Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-11-Speech-4-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040311.2.4-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, speaking for once as a Spaniard in this House, I would like firstly to thank everybody who has expressed solidarity with the victims of terrorism in Spain and the terrible effects the attacks have had in my country.
As I said earlier, we must return to our work and I am going to try to respond to your concerns.
Firstly, we must not forget that the issue we are dealing with here is the competence of the Member States: organising their own social security systems.
It is important to stress the point raised by Mrs Doyle. It is a real problem. Nevertheless, it is also the case that there is no harmonisation of these issues at Community level. We can make progress by means of the coordination of national legislations undoubtedly. This naturally means that each Member State should adopt national legislation in agreement with the others. In this regard, the open coordination method can help us, but we have no one single solution. There may be an intermediate way – which is being worked on and on which we may make progress – mutual recognition, which would not lead to a situation of complete harmonisation, but to a situation of recognition which could allow us to solve some of the problems.
Secondly, if we work on the basis of the fundamental fact that we are talking about decisions and competences of a national nature, it is clear that any element of coordination must be carried out according to pre-established set criteria. Those objective criteria are the ones we have tried to include and which I referred to earlier in my speech. In some cases, therefore, we accept some of the solutions you propose and in relation to others we believe that the solutions you suggest do not resolve all the problems.
With regard to the issue we are talking about, the fundamental idea is based on special advantages based on the principle of residence. In some cases, therefore, the intention is that, if residence is changed, the advantages of one country be replaced by the advantages of another. Those advantages depend on objective conditions, in accordance with the characteristics and the social security systems defined in each country. I appreciate that in some specific cases this may mean of loss of relative advantages in comparison with the country of origin, which reflects the existing differences between the nationals of the different States of the Union.
I therefore believe that there is no gap in the legislation, there is coherence throughout the system, which does not imply that no specific problems will arise or that we will not have to try to resolve them. In my opinion, the situation is that the margin here is much more evident at national level than at Community level. In this regard, the best system for moving forward would be the adoption of national actions allowing this type of problem to be corrected or bilateral agreements between countries which allow some of these difficulties to be resolved. Otherwise, clearly, at Community level, we can apply harmonisation where possible – in many of these cases it is not – we can make progress on coordination by means of the open coordination method, we can make progress on the issue of mutual recognition in order to prevent these problems with the free movement of persons which many of you have mentioned. This is the basis we are working on and we will continue to do so in the future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples