Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)

When the Leader stated this morning that this motion was being introduced I made the point that this kind of regulation should have had serious discussion, preferably in a committee where details could have been given. A vote was called on the taking of the motion. It is unsatisfactory for it to arrive in such a format in the Dáil and Seanad today, with a very short debate and without significant detailed background information.

At a time when we face a referendum on Europe, it is very important we do everything we can to engage people in the European process and give them information, good news and bad news, on the reasons we are doing certain things. Taking this regulation as an example, it would be useful to have information such as the numbers of third country nationals involved and what kind of claims potentially could be made regarding pensions, health care and insurance. What is the potential cost to the Exchequer of the measures outlined under this regulation?

We saw an example none of us really expected when we introduced the child care supplement. There was application of this outside the country also, with subsequent cost. People were surprised at the implications which arose under that measure, from an EU perspective.

In a year coming up to a referendum, many of us want to get widespread support for European proposals, and it would have been important to use a committee to discuss the details of this. In other countries, such as the UK, there has been much discussion on the health-care aspects of this regulation and whether the UK would opt in with those.

This is part of the free movement of persons across the EU and we know this to be one of the fundamental rights and freedoms offered to EU citizens and some residents since the establishment of the European community. Permitting workers to avail of social security as they move from country to country is one of the barriers lifted by European law to allow workers to, for example, claim benefits in their country of origin while working in another EU member state. There otherwise would be little incentive for people to move across the Union. We have seen much evidence of movement of this kind in recent years as a result of our booming economy.

Regulation 1408/71, part of Union law, was designed to remove obstacles to free movement and it applies to all parts of social security, such as pensions, health insurance, unemployment and care insurance. Regulation 883/2004 was supposed to replace Regulation 1408/71 but it goes further in scope and includes non-economically active persons, such as women working in the home and legally-resident third country nationals. In that context, the Minister indicated that the number of people who fall into this category will probably not be very high. I would like him to indicate the evidence on which his assertion is based and to outline what will be the likely numbers. The regulation covers Americans, Australians, Canadians and a wide range of other nationalities. How many people are likely to claim under the change to the regulation? It would be good economics and good politics if we were to be informed of the facts.

Social security is not harmonised in the European Union, it is co-ordinated. The Commission has developed a proposal for a regulation by the Council with the desirable aims of extending the scope of free movement in respect of social security and simplifying, as well as modernising, actual practice. However, it has emerged that the simplification process is quite complex. This is evidenced by some of the matters raised by the Portuguese Presidency in recent months. The latter noted that the implementation of Regulation (EC) 883/2004 involved listing a wide range of long term benefits available in each member state; knowing of any benefits in kind; ascertaining the status of voluntary insurance; and obtaining the views of member states on particular aspects of social security. This proposal was discussed in the House of Lords in May and the UK has expressed a form of reservation, or reserved position, as to whether health care will be included for the UK or included only on a provisional basis.

The implementation process relating to this new social security-social protection proposal is taking place in Europe in a piecemeal fashion — on a chapter-by-chapter basis — which makes it difficult to obtain an overall view. The proposal will extend to all legally-resident third country nationals such as Australians, Americans and Canadians the protections and provisions of Regulation (EC) 883/2004. It is, therefore, of particular interest to the many non-EU nationals working for US corporations in Ireland, as well as non-EU construction workers and health care professionals. It applies to such persons and their families in so far as they are moving between two or three member states, that is, there is a cross-border dimension.

I note the points the Minister made in respect of the equity aspect of this matter in the context of EU and non-EU citizens. He also referred to the goal of EU policy that there should be as much harmonisation as possible, a development I would support. The Commission's proposed regulation appeared on the agenda of the meeting of 5 October of the permanent representatives in Brussels. However, it is not known what views were expressed on behalf of Ireland on that occasion. I would like information relating to what was stated at the 5 October meeting to be made available.

The Minister stated that this is an attempt to obtain agreement in order that he will be in a position to enter into negotiations. When replying, perhaps he might address some of the issues I have raised in the context of the format in which this matter will return to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Will he also indicate the type of information he expects to be able to supply to the Houses at that point?

I would have preferred to have received a comprehensive briefing from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Social and Family Affairs regarding the implications of this proposed regulation. Having said that, however, my party will not oppose the motion.