Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.7.2-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to make a couple of fundamental points about the Commission's proposal for a directive. We have said quite enough about the technical details in recent days, weeks and months – we have exchanged views, we have sometimes argued and sometimes agreed. I would like to particularly address the Commission and the representatives of the Council. I would especially like to say a few words to the Commission about the history of this and about the development of this directive.
As rapporteur for the resolution, I have had an opportunity to deal with both the Green Paper and the Commission communication on the results of the consultation. Whereas in the Green Paper you were still talking about supplementary retirement provision in the internal market and tried to make the European public believe that something was being done for the majority of Europe's citizens, your present proposal for a directive simply reflects the interests of the European financial sector. As I see it, you have either done a U-turn or you were only concerned about the internal market for financial services all along.
Your intention now is to give the financial market pride of place. You are shifting this issue onto totally new ground. This would be acceptable in itself, if we were really only dealing with a pure financial market directive. However, your proposal encroaches way into the territory of the product formulation of the occupational retirement provision systems already in existence and, as I see it, you are giving the investment sector a significant competitive advantage over traditional providers. This is because you want to give financial products equal tax treatment but without obliging the financial sector to offer the same security as second pillar institutions, which in return benefit from their own security, that is to say from tax advantages.
I am not giving away any secrets if I tell you that we have obtained all the position papers and proposals drafted by the finance industry, and in particular the investment sector. It is already easy to get the impression that a large part of the Commission's text bears the hallmarks of lobbyists. I regard the similarities with the finance sector's proposals as a great cause for concern.
I would also like to take this opportunity to give a brief indication of the main themes underpinning our actions in relation to the Karas report in recent months. Security of occupational pensions is the top priority for us. In this respect we are responsible for something that we wish to establish, something that, at the end of the day, must work and must benefit our citizens.
Permit me to make a few more comments on the subject of registration and authorisation. Does the institution have to be authorised before it starts its activity and be checked by the authorities, or is it just registered? Mr Karas has made a new proposal on this, one that we shall be supporting. Furthermore, the collective nature of the second pillar is important. This provides a demarcation from the third pillar. We are not just talking about any savings product here, we are talking about occupational pensions, the nature of which is totally different from speculation in blocks of shares.
We have also considered it important to achieve improvements in relation to codetermination. However, in this case we agree with the reference to national employment law. With regard to biometric risks, we support the rapporteur's wording. We have executed something of an about-turn here, but I think that it is in everyone's interest for us to be able support this directive or this proposal.
In addition to these substantive points, we also regarded a number of other considerations as being important. We parliamentarians should not let ourselves be frightened off by technocrats who say that all this would not be possible and that it would not be compatible with the treaties. We are involved in the codecision process and have to act in line with our own views. We are elected so that our views can act as a correcting force. The European public expects us to ensure that law is not just made by officials and lobbyists, but rather that political decisions are chiefly made by Parliament. Nor should we tie our own hands by arguing that it is impossible to negotiate a hundred amendments with the Council. My message to the Council and the Commission is a clear one: stop playing about with this directive!
To some extent, there have been major differences between us over this report. There have been heated discussions not only between the groups, but also within them. Tomorrow we shall be voting on a text which tries to reflect all strands of opinion. At this point, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Karas, for his work. If the voting goes as promised, I shall be recommending that my Group votes for your report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples