Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-08-Speech-2-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050308.16.2-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The free movement of workers in the EU area is hampered somewhat by the fact that the Member States have different approaches to their social security regimes, which is natural in a Community that sees itself as plural and not centralised.
Nevertheless, I recognise the need to establish bases whereby citizens of one Member State can move to another without losing all of the guarantees and social benefits to which they were previously entitled.
Unfortunately the ‘exportability’ of five non-contributory benefits – namely, child care allowance, disability allowance and care allowance for disabled children, disability living allowance, attendance allowance and carer’s allowance – remains controversial. The notion is disgracefully rejected by certain countries, namely Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom, which object to the principle of paying benefits outside their territories (Article 42 of the Treaty) to the detriment of workers who return to their countries of origin. The Court of Justice must therefore issue a ruling on this matter, in accordance with the Commission’s statement.
In line with the Portuguese Government’s position, I voted against Amendment 2, which would lead to the common position being rejected, and in favour of Amendment 1, which takes note of the Commission’s statement on possible recourse to the Court of Justice for a ruling."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples