Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-14-Speech-1-141"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051114.17.1-141"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, that was a highly technical description of something that is going nowhere. That there is such dragging of heels when it comes to the transposition of the directive on occupational retirement schemes is not only disappointing but also – or so I believe – negligent.
Occupational pension schemes are burgeoning within the European Union, and the directive itself offers nation states enough scope to be able to organise them properly. The population statistics are changing dramatically, and many states are, for ideological reasons, progressively withdrawing from retirement and healthcare provision, the idea being that private provision should step into the gap. If pensions are to be secured in future, other areas of capital-building retirement provision will have to be promoted and managed with vigour.
If occupational pension schemes are to be a stable means of making additional provision for old age, there must be a guarantee of the risks to employees being reduced in real terms, for they already risk losing their jobs and must not also risk their own voluntary contributions, and the contributions made by the companies they work for, being put in jeopardy. That is why there must be an explicit separation guaranteed between the businesses and the institution for occupational retirement provision, so that, for example, the entitlements acquired are not lost in the event of the business going bust or the employee changing job of his or her own accord.
A single market for occupational retirement provision organised on a European scale would mean more mobility for workers, and that is precisely what they want. Alongside the decoupling of the risk of job loss from the risk of employees’ claims on the amassed capital in the event of the business going into administration, there must be minimum standards for occupational pension institutions, which must involve explicit information rights for both the supervisory authorities and the employees.
Both those entitled to benefits and those actually in receipt of them must be entitled to receive information on the way in which their scheme’s capital is invested or on the state of the stock market. Employees should also, if possible, have a right to be consulted by their companies when the choice of these institutions is made. If the objectives named in recitals 18 to 23 are achieved, that not only puts the workers in a more secure position, but is also what modern stock market supervision in the Community requires. Now, Commissioner, is the time for action, and action is what we are used to getting from you."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples