Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-219"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.10.2-219"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I must begin by saying that the Commission very much welcomes the efforts of the European Parliament to complete the first reading of the proposal for a directive on the activities of institutions for occupational retirement provision within such a very short timeframe. I wish to congratulate Mr Karas and his team for the seriousness and quality of their work. Their work has been welcomed by many speakers tonight, a sign that his work is welcomed by almost everyone.
The qualitative approach to investment and technical provisions is based on the assumption that Member States must keep the option to have more detailed rules. Supervisory practices and traditions widely vary from one Member State to another. This restricts the degree of prudential harmonisation that can be attained. Some flexibility must therefore be left to the Member States to introduce more detailed requirements at national level. That is especially true as regards the calculation of technical provisions and investment. The same argument applies to the way in which supervisory authorities organise their work, especially for the registration and authorisation procedures. That is why the Commission cannot accept the following amendments: Nos 22, 23, 24, 25 (in part), 27, 42, 44, 45, 51, 59, 60, 64, 72 (in part), 73, 75, 76, 79, 81, 83, 88, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 109, 110, 111, 113, 116, 123, 124, 127, 128, 129 and 130.
A few amendments concern the scope of the directive. Institutions that already benefit from a single market framework should not be covered by this directive, with the exception of life assurance companies for which Member States must retain the option of applying this directive for their activities that are linked to pension provision. In the same way, and in order to facilitate supervision in those Member States with tens of thousands of institutions, it is important for them to keep the option of excluding them from the scope of the directive, and that is why the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 9, 13, 14, 15 (in part), 34, 35 (in part), 37 (in part), 107, 119, 120 and 122.
Finally, the directive creates the right framework for the cross-border management of pension schemes. In the case of cross-border activity, the scheme must be run in conformity with the social and labour legislation of the country where the sponsoring company is established. Supervision of compliance with this law is carried out by the competent authority in the host country. Moreover, to make this mutual recognition effective, an effective system of exchange of information and correct enforcement of the directive must be put in place as recommended by Parliament. But this ought to be done at the initiative of the Commission. Those are the reasons why the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 70, 90, 96, 97 and 133.
I should like to conclude with the following remarks. This proposal is an essential element of the whole strategy for the sustainability of our pension systems. It allows pension funds to take full advantage of both the euro and the single market and it makes sure that these funds operate as efficiently and as safely as possible. The ball is now in the Council's court. I hope that a political agreement in Ecofin is achieved in the not-too-distant future. That is essential to demonstrate our political will to respect the commitments made by the European Councils in Lisbon and Stockholm.
In concluding I would once again like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Karas, for the excellent work he has done.
Mr Karas' report proposes many amendments to the Commission's proposal. It is quite unusual to have over 100 amendments to a proposal for a directive which contains only 20 articles. The average is five amendments per article. It is quite unusual and a sign of the complexity and sensitivity of the issue. It also confirms the importance which the European Parliament has attached to that matter. The hearing organised by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on 6 February was certainly most helpful in that it collected the views of the beneficiaries, industry and supervisory authorities. I am particularly pleased to note that the European Parliament agrees with the basic philosophy of the Commission's proposal. That proposal seeks to achieve – as is well known – the twin objectives of, on the one hand, a high level of protection for beneficiaries and, on the other, the affordability of pensions. It establishes minimum, but nevertheless stringent prudential standards and proposes a qualitative approach to investment rules. That has been discussed by many Members in this debate.
These common prudential standards would permit cross-border membership of pension funds and allow an institution in one Member State to manage company pension schemes in other Member States.
Before I come to the specific amendments and give the Commission's opinion on them, I should like to reply to a question put to me by Mrs Peijs. It concerns the transferability, or portability, of pensions. Transferability must basically be governed at a national level. However, for the time being, some Member States do not regulate, allow or enable the transfer of pension rights between the various providers of second pillar provision, even within their own territories. The reasons for that state of affairs are related to very complex tax, social and legal provisions. This is a crucial element that needs to be addressed to facilitate the free movement of workers within an internal market. The Commission has therefore planned an initiative on the portability of pensions which we hope will be proposed before the end of the year.
I should now like to give the opinion of the Commission on the specific amendments. The Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1, 4, 7 (in part), 8, 10, 16, 17, 25 (in part), 28, 55, 63, 65, 66, 82, 84, 91 and 92. The Commission can also accept the spirit of Amendments Nos 15 (in part), 29, 33, 35 (in part), 36, 37 (in part), 38, 39, 40, 43, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 62, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72 (in part), 77, 78, 80, 85, 86, 87, 89, 93, 94, 95, 112 (in part), 118, 131 and 132. But the Commission is regrettably not in a position to accept the other amendments which, for the most part, aim at widening the objective of the directive. The directive which the Commission has proposed has a limited ambition, namely the creation of a prudential framework with stringent prudential standards to ensure security and affordability and allow for mutual recognition. The directive is not designed to interfere with the way in which Member States organise their pension systems, the extent to which they wish to rely on state pensions and encourage the use of funded pension schemes, as long as the Treaty rules are respected.
In that regard, and in accordance with the approach taken in most other Community legislation adopted in the financial services field, the directive cannot regulate the products offered by pension funds, nor can it define the precise arrangements for the payment of benefits which are often dependent on national tax, labour and social law. Cover of biometric risks, in particular of longevity, is an important aspect of the fight against poverty and insecurity among elderly people. But this directive should not stipulate how and to what extent benefits ought to be paid out or which biometric risks need to be covered by the institution.
Those are the reasons why the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 41, 48, 98, 106, 108, 114, 115, 121, 125 and 126. In the same spirit, the directive should not interfere with the way in which the Member States organise the governance of pension funds. Involvement of social partners in the management of a pension fund is an issue which is sometimes enshrined in national and social law. That is something that cannot be imposed in all Member States by means of a directive. Therefore the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 6, 21, 49, 50, 61 and 101.
Some amendments refer to the need to tackle fiscal barriers as a necessary complement to this directive. Indeed Mr García-Margallo y Marfil put a question to me on that aspect of the directive. As you know, the Commission has recently adopted a communication on the tax aspects which calls for the elimination of unduly restrictive or discriminatory tax rules. The tax and prudential aspects of the crossborder provision of pensions are complementary but need to be dealt with separately. That is why the Commission is not in a position to accept Amendments Nos 30, 31, 32 and 117.
The same comments could apply to the problems linked to the transferability and portability of pension rights to which I referred a little moment ago. That is a crucial aspect of the creation of an internal market for pensions and for cross-border labour mobility. I have said it before and I repeat it now. But it does entail very complex tax, social and legal considerations and that makes it impossible to cover this element under this directive. We will be speaking later on this year or early next year about the Commission initiative in this respect. The Commission cannot therefore accept Amendments Nos 7 (in part), 26, 56, 57, 58 and 74."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples