Cetatenii care au ales să se stabileasca într-un alt stat nu trebuie să fie țapi ispășitori pentru niște probleme mult mai complexe legate de sustenabilitatea statului-providență din societățile occidentale. Din păcate, partidele populiste exploateaza tensiunile sociale și încearcă să sperie cetățenii exagerând impactul eliminării restricțiilor pe piața muncii aplicabile românilor și bulgarilor în 2014, sperând să mai obțină niște voturi.

Țin să subliniez că romanii și bulgarii au putut să muncească și până acum în alte state, cu condiția obținerii unui permis de muncă. Așadar, o mare parte dintre cei care doreau să muncească în UE o fac deja, fapt pentru care temerile legate de un flux migrator masiv sunt niște fantezii. Le reamintesc celor care se opun cu înverșunare eliminării restricțiilor că aceasta nu este nici mai mult nici mai puțin decât ceea ce statele membre au agreat unanim prin tratatul de aderare. Românii și bulgarii au dreptul legitim de a beneficia de aceleași libertăți ca și ceilalți cetățeni ai UE.

  Ivana Maletić (PPE), napisan. - Reforme sustava socijalnih pomoći i mirovinskih sustava najčešći su dio preporuka državama članicama u okviru Europskog semestra. Važno ih je provoditi tako da se ne ugroze osnovna načela Europske unije. Sloboda kretanja ljudi jedna je od četiri temeljne slobode Europske unije. Posljednje studije pokazuju kako je prvi razlog migracija unutar EU-a posao, što s obzirom na postojeću krizu nikog ne iznenađuje. Studije pokazuju da je mlada populacija ona koja više i brže migrira, istovremeno je to radno aktivno stanovništvo koje migrira zbog zapošljavanja i radom omogućava održavanje socijalnih sustava država u kojima živi. Socijalna davanja i mirovine čine najveći dio rashodne strane proračuna država članica. Za mirovine i socijalne naknade u zdravstvu izdvaja se više od 50 % proračuna, dok za djecu i obitelji odlazi 7,7 %. S obzirom da umirovljena populacija sporije migrira jasno je da bi reformiranje mirovinskih i socijalnih sustava na razini EU-a koje bi ograničilo kretanje ljudi opteretilo prije svega mlade i dugoročno pridonijelo krizi. Zbog svega navedenog protivim se ograničavanju slobode kretanja ljudi koja je neodvojivo vezana za slobodu kretanja robe, kapitala i usluga. Ograničiti jednu slobodu značilo bi ograničiti i druge, a onda je razvoj krize neupitan.

  Владко Тодоров Панайотов (ALDE), в писмена форма. – Колеги, Икономическата и финансова криза изправи европейските трудови пазари пред големи предизвикателства. Но тяхното преодоляване не трябва да се изразява в негативни кампании срещу отпадането на ограниченията за български и румънски граждани за достъп до пазара на труда. Нека не забравяме, че това са европейски граждани, чиито права в ежедневието и свобода на движение трябва да са еднакво гарантирани без да се допускат случаи на дискриминация на база национална принадлежност.

Последното изследване на ЕК показва, че неактивните мобилни европейски граждани представляват много малък дял от общото население във всяка държава членка и между 0.7% и 1.0% от общото население на ЕС, което генерира нисък натиск върху националните бюджети за социална политика. Предизвикателствата днес са породени от кризата, глобализацията и комбинираното въздействие на нисък демографски прираст и застаряващо население. Преодоляването им е свързано с повишаване конкурентоспособността на европейската икономика чрез създаване на по-гъвкави пазари, модерна система за социална сигурност и по-голяма мобилност. Мобилността е решение, а не източник на проблема. Мобилността подобрява качеството на образование на младите хора, професионалните им умения и увеличава толерантността им към културни различия и комуникация. Мобилността на работниците в ЕС има добавена стойност за икономиката на приемащата страна, респективно за един по-интегриран и конкурентноспособен Европейски пазар. Благодаря!

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. – Viver e trabalhar no espaço europeu é uma das liberdades fundamentais. Esta mobilidade permite que os cidadãos europeus se movimentem num espaço e respondam às necessidades de mercado, onde possam existir. Contudo, esta oportunidade única, num conjunto de 28 países, não é aproveitada pela maioria dos cidadãos europeus. Várias são as razões que explicam o obstáculo à mobilidade, entre elas os desafios e as dificuldades de encontrar um trabalho num Estado-membro de acolhimento e o desconhecimento dos seus direitos, garantias e proteção. Para facilitar a inserção dos cidadãos, os Estados-Membros deverão proporcionar cursos de línguas e de formação no mercado de acolhimento. Gostaria ainda de sublinhar a necessidade de aplicar na íntegra a diretiva das qualificações, que enfrenta inúmeros entraves em alguns Estados-Membros. Por outro lado, os cidadãos deverão ter conhecimento dos seus direitos em termos dos sistemas sociais. Para um verdadeiro mercado interno, não podemos esquecer a importância das pessoas na sua construção e no seu desenvolvimento. Temos que perceber quais são as queixas dos cidadãos, para podermos legislar da melhor forma.