Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-284"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.11.2-284"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The course of events surrounding this matter for codecision does not, in my view, deserve any beauty prize, but I can nevertheless agree with the compromise that has been achieved at the last moment and to which the Council has already given its approval. It shows that the Council and the Commission were in any event prepared to take Parliament seriously as a co-legislator. As far as the content is concerned, I am no great enthusiast either, but with the compromise proposals we are in any event certainly giving a sharper outline to the definition of the funds that fall under this directive and that are now acquiring a European passport to invest and to offer their services across borders.
In a European context, however, a far more profound discussion is needed about the content and the quality of second-pillar pension schemes. At the end of next week, at the European spring summit, a good start can be made on this not only by sharing information informally, but also by agreeing to reach a consensus on content and convergence of policy. If you want to propagate the second-pillar, fully-funded pensions, you also have to lead the discussion about the structure and the quality of these schemes.
In the Netherlands roughly half of the income of pensioners is provided by fully-funded second-pillar schemes agreed by social partners – in the future even more of it will be. You cannot simply deal with them as if they were financial market products, which invest in the capital market and which have to find their way in the internal market as commercial services. No, the second pillar in the Netherlands expressly belongs with the first pillar, with the social security schemes and must not be lumped together with the individual third-pillar products for those who can afford them. That is a subject for social policy. That was also always on the agenda in the discussion and that should also therefore be developed further by way of the spring summit and those discussions about open coordination.
I do however think that there is also more to do on the subject of internal market policy, because I do not agree with what a number of speakers have said, that is that this directive does not do so much to improve the mobility of employees and the opportunity to take pensions with you in the context of the free movement of employees. On this point far more must happen, not only fiscally, but also where the portability of pensions is concerned. Here too I would like to see a rather more ambitious approach from the Commission that finds its conclusion in legislation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples