Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-231"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.7.3-231"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make two points. The first of these concerns Mrs Lambert’s report, which is sensible and pragmatic and contains the necessary changes in the light of the annual updates. This is a technical report and the Group of the Party of European Socialists thinks it right and proper that it has been separated from our political reports. For this very reason, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten, I do not understand your outburst. I think you are getting worked up about a report which really does not warrant it and that you are putting the rapid harmonisation of legislation in jeopardy.
The position we have adopted, which is one we have held for the last six years and more in our committee, is, quite understandably, to secure the right to freedom of movement, the rights of frontier workers and also the rights of third-country nationals whose families are in Europe, as quickly and as comprehensively as possible. That is why the position of the Council seems to me somewhat lacking. But our motion for a resolution, which we tabled together with the other left-wing groups of this House, contains a clear and, I think, urgent request for the Council to lay the directives, the regulation and the revision of the regulation on the table by the end of the year. From what I have heard, I am convinced that the Belgian Presidency will follow suit.
Mrs Ria, I regret, therefore, your zigzag course. When we look at your proposals, we find they do not tally with what you have said. For instance, in Amendment No 1 on paragraph a, why did you remove social security? We all want social security to remain a component; we do not want only economic interests to be to the fore. In the case of Amendment No 4 to paragraph 1, you have removed third-country nationals. That is a big problem. It has always been close to our hearts that we are dealing not only with the citizens of the European Union but also with workers and people from other countries, who are legally resident in our countries. That is why we expect you to include these groups of people. You can be sure that this problem will return to haunt us at the time of enlargement – but probably sooner – namely when the glaring deficit in qualified workers, which will make itself felt in all 15 Member States, is all too apparent. We cannot restrict legal status to workers; we must also include workers’ families."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples