Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-11-Speech-4-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040311.2.4-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, please allow me firstly, as a Spaniard, to thank all the honourable Members who have expressed their solidarity. Allow me also to express my deepest disdain for this vermin in human form and above all affection and solidarity with the families suffering today; solidarity and affection in their pain and suffering. As Commissioner Solbes said, we must carry on, although it is not easy.
We are debating the Commission’s proposal to update Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 with regard to specific benefits and non-contributory payments. The proposal is mainly aimed at incorporating the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, specifying the special and non-contributory nature of certain benefits, and also reflects the changes which have taken place in the different national legislations. I believe that the crux of the debate is whether or not to include in Annex IIa the benefits laid down in national legislations and the consequences of that inclusion in the said annex, in other words, their non-exportability or, where relevant, their exportability.
Of the various amendments presented, I agree with Nos 1, 2 and 3, both because of the characteristics or nature of the benefits in question, or because of the conditions for receiving them, or the difficulty or impossibility of controlling them.
Naturally, Amendments Nos 4, 5, 7 and 8, which relate to benefits whose exportable nature was mentioned a while ago, are dealing with benefits which sometimes have equivalents in the Member States, suited, furthermore, to living conditions. In any event, I believe this should be studied.
I cannot agree with Amendments Nos 9 to 12; firstly because they involve family benefits in all cases. The general criterion of the regulation is that family benefits are exported; anything else would be discrimination, and would hinder the free movement of persons, and within the context of that free movement, would prevent families from travelling with their rucksacks of social protection on their backs.
Finally, Madam President, I would like to draw attention to making present or future health care in certain Member States conditional upon payment of certain contributions from pensions. Naturally I am referring to the new paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Regulation. This means that the incomes of a very significant number of pensioners would be reduced.
In the case of Spaniards residing in other Member States, their pensions would be reduced while, if they lived in Spain, they would receive 100% of them, since health care is a right which we could describe as automatic. We would therefore be faced with a clear case of discrimination and hindering of the free movement of persons."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples