Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-20-Speech-3-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070620.2.3-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should like to make a few observations. First of all, with regard to the German Presidency’s analysis as to why it was so difficult to bring this issue to a successful conclusion. Something that was, as I see it, wrong right from the start is that exceptions were agreed on, not least by your own country, and that this set a process in motion, as a result of which other countries also started to insist on exceptions, which eventually resulted in a situation that nothing was left standing from the directive. I think this should be mentioned in the analysis.
Secondly, turning to the role of employers, social partners and pension funds themselves, I am a staunch advocate of them taking the necessary steps, but as Commissioner Špidla already said, they have missed their turn. I do think, though, that if we adopted this directive now without incorporating this element of value transfer, this would act as an incentive in that they would revisit this element of their own accord, and I should like to hammer this particular point home with the necessary emphasis. I was also opposed to Article 6, as formulated by the Commission, which would grant an individual right to value transfer, but as it should be regulated well, the necessary efforts do have to be made.
As for dormant rights, Mr Mann, it is definitely not the case that the Netherlands was opposed to this component for the reason that it would not be fundable. We have resolved this rather well in our own country in that dormant right holders also share in the profits which their premium contributions yield. Dutch people who have worked in Germany, for example, or other countries, and have been mobile have no access to the rights they accrued in those countries. This is unfair treatment. I think that this is why Article 5 about dormant rights is so important; I am therefore deeply disappointed that both the German Presidency and Mr Mann are now trying to get these rights to apply to future dormant rights only. The argument of retroactive applicability is real nonsense. Pension rights are determined every year, not least on behalf of the active participants. This can be done in exactly the same way for dormant participants. This is nothing to do with retroactive applicability; this is simply about adjusting regulations and this is a fair share which they need to have in it.
In short, the Oomen-Ruijten report receives our unqualified support, and as far as we are concerned, I hope that it does not remain stuck, like the Posting of Workers Directive, in the quagmire which Mr Cocilovo mentioned, but is now really being addressed by the Council."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples