Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-07-Speech-1-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050307.15.1-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in the Netherlands, we have a saying which, roughly translated, means that you should not crack a walnut with a sledgehammer. The amendment I have tabled can be understood in that sense, and, moreover, when I consider the efforts being made by a number of Member States to convince people that what the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has presented is poor, then I think that analogy of the walnut and the sledgehammer is true to life.
What is this debate about? That is something about which I should like to see some clarity. Today, we are debating the annual amendment of Regulation 1408/71 to take account of changes in social legislation and social security schemes in the Member States. This involves incorporation of the ECJ’s case law, and checking whether the elements that accompany those modifications meet the general criteria for mobility and freedom of movement, but also for those of Regulation 1408/71, the Member States’ proposals having therefore been verified beforehand. We are also discussing Annex IIa, which involves verification of certain specific qualities. It is examined whether the proposals contain elements in respect of which certain benefits should be exportable or not. I would mention Dutch social security by way of example, which need not be exported. In Spain, there is assistance or remuneration, as well as benefits for mobility which need not be exported. We have all established this and we are all agreed on this. Every Member State has made some contribution or other to those listings. What I do not understand, though, is that we, although we have laid down principles in the new coordination regulation, still manage to allow a number of Member States to get away with things of which we have said beforehand that they should actually be exportable.
Normally speaking, I would have left it to the Commission to solve this problem. That is also the reason why we as a group have agreed to this change. Then, however, the Legal Service came on the scene and told us that we in this House cannot approve something that the ECJ has not accepted. We cannot adopt a legislative text containing elements that are unlawful.
That is when the problem started. What escapes me is why we allow the Finns not to have to export their childcare benefit, the Swedes their benefit for disabled children and care or the British their nursing and care allowance – in respect of which, in fact, a petition has been adopted – while at the same time, we are asking 22 other Member States which are forced to backpedal – including the Luxembourgers, the Greeks and the Spanish – to export those benefits. When the Legal Service said that we should not accept this, I asked why the Council had done so. It is on account of unanimity that a number of Member States do not adhere to the rules. Is this something that we in this House should be condoning? I wonder whether this should not be the last time, and I think that we should simply send a clear and straightforward message, which should also be incorporated in the implementing regulation that we are also still awaiting."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples