Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-07-Speech-1-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050307.15.1-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by expressing my regret that the rapporteur, Mr De Rossa cannot be present. He is the MEP who has worked on this matter and who is most familiar of all with it, but he is unfortunately ill at home in Ireland and cannot participate in this debate. I am therefore replacing him, which is not difficult because both my political group and I have the same view as Mr De Rossa when it comes to adopting a position at Parliament’s second reading. We think we have to say yes.
Allow me to begin by saying something about the significance of Regulation 1408/71. It is fundamental to free movement in the EU to make it easier for people to move between different Member States and, at the same time, be able to collect various social benefits. Since this Regulation came into force in the 1970s, it has been fundamentally revised. Moreover, improvements have been made along the way. Improvements have been made now too, which is also the reason for the rapporteur’s adopting the position he has.
When we debated the matter in the committee, there was a large majority in favour of our approving the Council’s common position. The result of the vote was 30 votes in favour and one against. If I remember rightly, this ‘no’ vote was from someone who, in quite general terms, has a poor opinion of free movement and cooperation within the EU. There was, then, considerable unanimity when it came to the debate in the committee and to approving the rapporteur’s position. Since then, a change has taken place in relation to the original position, namely in connection with paragraph 2, which has to do with the fact that, as early as during the discussion in the committee, we knew that there was disagreement between the Commission and the Council when it came to some specific benefits. Since the discussion in the committee, we have found that the wording we used before gives rise to legal uncertainty. We have therefore been advised by Parliament’s legal service to alter paragraph 2. With the support of his political group and of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, Mr De Rossa has thus tabled an amendment that eliminates this legal uncertainty. Otherwise, the rapporteur’s position is the same.
There is, furthermore, an amendment designed to have us reject the common position. I wish, however, to argue in favour of our following the rapporteur’s recommendation.
Firstly, we should not delay this process any further. We know about there having been a parallel overhaul of the Regulation itself. Now, the implementing Regulation must also be revised. It would not benefit this process if Parliament were to reject the common position.
Secondly, and if we look at the matter as a whole and at what we said at first reading, the Council has in actual fact taken a great deal of account, even a
great deal of account, of the views expressed by Parliament. The two views I am now discussing, that is to say firstly that we must not delay the process and, secondly, that we have to a large extent had our opinions taken into consideration, mean that we should approve the common position, but with the amendment that has been tabled so as to avoid legal uncertainty.
When it comes to the benefits of which the Commission and the Council have different perceptions, these matters should, with the Commission’s consent, be decided by legal bodies. We must not, therefore, pre-empt the decision that may be taken by legal bodies.
I cannot see that it is in anyone’s interest to delay this process or to reject the common position. It is in neither the Commission’s, nor the Council’s nor Parliament’s interests, and it is definitely not in the interests of the people."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples