Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-291"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.10.3-291"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs makes it clear that the pay-as-you-go based, statutory pensions schemes in the Member States need to be supplemented by capital-backed company or other supplementary pensions schemes. Mr Kuckelkorn has provided an excellent analysis of the situation and is to be congratulated.
There are differences of opinion between and within the groups. It is both possible and necessary for there to be compromises. Why should we not include schemes with and without biometric risk coverage in one directive, but treat them differently? It would be possible to favour cross-border pension funds or similar schemes, which cover many of the aforementioned risks, for example by having minimum regulations governing tax law.
Quite often, a reduction in contributions is taken account of with statutory pensions schemes in the Member States, as in Germany, with any shortfall to be made up by supplementary company schemes. Naturally the statutory system makes provision for widows and invalidity pensions, for example. We therefore need appropriate regulations for supplementary schemes, otherwise the collective agreement we need will simply not be feasible.
A second moot point is that of codetermination. I am in favour of compromising with “cooperation” rather than introducing the frequently obstructive concept of “codetermination”. Minimum codetermination rights for the beneficiaries are what we need to aim for, at least in the case of closed systems such as company pension funds, for example through an investment committee which establishes the principles of investment policy. We need, as a matter of urgency, to set the course for the future. It is becoming increasingly important for people to make their own supplementary provisions for old age, in order to safeguard their standard of living. People need time to make these provisions. That is the alternative to manipulating and fiddling statutory pension schemes."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples