Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-11-Speech-4-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040311.2.4-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, on behalf of the Swedish MEPs, I wish to convey our condolences to our Spanish fellow MEPs and Commissioner Solbes Mira and to condemn the terrible deed committed in Madrid today.
Alongside our debate on the annual changes, the modernisation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which is linked to these annual changes, is also taking place. This means that we shall presumably have to debate this annex again in the autumn. It will then be called Annex X instead. I rather think that the Commission should have been cautious and not made any changes this year until we had completed the modernisation, in which the principles are partly changed and laid down. That is my personal view.
Annex IIA is based upon certain principles governing what may be entered by the Member States. The Member States cannot enter whatever they think is appropriate in Annex IIA. The benefits concerned must not be universal ones, but require something in the way of a means test. Family benefits definitely do not have their place there. To Mr Schmidt and the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party, I wish to point out that the Swedish child allowance is universal. That also applies to the supplement for families with more than one child, to study grants and to the sum guaranteed for the parental benefit. This means that they do not have their place in Annex IIA. This may be considered right or wrong, but everyone must no doubt agree that the annexes have to be based upon certain principles. Nor, probably, should a question mark be placed over the housing allowance for families with children, but that is the only benefit that could possibly be discussed.
I therefore reject Mr Schmidt’s proposal. It is unacceptable to ignore all the principles upon which we have jointly agreed. Mr Schmidt says that we have such different systems – which is true – but he also says that we could live with these different systems, that they do not affect freedom of movement and that we do not need these regulations. On that point, I do not at all agree with him. We naturally need regulations governing people who move across the borders and who are to receive social benefits. Were we drastically to change this system by, for example, saying that no family allowances might be transferred, it would have a harmful effect upon freedom of movement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples