Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-292"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.10.3-292"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, may I start by extending warm thanks to both rapporteurs, Mr García-Margallo y Marfil and Mr Kuckelkorn, for the reports they have drafted and the efforts they have made.
Mr President, most speakers have expressed their thoughts on the issue of pensions and I would like to say the following on this matter. In its communication on pensions, the Commission has included proposals on three fronts. The first area is prudential rules for pension funds, and protecting pension scheme members should take centre stage. There is no question that rules could be introduced which could threaten the rights of future pensioners. This is beyond dispute. However, this does not detract from the fact that investment and management rules can also serve the interests of people other than pension scheme members. In fact futile provisions that inhibit the results of investments, do pension scheme members no favours and must be repealed for this reason.
Secondly, the coordination of national tax systems is a condition for cross-border participation. Mrs Peijs has asked me when we are getting mobile pensions for mobile people? Other Members too, such as Mr von Wogau and others, have talked about the need to enhance the mobility of workers within the European Union. As already stated, this does not require harmonisation (a word we need to use with discretion because it conjures up incorrect associations in certain Member States) so much as coordination. So it requires the coordination of tax systems which differ in terms of tariffs. This coordination is a precondition for cross-border labour mobility. The Commission is in the process of drafting a proposal, a general framework, intended to facilitate the payment of contributions by occupational pension institutions which are located in other Member States. This general framework has also been requested, of course, in this meeting by Mr Medina Ortega, for example, while Mrs Peijs has also indicated the need to set up this general framework.
Moreover, I would like to refer to the constant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. This jurisprudence has demonstrated that the restrictions which apply to cross-border contributions and premiums are at odds with the Treaty.
The Commission’s third objective is to remove the obstacles which migrant workers are faced with. More than anything, and this is also underlined in the draft report – rightly so – we should facilitate the transferability of rights from one Member State to another, and this is also very much in the interests of employee mobility, of course.
Mr President, concerning the motion for a resolution, I would first of all like to remark that this Parliament’s support is crucially important if we want to translate these proposals into specific measures. It was with great interest that I read the sterling report of the rapporteur, Mr Kuckelkorn, and the competent committees, a report that so far has covered an extensive and technically complex area. I did not fail to notice that Parliament is backing the lines of policy proposed by the Commission.
With regard to the motion for a resolution, I would like to make the following brief comments. The motion presses for the general introduction of the tax levy model that relies on the taxation of the pension payout whilst providing for tax exemption for contributions to the fund and returns on the fund. The desirability of this model was once again underlined this evening by Mr Blokland, among others. Mr Blokland pointed this out and I share his view on this. This is also echoed in the motion for a resolution. Agreement on this approach would solve the problems of either double taxation or no taxation, which is what citizens and Member States are struggling with at the moment. However, I would like to point out that this issue, as is known, only and exclusively concerns the competences of the Member States and, as such, falls outside the scope of the European Commission. The Commission should ensure, however, if different systems continue to coexist in future too, that this does not have any adverse effects on workers exercising their right to mobility within the Union.
Regarding the amendments tabled, I would like to stress one point in particular, namely the scope of the future proposal – as the directive is not yet finished – for a directive regulating the activities of occupational pension funds. In other words, the question is, and many Members attending this evening’s meeting have spoken about this, Mrs Kauppi, in particular: should this proposal, which we are about to disclose, provide for all forms of pension schemes or should it simply be restricted to pension scheme products which cover the members against biometric risks? My answer to this is as follows, I hope it is clear: we need European prudential standards for all forms of occupational pension schemes. These standards will differ in certain aspects according to the risks actually covered by the institutions. But there is not one single technical reason why these different types of savings schemes could not be combined in one and the same directive. It would, in my view, be incorrect – and the European Union would impose artificial restrictions on itself – if the Commission were to restrict the directive to be proposed to pension schemes which only cover biometric risks and if it were to exclude other pension provisions which, although they are full pension provisions because they cannot be collected before pensionable age, should nonetheless still be excluded from the directive, according to a number of delegates. I believe that this is not right. I think that the European Union would not do itself any favours if the subject of the directive were to be limited to biometric risks and I can honestly see no reason why other forms of pension schemes could not be included in the same directive, as I pointed out a moment ago.
Well now, Member States are thus given every opportunity to give certain pension products preferential treatment by using tax incentive measures, for example. They can also demand that the products offered on their market, even if the institutions offering the service are based in another Member State, meet certain social criteria. Employees and employers within one company or one sector are free to choose, according to the benefits and drawbacks of the products available on their market. In other words, there is still a large degree of freedom for the Member States to arrange the pension systems within their own country as they see fit. This freedom remains. The Commission’s ambition is to create, I repeat, one framework which liberalises the setting up and scope of pension funds for the benefit of all the members of such pension funds.
Accordingly, we need to set up this legal framework within the European Union which enables businesses and future pensioners to choose the products on offer within a transparent market by institutions which are adequately supervised. Adequate supervision is crucial, as is liberalising the scope of pension funds. It is not up to the Commission to specify a pension product in every detail. Indeed this is a matter which falls under the subsidiarity principle, and the European Commission would not wish to do anything which could compromise this principle.
In fact, could I also warmly thank all other speakers this evening – nearly thirty of them – for the comments they have made and questions they have asked. This is an important matter, both the action plan for financial services and the pension issue, and it is heartening to see so many speakers take part in the exchange of opinions.
As far as Mr García-Margallo y Marfil’s report is concerned, I would like to note that, according to the Commission, it is an even-handed report which strikes the right balance between an important political vision and the technical measures required in order to make progress. Perhaps you will allow me to make a few observations in this respect. I hope, at the same time, to comment on the amendments which have been tabled.
The Commission welcomes the attention which the report pays to the need for capital markets to function to optimum effect. In this context, I would also refer to Parliament’s request for streamlined rules for stock market access, market manipulation and revision of the investment services directive. The opening up of financial markets should, naturally, go hand in hand with an adequate level of consumer protection, and this was also requested this evening in this debate. They are thus parallel processes, with liberalisation on one side and consumer protection on the other, and these are the two objectives which you will find wherever financial markets are at issue. These are the European Commission’s twin objectives.
We also have a few specific proposals in this respect. Firstly, we would propose the provision of better information on financial products for citizens. Secondly, we would like to see better and clearer dispute procedures for citizens who are dissatisfied with foreign financial dealers. Thirdly, we would propose better harmonisation for the present national consumer protection rules. The fourth proposal concerns electronic commerce, or e-commerce for short. Policy and legislation should make provision for e-commerce without creating unnecessary barriers. Our citizens, on the other hand, must experience the same level of confidence and protection for transactions on-line as they do off-line. Finally, an adequate supervisory structure is essential to guarantee the financial solvency of our institutions. Does this mean that the European Central Bank in Frankfurt will be given a central supervisory role? The ECB itself is of the opinion that this is not necessary. There is in fact an alternative, to wit, a coming together of supervisory systems.
At this juncture, Mr President, I would like to bring up a remark made by Mrs Randzio-Plath. It is an important remark. Mrs Randzio-Plath has picked up some noises from the OECD and mentioned the word mega-risk. Indeed, I think she is right to indicate the risks which can be inherent in financial movements. She has referred to large mergers which are taking place and, without necessarily sharing her view regarding these risks, I would also like to refer to statements made by Mr Lamfalussi, who is well-known within the European financial system, and who has also indicated the need to be able to cope adequately with the financial risks and system risks which are heading our way. This is a very important matter. I still believe that coordination, cooperation and harmonisation of supervisory systems are enough to withstand the risks, but, once again, in the interest of the case itself, I would like to draw the attention of Mrs Randzio-Plath and other members of this meeting to a report recently drafted by Mr Brouwer, second-in-command at the Central Bank in the Netherlands. This report was commissioned by the Economic and Financial Committee, which, as you are aware, is the gateway to the ECOFIN Council, and the report deals with financial stability. The report will be made available shortly. No doubt you will be able to find it on the Internet. This report deals with the issue which is close to Mrs Randzio-Plath’s heart and once again, I would strongly recommend all members attending this meeting to read it.
Well, most of the points I mentioned a moment ago can be found in the draft report of the rapporteur, Mr García-Margallo y Marfil, and also in many of the tabled amendments. In sum, I would like to say that we will undoubtedly continue to discuss the nuts and bolts but as far as the main points are concerned, I do consider Mr García-Margallo y Marfil’s report as welcome confirmation of the Commission’s vision.
I would now like to say a few words on the way in which a number of these measures need to be implemented, the need to take a close look at our legislative ethos and the way in which legislation is established. Everyone is currently in agreement that we need to drop over-complicated, fossilised legislation, in other words, rules which cannot keep pace with fast market development. Accordingly, the process by which the European Union, i.e. the concerted efforts of Commission, Parliament and Council, lays down rules should be quicker. But how exactly can this be done? There are quite a few different ideas and quite a few misconceptions, because if Mr García-Margallo y Marfil tells me that the European Parliament does not want to give up any of the powers it has only recently acquired, then I naturally share his view. I myself have been a Member of Parliament for a long time, so I fully understand where Mr García-Margallo y Marfil is coming from. In fact, this is not the Commission’s intention, even if it was authorised to take decisions in this respect, which is not the case. Nonetheless, we need to proceed faster in order to lay down the necessary rules. I would invite the Members of this Parliament to come up with any ideas as to how we could speed up and enhance the process. Should we make more use of comitology procedures? Should more weight be given to agreement reached between the institutions upon first reading? At any rate, the Commission intends to keep Parliament and the competent committees informed of the agendas more quickly and more effectively, so that these agendas can be better harmonised and we can speed up the drafting of the required legislation.
In any event, I would like to keep this Parliament informed of all the developments regarding the action plan. Every six months, we send a progress report to the ECOFIN Council and it seems to me that these reports could be used to exchange views with Parliament on this matter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples