Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-14-Speech-1-138"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051114.17.1-138"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to say a few words on our reasons for raising this oral question.
As we explained in the text, many Member States have not implemented this directive. Discussions are taking place between the Commission, the services concerned and the Member State representatives, and in the context of CEIOPS. However, Parliament as co-legislator should also claim to have a role in interpretations if there really are problems with the directive. This is why we asked you to come here to discuss this with us, Commissioner.
Reading between the lines, you will also note our concern that Member States are not taking implementation of the directive seriously. We also urge you to make an important issue of the Pensions Directive – because it is a separate issue specifically concerning financial markets and social policy – particularly where respect for national, social and labour laws are at stake and where host country rules, rather than the country of origin principle, are prevalent. We are eager to be involved closely in the outcome of the implementation and the possible interpretations.
We raised two other issues: the involvement of CEIOPS and the state of affairs regarding the prudential rules, as well as possible additional quantitative rules added by Member States, but I will not go into details on those.
A very important point for me, not just as spokesperson for the PSE Group, but also as a Dutch delegate, is my concern over developments in occupational pension schemes due not only to financial market developments but also to regulatory developments: there is a trend to move from defined benefit to defined contribution systems.
This is a very fast-growing development in the UK and Ireland, where in particular new participants in schemes are not given a defined benefit system. That is not possible in the Netherlands because we have collective systems and obligatory systems in most cases, and we are very attached to them.
I do not agree that a shift from defined benefits to defined contribution is a necessary development, let alone a desirable one, because the quality of pension schemes is a major asset of the European social model. The first pillar in the Netherlands would be incomplete and insufficient without a second pillar of such high quality. It is also important that this tradition give the best overall results. Therefore, these blurred borders are also a concern for us and we would invite you to clarify your interpretation of these developments and how you will debate this issue further with us."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples