Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-14-Speech-1-140"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051114.17.1-140"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the Member States that have not or that have only partially communicated implementing measures to the Commission will be subject to infringement proceedings for non-notification under Article 226 EC. It should be emphasised that such infringement procedures concern only the communication of national measures and do not refer to the quality of the implementation. Once complete notifications have been received, the Commission will examine the national implementing measures, which might at a later stage lead to infringement proceedings due to incorrect implementation of the directive.
Different choices have been made in the 25 Member States as to the existence, level and funding of state schemes, occupational schemes and individual arrangements. There is not one EU-wide answer to the challenges of the ageing society. Appropriate solutions must be adapted to Member States’ different pension systems. Therefore, the final responsibility lies with Member States.
The Commission could be of help to Member States by ensuring that the European regulatory framework for financial services supports the emergence of secure market-driven responses to retirement financing. Bottlenecks must be removed so that assets earmarked for retirement can be managed as efficiently as possible, thus allowing Europeans to enjoy the highest possible payouts and annuities on retirement. The directive fulfils this objective. In the second half of next year, the Commission will present a white paper in the field of UCITS, which also play a role in the pension arena.
Other initiatives that aim at improving European pension provision include the recently adopted proposal for a directive on improving the portability of supplementary pension rights, and the ongoing infringement cases in the field of equal tax treatment of pension contributions.
The directive does not confer any comitology powers on the Commission. It is not a ‘Lamfalussy’ directive. Therefore, no mandates are given to the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors – CEIOPS – nor will any implementing measures be adopted by the Commission. As there is no practical experience with the directive yet, it is too early to take a position on the need for comitology and, therefore, on the role CEIOPS could take in this.
However, CEIOPS has an important role to play in the context of Article 21(2) of the directive and supervisors have the duty ‘to collaborate closely with a view to facilitating supervision of the operations of institutions for occupational retirement provision’. In that respect, CEIOPS’ Occupational Pensions Committee is currently drafting a multilateral cooperation protocol, such as already exists for insurance. A draft is out now for a second open consultation with stakeholders. It is expected to be adopted by the CEIOPS members’ meeting in February 2006.
In the past two years, the Commission has organised two meetings with Member States in order to help them implement the directive. To that end, the discussions focused on issues identified by Member States, the Commission and other stakeholders as a potential source of difficulty for the transposition and which may give rise to a diverging interpretation by the Member States. On the basis of those meetings, the Commission has concluded that although some articles appear to cause problems, that is not the case for all Member States. Hence it is difficult to define any particularly problematic provisions. This is not surprising, since Member States’ pension structures and arrangements differ significantly. Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that the implementation of Article 20 – cross-border activities – causes problems for many Member States. However, it is too early to assess whether the origin of those problems lies in the formulation of the legislative proposal as adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, or just in different interpretations in the various Member States.
In 2006, a first meeting will be organised to discuss further some of the issues which have been identified as problematic and essential during the examination of the national implementing measures. The in-depth analysis of the national measures transposing the directive has not yet begun. At this stage the work focuses on the quality of the partial or full notifications. An indication as to the extent to which Member States have adopted additional quantitative investment rules and elements that might jeopardise the proper functioning of the directive can only be provided once most Member States have notified. As the Commission expects a large number of Member States to communicate their legislation to the Commission before the end of this year, such an indication can only be provided in the course of 2006.
A number of defined benefit pension schemes took advantage of the 1990s bull market to reduce the level of contributions or even take contribution holidays instead of building up their financial reserves. When the inevitable market downturn occurred, some of these reserves were found to be insufficient. In response, sponsoring undertakings and Member States’ supervisory authorities employed different solutions: increased contributions, top-up payments, reduced indexation of pension rights, changes in the pension schemes’ rules and the closure of schemes to new entrants.
Irrespective of the remedies applied, all stakeholders again realised that a pension fund involves a long-term commitment to employees and pensioners. This recognition has only been reinforced by other developments, including the application of IAS 19 for sponsoring undertakings and stricter rules for the supervisory valuation of technical provisions. Sponsoring undertakings have realised the need to achieve improved cost control and more stable earnings in order to match their pension promises.
A shift from traditionally defined benefit final pay schemes to pension schemes whose cost can be more easily controlled can indeed be observed. However, there is clear evidence that this shift has not been solely towards purely individual defined contribution schemes. Hybrid schemes combining defined benefit and defined contribution elements are also available. The rationale behind all these changes is better cost control and more stability in earnings for the sponsoring undertaking.
There is a trend towards some blurring of the borderline between the three pension pillars, not just between the occupational second pillar and the individual third pillar, but also between the second pillar and the statutory first pillar. This is not a problem, as the pillar structure is only a general classification system, and schemes where assets are allocated to individuals are to be found in all three pillars. This is not the case in every Member State, as pensions reflect specific cultural and historical situations. Thus, although the basic differences between the first, second and third pillars will remain, the solutions envisaged may be equivalent."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples