Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.11.2-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is true that first-pillar pension funds are more sensitive to demographic change and that second-pillar pension funds are more sensitive to changes in the conditions prevailing on the stock market and in the financial markets. That is of course clear, and so it is also right that we have two pension systems alongside one another, counterbalanced by the third-pillar system. Meeting our requirements as it does, though, this directive is extremely important. I am also very pleased with this compromise. In particular if you work cross-border – and more and more companies are no longer national companies, but have actually become European companies – there is an absolute need for this matter to be dealt with; you can actually describe this as a sort of constitution for occupational retirement provision in Europe. It is quite clear that not everything is regulated.
Some speakers have been addressing just one point, that we should do nothing social at all any more and that Member States should actually submit to the system that applies in the country that does least. Fortunately, that is not the case in this compromise, or, for that matter, in the proposals beforehand, which is why I think that the compromise on biometric risks is very fortunate. In my country it has up to now been customary to insure biometric risks. If someone from Great Britain suddenly appears on the market and does not insure any biometric risks and makes no mention of that and only talks of pots of gold, as appears to happen in the United Kingdom, then it could be that people quite mistakenly make inadequate retirement provision. It must be possible to prevent things of this kind and so that is why the compromise is exceptionally good.
With regard to the provision of information, there has been criticism of the fact that we have gained less than we originally sought. That is certainly true. It is perhaps a pity, but I believe that it is nonetheless a very significant advance that we are bringing about in this area certain common European standards rather than standards that are intrinsically American.
Finally, Mr President, the tax issue. This we have of course left aside, as is, I think, far and away the best thing to do in political terms. I believe that with its announcement the Commission has acted correctly, that is by examining the extent to which the present taxes are not discriminatory. We have recently had the Danner ruling. That is one of those rulings that lead to Member States thinking twice before taking discriminatory tax measures against pension funds that happen not to be established in their own country. While we still have a long way to go, I think that all in all we have certainly made a start. If we were to reject this compromise, then we will not even have a start and then I believe we will not be doing any good as regards the social objectives that are there as well."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples