Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-289"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.11.2-289"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I welcome the fact that, following years of tough negotiations between the Commission, the Council and Parliament – and thanks to our rapporteur, who has been indefatigable in his search for compromises – approval of this pensions directive is now within reach. The Council has given an assurance that it is able to agree to the package before us. That is crucial, because only in that way can a lengthy conciliation procedure be avoided which, for everyone concerned – employees, employers and financial service providers – might have the kind of damaging effect that this long overdue European regulation might have again postponed.
I could have lived with the common position because the directive concerned is of course designed primarily to regulate, without barriers to competition, the cross-border activities of pension fund providers, and not the product itself. It was essential to devise a directive that, on the one hand, did not, from the outset, force these financial service providers into a suffocating straightjacket of regulations, for example governing investment policy; and that, on the other hand, organised supervision in such a way that the benefits paid to policyholders were secured in the best way possible. I believe we have to some degree succeeded in doing this.
It is not our task here to prescribe what kind of supplementary pensions are to be provided and for what sums. Naturally, the directive can be made to reflect a pious desire for the arrangements concerning occupational retirement provision also to cover the famous biometric risks such as disablement, widow’s and orphan’s pensions etc. It should, however, be left to companies and their employees to determine what they wish to cover that is not already covered by the public social security system – in other words, the first pillar – in the full knowledge that higher and diversified benefit entitlements naturally have their price.
Naturally, it should also be possible – as, by the way, it is in the case of MEPs’ pension fund – for capital to be paid out as a lump sum at retirement age, without its being prescribed what, specifically, the capital is to be used for. If, when I am old, I want to use the money concerned to fulfil a life-long dream, such as going on a long journey around the world, I should be able to use the money for that purpose. I must of course be certain that I do not then have to become a burden on the state.
I am sorry that we were unable to bring to fruition a concern, to which I and other MEPs had committed ourselves, that financial institutions in addition to pension funds and insurance companies should be able to offer their services in the field of occupational pensions insurance. That would have led to a level playing field and so to greater competition. The package does, however, oblige the EU Commission to examine how matters stand in the market for occupational retirement provision in order to make it possible for other financial services providers too to come within the scope of this directive.
That being said, this directive has done nothing to bring about a common market in supplementary pensions. We definitely need a regulation to prevent the double taxation of premiums and benefits, and I hope that we shall have the considerable judgment required in order to devise a sensible regulation quickly."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples