Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-290"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.11.2-290"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I hope it is not a disappointment to Mrs Lulling that the Commission has the last word.
I am please to say that the Commission can accept Amendments 1, 5, 13, 15, 22 and the package of amendments 25 to 37. The commission cannot accept the other amendments, which for the most part aim at widening the scope of the directive.
The directive does not intend to interfere in the way Member States organise their pension systems. It considers that the directive should not regulate in a restrictive way the products offered by pension funds. Nor should it define the precise arrangements for the payment of benefits. The directive must also respect the diversity of occupational pension systems while setting some strict standards to ensure their mutual recognition, but without imposing unnecessary costs for pension funds. That is why the Commission rejects Amendments 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 18.
The directive should not experiment by allowing for the possibility of extending the scope of this directive to institutions that today do not offer occupational pension products. Institutions that already benefit from a single market framework should not be covered by this directive, with the exception of life insurance companies, for which Member States must retain the option to apply this directive for activities linked to pension provisions. That is why the Commission cannot accept, regrettably, Amendments 2, 6, 8, 10 and 17.
The directive must make full reference to an effective system to ensure efficient exchange of information between competent authorities and promote consistent enforcement of the directive, but that must be done without prejudice to possible future structures. That is why the Commission cannot accept Amendments 7, 19, 20, 21 and 23.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment 24 tabled by the Group of the Greens and the European Free Alliance since it considers that pension funds, as very long-term investors with low liquidity risks, should not be overly restricted in their investment in non-liquid assets such as shares.
The Commission cannot accept the motion for rejection of the common position, since it considers the common position to be a finely balanced compromise and recommends its adoption to the European Parliament.
I welcome the fact that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Parliament agree on the compromise text, which may not satisfy everyone. At least it is an agreed text. That is what we need on this most important subject. Parliament is entitled to hear what the Commission thinks about the various amendments, but before doing that I should like to say something to three Members who have spoken.
First, the issue of taxation referred to by Mr García-Margallo y Marfil, Mr Pronk and Mrs Lulling. The follow-up to the pension taxation communication of April 2001 has developed along two tracks.
There has been a discussion process in the Council concerning the Commission's suggestions to improve the exchange of information on cross-border pensions and to deal with double taxation and double non-taxation. The process did not, I am sorry to say, lead to tangible results. A number of Member States could only accept any sort of agreement if the issue of residence taxation of pension payouts versus source taxation was also tackled. On that issue Member States remained deeply split.
Secondly, the Commission has been examining whether or not the national taxation rules on the deductibility of pension contributions are compatible with EU law. Here the Commission kept its promises to take action. Last month the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to Denmark and five letters of formal notice to Belgium, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal. In all those Member States pension contributions paid to foreign funds are not tax-deductible, while contributions paid to domestic funds are. That is a clear case of discrimination. The Commission is convinced that Community law prohibits such a difference in treatment. I can assure Parliament that these infringement cases are a priority for the Commission, which will do whatever is necessary to open up the markets effectively for cross-border pension provisions.
To Mr Blokland I say that, according to my information, the amendments which he has put forward have not been accepted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and therefore do not - it seems to me - form part of the discussion tonight. Therefore the Commission has no opinion on them.
To Mr Purvis I say that this directive is based on two principles: first, the principle of compliance with prudential requirements of the home Member States and second, compliance with the social and labour legislation of the host Member States, i.e. where the company is established. That includes provisions on biometric risks, but that should not be an obstacle to cross-border activity.
Once again, the compromise arrived at means that there will be no conciliation. That is a good thing. One never knows where conciliation might lead. Personally, I have very vivid memories of conciliation from the takeover directive and am very anxious not to repeat that experience.
Let me turn to the amendments submitted to the vote."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples