Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.7.2-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission proposal before us and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is, I am proud to say, a very good example of successful, dialogue-based work on a Commission proposal between all the groups and experts in this House, while remaining open to compromise. It is also a good example of how seriously we take our work and of how we implement our projects, observing schedules, and also of how good we are at preparing decisions, unlike the Council. This example highlights the differences between the European Parliament and the Council in dealing with Commission proposals and decisions. I would therefore like to start by very sincerely thanking all the coordinators, and in particular Mr Kuckelkorn, Mr Hume, Mr Ettl, Mr Pronk, Mrs Lulling and many others for their cooperation.
Why is this directive needed? It is needed because we have all committed ourselves to creating an internal market for financial services, because we need to eliminate the financial obstacles from the Action Plan for Financial Services – of which this directive is a part – as quickly as possible, because the second pillar does not include any Community legislation for activity under the second pillar, for retirement provision. What is this directive about? It is principally concerned with issues around coordinating supervision, with the question of approving cross-border activity, with investment rules and with certain necessary accompanying measures.
We in the committee have come up with many suggestions for improvement. We are convinced that with regard to the Commission proposal we have had wide-ranging discussions and taken points on board. But let me make it clear right away that we also thought that a change in title was needed to make this clear. This is the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the activities and supervision of institutions offering occupational retirement provision services. It is a financial services directive. It is not a directive that regulates occupational retirement provision as a product taking into account the mobility of employees and all its consequences. It regulates the activity of the companies offering financial services. This clarification is necessary. In connection with this clarification we need to say that this is an initial and essential step along the path towards a European system for the second pillar and occupational retirement provision.
A third point of clarification is also necessary: the second pillar complements the first pillar, but is by no means a replacement for it. Nor is it a compromise. In reality, it represents an agreement between the two sides of industry in the context of legal provisions in force between employers and employees. It therefore has to strike a balance between liberalisation of the financial market and social security. Social security and employee information need to be accorded a special significance.
I would just like to list the key amendments. First, we have given great emphasis to the principle of the level playing field, that is to say equal access for all providers as long as they meet the requirements. Secondly, we have clearly defined the prudent person principle, we have set a limit for the switch from quantitative investment rules to qualitative ones, and we have called for a report from the Commission after three years; furthermore, more flexibility in assessment and in guaranteeing security for consumers is needed. Thirdly, we have called for a switch to the principle of deferred taxation, because in order to avoid distortions in competition we need certain common rules, and we are calling on the Commission to clearly control non-discrimination, as stipulated in the Treaty, and to make that a starting point. We have defined the work of the pension forum, and we have established biometric risks as an option. It is not the product that is defined, but rather the obligation to make it available.
To conclude, we have more clearly worded the issue of the country of origin principle and that of information relating to employees and employers and their representatives. We believe that we have succeeded in striking a balance between a financial services directive and social security and that we will obtain a large majority tomorrow. I hope that the Council will accept our proposals so that we are not blocked when it comes to implementing this directive in line with the European Parliament's decisions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples