Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-290"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.10.3-290"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are facing a difficult issue, as evidenced by the large number of speakers. I would like to extend warm thanks to Mr Kuckelkorn as rapporteur, for the huge effort he has made to achieve this report. I am slightly less pleased with Mr Kuckelkorn’s tabling of amendments, because he has tabled a great many and they go beyond the requirements of the current objective. I think that we should differentiate between the two Kuckelkorns.
I believe that the systems we should pursue in Europe should be based on two principles. One of them is simply the statutory pay-as-you-go system and the other is the system of capital cover which is an extension of the former, it is just that the only problem we are facing is that all countries have very different starting positions.
It is true that a country such as the Netherlands has managed to strike a fine balance between the two. Other countries have managed to do this to a lesser extent. Also, for example, countries where nearly all pensions are capital cover systems, such as Great Britain, do not meet expectations because, although the risks for the government are reasonably small, the cover for the retired is extremely modest. In England, if there is a hard frost, for example, people are unable to pay their bills. I do not think that this is the right way forward.
First and foremost, we need to remember that this is about people and based on this, we must develop a system which makes sound pension schemes possible, and we must, as far as we can, leave this task to the Member States. We should keep intervention to a minimum. We need to bear our starting point in mind, namely that if people move from one country to another to work or retire, it should be possible for them to take their pensions with them. The Commission has always attempted to do this and I do believe that it has succeeded in its aim.
I think that two issues still need tackling. Firstly, risks tied in with the second and third pillars should be sufficiently covered, because far too little has been said about this. Secondly, the first pillar should at long last be defined, as the first pillar in one country is quite different from that in another country. And if we could bring all of this a bit closer together, we would perhaps have far fewer problems than we have at the moment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples