EU: The Veil Report on free movement of persons (feature)
01 November 1997
The Veil report, the report of the High Level Panel on free movement of persons, was commissioned in January 1996 to find out what obstacles are preventing free movement rights from becoming a reality for EU citizens. It was completed and presented to the European Commission in March 1997. When it was researched, there were 370 million EU nationals in the member states, of whom 5.5 million live in a member state other than their own, and 12.5 million long-settled non-EU citizens.
The panel found obstacles everywhere: internal border checks have not been removed; administrative rules require free-movers to obtain temporary residence cards, on pain of (illegal) expulsion or (illegal) denial of benefits; there is too much bureaucracy, and with it delay, excessive fees, demands for too many documents. There is no protection against expulsion for the self-employed who stop work, or for the long-term unemployed. Those made redundant find it very difficult to get residence cards renewed; and proof of resources is illegally demanded. Access to the labour market in other member states is hindered by the massive delays in the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, no mutual recognition for vocational qualifications, demands for too high a level of language proficiency and reservation of too many public sector jobs to nationals. Free movement for artists, in education and vocational training, for researchers, trainees and voluntary workers is very difficult in practice because it depends on the possession of adequate resources and health insurance.
One of the main obstacles to free movement for EU citizens is the chaos surrounding social security and welfare. Despite almost three decades of regulations and directives, there are no common conditions for the payment of benefits, no harmonisation of schemes, many pre-retirement benefits are not portable, and cross-border health care is inadequate.
The situation of three groups of non-EC nationals with some free movement rights is examined. Non-EC nationals who belong to the family of an EC national have family reunion rights more generous than for long-settled non-EC nationals who want their families to join them. But even EC nationals' family reunion rights still exclude unmarried partners, non-dependent children and elderly relatives, require the head of household to prove there is adequate accommodation, and give no protection against expulsion to a spouse on divorce. The report recommends equalising family reunion rights for EC and non-EC households, and making them accord more with the realities of modern family life. It finds the situation of refugees who try to bring family to join them precarious (which is in violation of international law norms) and recommends that they have the same family reunion rights as nationals of the member state where they live. And it criticises the "burdensome, slow and extensive formalities" affecting working and residence rights of non-EC workers seconded by EC firms to work in another member state. It recommends that all "third-country nationals" legally resident and insured in a member state should have the right to travel freely within the member states and should receive the same level of social protection as nationals.
The report calls for far greater transparency in the making and application of the rules, and far more information for those interested in moving, to make them aware of the requirements and the sources of help. The call is for more free movement and rights training at every level, from lawyers and national officials to members of interest groups and members of the public. Ironically, a Commission information initiative, Citizens First, which was launched in the member states in November 1996, was not introduced in Britain because of the then Conservative government's sensitivity that it would inflame the splits within the party in the run-up to the election. Citizens were deprived of their right to be informe