Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-278"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.11.2-278"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe a directive on supplementary retirement provision businesses should have been established to provide a degree of social protection. The European Union does not have such a mandate however. Consequently, this report forms part of the work towards the objective of creating an internal market for financial services. This is absolutely clear. Above all, this report will allow supplementary retirement provision institutions in Britain and elsewhere to benefit from their position and offer cross-border services.
We voted against this report at the first reading at the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The document certainly sought to correct the shortcomings concerning social obligations but it made investment risks worse. The common position of the Council better safeguards the prudential requirements for investment, but it does not meet Parliament’s demands on social issues. We have called for this common position to be rejected. We think that this report must be reconsidered in the context of the serious crisis affecting the stock markets at present. This is affecting pension funds. It poses a risk to the level of benefits and is causing contributions to be increased. Confidence in these pension fund systems will not be restored without strict management rules and mutual insurance structures for the guarantees. It is also necessary for these structures to be covered by European collective conventions between social partners.
I would like to say that Mr Karas has worked very hard on this report and has ensured that the text is balanced. At the end of the day, however, we believe the amendments have a limited scope. This is down to the agreements between the different components of the political groups and what the Council deems to be acceptable to avoid conciliation. The report is an improvement on the common position, and the amendment proposed by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance strengthens the prudential requirements for investment. Nevertheless, the fundamental and essential slant of the text remains."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples