The full Parliament of Navarra has once again rejected this Thursday the processing of two bills promoted by UPN and PPN with the aim of modifying the guaranteed income.
The regional Chamber had already dismissed these initiatives in the previous period, but both formations opted to register them again after in September the Government of Navarra admitted the lack of consensus among the partners of the Executive to address the reform of the guaranteed income.
The UPN bill sets as conditions for receiving the guaranteed income being in a regular administrative situation and not having criminal records for certain serious crimes. In addition, it limits the ordinary duration of the aid to a maximum of three years, with an amount that would be reduced over time, with the intention of avoiding chronic dependence on the benefit and favoring incorporation into employment. Likewise, it establishes as mandatory from the outset participation in a personalized socio-labor inclusion program, with accompaniment and individualized follow-up, and introduces new obligations for beneficiaries, among them accepting suitable job offers.
The UPN initiative has had the support of the PPN, while PSN, EH Bildu, Geroa Bai, Contigo-Zurekin and Vox have voted against. The non-attached parliamentarian, Maite Nosti, has opted to abstain.
The PPN proposal was structured around four axes. Among them, expanding the requirement of legal and effective residence in Navarra, from the current two years to four. It also included the obligation to start a public itinerary between the Navarra Employment Service and the Social Service for labor insertion, through training processes in some cases or through job offers in others. Likewise, it proposed that whoever rejected said itinerary or a job offer would lose the right to continue collecting the benefit.
In this case, UPN, PSN, EH Bildu, Geroa Bai and Contigo-Zurekin have voted against the PPN initiative. This group has only obtained the support of the non-attached parliamentarian, Maite Nosti, while Vox has abstained.
The parliamentarian of UPN Raquel Garbayo has explained that her group has decided to file again the same proposal because "it believes in what it is defending" and has criticized that "we are allocating important public resources without the results obtained being up to the objectives pursued". "When results are not achieved, the responsible thing is to recognize it and correct what is not working. It is more than proven that the income by itself does not end inequality and that is why our bill proposes a profound reform of the income", she has noted.
At the same time, she has justified her rejection of the PPN text because "it raises serious doubts about respect for the self-government of Navarra and our exclusive powers in matters of social services".
On behalf of the PPN, Javier García has defended that "the success of social policies cannot be measured solely by the amount of money invested, but by the lives it manages to change". And that, he has said, is "the reason why we are bringing" this proposal again, which "today makes more sense than ever" and is "more than necessary", because the current model is a "failure". In addition, he has accused the Government that "they promised to change" the system but "they have once again lied to Navarrese society".
On the other hand, he has considered that the UPN proposal "falls halfway short", although it introduces "improvements" with respect to the current regulations, which is why he has given it his support.
The parliamentarian of PSN Olga Chueca has described the UPN law as "classist and discriminatory" and has reproached the regionalist formation that "it has allowed itself to be dragged by the far right". In any case, she has admitted that a reform is necessary that "improves the system and makes it more effective, that improves coordination between guaranteed income and minimum vital income, that strengthens inclusion and strengthens monitoring, but that at the same time maintains economic protection for whoever really needs it". "That is, has been and will be our position. The reform of the foral law continues to be necessary, but certainly not in just any way and not just any reform like the one they bring us here today", she has indicated.
The EH Bildu parliamentarian Javier Arza has summarized the model change proposed by UPN in "creating an inspection team, tightening access requirements or setting a limit of three years on receipt of the benefit". Faced with this, he has emphasized that EH Bildu will support "the improvements that serve to streamline the benefit, to improve its compatibility with the IMV and to improve the right to inclusion". "We will not support reforms that mean a cut in rights and a weakening of the protective capacity of the guaranteed income", he assured.
On the part of Geroa Bai, Isabel Aranburu has stated that "those who want to change the model are the right-wing parties, but their proposal is devoid of reasons, because they do not care what happens with the guaranteed income and with the people who receive it, what interests them is to promote the idea that money is being squandered and that those who receive it are a gang of loafers and crooks". "From Geroa Bai we are not going to cease in maintaining the guaranteed income and in the rights to inclusion and to the economic benefit. We will continue working to strengthen the protection it offers", she affirmed.
The Contigo-Zurekin parliamentarian Carlos Guzmán has maintained that UPN's proposal amounts to "a social blow, which moreover drinks from the most reactionary and most ultra ideology of the world far right". "The right-wing parties, all of them together, from UPN to the far right, passing through the Partido Popular, furiously criticize this benefit", he indicated, to add that the reform initiatives "completely forget the right to inclusion and its necessary intervention processes".
The Vox spokesman, Emilio Jiménez, has pointed out that "the idea is not to leave anyone without food, the idea is to restore order and for Navarrese money to be well managed, as any housewife or househusband manages it". "Maintaining the own guaranteed income should be stopped when a minimum vital income already exists", he defended.