Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.10.2-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the parties involved, and especially our rapporteur, for the constructive approach he has taken. Mr Karas has done a remarkable job with this proposal for a directive.
The sustainability of pensions will be one of the biggest challenges which our societies will have to face in the coming decades. Occupational retirement provisions will play an important role in this connection in many Member States. The question of whether the coverage of biometric risks should be made mandatory has been one of the biggest issues for Parliament. I will concentrate on that issue.
I should like to point out a few reasons why the coverage of biometric risks or guarantees should be kept optional. Firstly, beneficiaries in many Member States already have cover for these risks via separate insurance products. Citizens should not be forced to pay twice for cover they do not need. Secondly, biometric risk cover is expensive and this expense is passed on to the beneficiaries. Mandatory biometric risk cover will cost each citizen, at a conservative estimate, around 1-3% of annual returns per year. Compounded over a 40-year savings period this could significantly reduce overall scheme returns. Thirdly, mandatory biometric risk cover will also damage the level playing field by providing an advantage to insurance providers. The European citizen will benefit if he or she can choose from a wide variety of providers. Fourthly, I fully agree with some of the previous speakers. If we want to promote the second pillar we need to get employers excited about the new rules. If the rules are too restrictive and costly to the company they will probably have no voluntary supplementary scheme at all.
Finally, I say to Mr Kuckelkorn that we cannot secure something which does not exist. The worst case scenario for beneficiaries is that there are no flourishing second pillar pensions at all. Security can only come after that."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples