Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-15-Speech-2-508-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110215.28.2-508-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, allow me to start this debate by thanking my colleagues for their extremely pleasant and fruitful cooperation. I would also like to extend those thanks to the advisors of the parliamentary secretariats and, of course, our own staff.
On top of that has come the financial crisis, poor results on bond and equity markets and the low interest rates that are putting guarantees on expected pensions under pressure.
The answer which is being prepared by the Commission is as follows: the application of more stringent solvency requirements is – and I will say it here once again – not the right answer. Good supervision: yes! What we need first, though, before adopting any laws, is an in-depth impact assessment of the effects of solvency.
In this connection, I also wish to point to the debate on derivatives. You cannot link derivatives and pension funds, just like that. In a pension fund, derivatives are used to hedge risks. Hence, not for speculation. So even there, Commission, you must look before you leap.
Turning now to the third pillar. It seems to me that we should not harbour unrealistic expectations. You can only use individual saving opportunities if you also have the money. However, what we do want to do is create greater awareness, and you get greater awareness when people are informed about their pensions, so we also need a tracking system.
Madam President, the European internal market is absent from the third pillar, so we have to do something about that, too.
Finally, I would like to make two concluding comments. On adequacy: we cannot achieve that at European level, Member States must do that. On transferability: in my opinion, an open labour market can only function with more free commuter traffic which does not put employees who exercise that right at a disadvantage. Though there, too, we need transferability: yes, but with an adaptation period, so we need new contracts and then an impact study.
It was not easy to manage such a large number of amendments. I still think that we have been successful, however, because we have now come up with something concrete in response to the Green Paper. A secure, sustainable and adequate pension, which is the guarantee that European citizens want. It is not as simple as that, however, as pensions are, and will remain, the responsibility of Member States.
However, that does not mean that we are not allowed to express our opinions or table any proposals through the open coordination method, which may entail revision.
The sustainability of pension systems is under threat, with an inverted population pyramid being the trend: we now have more older people, senior citizens are living longer and therefore, fewer people are left to finance the pensions. The pay-as-you-go systems of the first pillar are the perfect expression of the solidarity between the generations, and they will continue to remain the most important in the future, too.
However, on top of the burden on the younger generation, there is undeniably also a pressure on collective budgets and that, in turn, is having repercussions on the Stability Pact, whether we like it or not.
Member States are raising their retirement ages. I am rejecting the proposals for European indexation of pensions to increased life expectancy. I am doing that because of significant variations in life expectancy between Member States and because, even if we could index the two, this would not be socially responsible, in my opinion.
What we have found, though, is that we must all move towards a higher retirement age, and that process must take place at Member State level, in conjunction with our social partners.
There is also another side to this coin – and I see, Elisabeth, that I have your attention – and that is that we must ensure that older people remain in work. That, therefore, means that we should focus more efforts on flexible career schemes and flexible retirement schemes and that we must improve and adapt conditions, if older people are to be able to continue working.
The Member States that have based their pension systems on the second pillar have been saving, often through joint employer-employee schemes, and, in some cases, in the new Member States, through mixed schemes. The funds have been put into savings funds, pension funds or they appear on companies’ balance sheets. The saving and accrual systems are under less pressure than public finances, but there too, increased life expectancy is posing a problem."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples