The Minister of Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations, José Luis Escrivá, has denied today roundly being “hindering” the transfer of the management of the Minimum Vital Income (IMV) to the Basque Country due to the accusations “Serious” launched today by the PNV in Congress and its notice of a “Breach of trust” with your ministry in case the agreement is not honored. Escrivá thus dodges the complaints of the Basque group, although he also ignores the warnings launched yesterday by the lawyers of his ministry, who warned of the “unconstitutionality” of the transfer.
The pact signed between the central and Basque governments included that the management of the IMV would be in the hands of the Basque treasury in October last year. A few weeks ago the Escrivá department put on the table a proposal that has been described as “unacceptable” by the Basque government and that has led to an increase in tension in Parliament. It was during the government control session when the PNV deputy Íñigo Barandiaran has directly accused Escrivá of trying to empty the concept of management of the IMV and of “deliberately ignoring” the necessary mechanisms for its implementation.
It is not the first time that PNV shows its teeth to Escrivá for this delay. The training spokesman himself, Aitor Esteban, has spoiled the minister’s attitude on other occasions and has repeatedly recalled that the delay has now amounted to eight months. “The agreements are to be complied with, not to be negotiated,” Esteban assured the arguments of Escrivá.
Today, Barandiaran has claimed that Escrivá “Do not hinder” the transfer with its conditions and that it is aware of the implications that the agreement has with the Basque economic agreement and with the Statute of the Basque Country, because, otherwise, “it would mean a breach of trust with your Ministry.” “React, but be aware of the consequences of your attitudes,” he warned.
Trust in the deal
Escrivá has defended himself assuring that “In no case” is their intention to “hinder” the transfer and has ensured that the proposal they have on the table reflects what is established in the fifth additional provision of the rule, which precisely reflects the transfer. In fact, he has argued that the Ministry’s approach “goes further” than what is established in this provision and that for this reason he trusts that both administrations will agree on this.
The controversy in Parliament comes after the Association of Social Security Lawyers sent a harsh statement yesterday, with a copy to Minister Jose Luis Escrivá, in which he denounced the “unconstitutionality” of the plan for violating the criterion of a single fund of the institution and establish “discriminatory” distinctions between first and second class communities. According to the lawyers, the Government justified the creation of the minimum vital income to ensure “a national income guarantee mechanism” given that our current system was “fragmented and presents territorial disparities.” A purpose that will be destroyed if ownership of the management is transferred to the Basque Country and Navarra on the basis of “the specificity that the existence of foral estates implies.”