Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-02-Speech-1-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010402.7.1-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, may I begin by extending a heartfelt thanks to all speakers and to Mrs Randzio-Plath and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for the fact that this debate is taking place this evening. It certainly indicates the importance which Parliament attaches to the matter of pension funds and also to the issue of problems in the area of taxation.
May I further note that we have almost unanimous agreement – I say “almost unanimous agreement” – on the fact that it is of utmost importance to deal with the tax problems in the area of cross-border pension provision. A fully functioning single market in this area is crucial for the free movement of workers, and it will increase the Union's competitiveness. For this we need of course swift adoption of the proposed pension fund directive, but that will not be enough. We should also be dealing with the tax problems, as I said just now. That is an absolute priority for the Commission and it is precisely why I have proposed to the Commission the adoption of a pension communication.
Today has not been the best time to engage in detailed discussions for the reasons which have been mentioned. The pension communication has not yet been adopted by the Commission. Mr Kuckelkorn criticised the Commission for being so tardy; he mentioned the delays. May I say that the Commission is running into important manpower problems. The financial services action plan is a considerable task consisting of 42 measures. The Lamfalussy report deals with ways in which that can be speeded up, but we are now running into manpower problems. It is not the first time that I say this here tonight, but it is one of the reasons why we have not been as quick as we had wanted to.
Tonight is perhaps too early for a detailed discussion of that communication. I am looking forward to presenting it to you and hearing your detailed comments once that communication has been adopted.
Mr Karas said that the directive or the communication could have included more aspects. He mentioned social aspects and so on. As Mr Huhne said – I know the saying better in French than in English
. He gave the English translation of that saying. Let me say to Mr Karas: if we had to deal with all those aspects then Mr Kuckelkorn would be even angrier with the Commission because the delay would have been that much longer. Mr Karas says that this is
it is just one step in the right direction and of course he is right, as I said in my opening remarks. It is one step in what the Commission thinks is the right direction; other steps will follow and must follow in view of the demographic time bomb which is due to go off in ten years or so.
That is why it is a good thing that the Stockholm European Council conclusions made mention of the fact that Member States now have the right to look into each others' affairs as far as pension funds are concerned because, thanks to the mechanisms of economic and monetary union, what happens with pension obligations is of importance to Member States, since all must avoid having deficits which are larger than 3%, or deficits which do not obey the Dublin rules that they should tend towards zero or even be in surplus. That is a very good part of the European Council conclusions to which I should like to draw the attention of this Parliament.
Mr Kuckelkorn said, "Would you please stand up to the Council of Ministers?" The Commission does little else but stand up to the Council of Ministers but only, of course where this is necessary. We do not stand up to anyone for the sake of it but only when we think that the Commission is right and the Council of Ministers, or the majority thereof, is wrong. Certainly the Commission would not be hesitant in such cases. Mrs Randzio-Plath drew attention to the matter of whether there should be a directive or communication, as did other Members of Parliament. Tabling a directive on the matter of taxation would not solve anything since Member States would not be able to agree to it unanimously. We are here in the area – I am talking about the fiscal aspects of pension funds – we are here in the area of unanimity. Does this Parliament really think, does Mrs Randzio-Plath really think, that we can get unanimity in the Council on important fiscal aspects of pension funds?
The chances of getting a unanimous vote in Council on an ambitious directive on the fiscal aspects are similar to the prospects of a snowball in hell. The Council may give unanimous approval to a much smaller and insignificant directive but that is not what Parliament or the Commission wants. The Commission is ambitious, wants to have a proposal with meat in it and that means that it is driven to issuing a communication and not a directive. The area of unanimity is such that we must find appropriate instruments for a proposal that contains any meat at all. If we merely wanted a qualified majority vote in Council then a directive would have very limited scope and would only cover posted workers.
Lastly, I have not yet addressed Mr Huhne. May I express the gratitude of the Commission for his support. He would have liked the Commission to be somewhat more robust. The Commission seeks a maximum of robustness but it must take into account what opinions are prevalent in the Council. The directive that the Commission has put forward deals with the security for the contributors, prudential requirements, as Mr Huhne knows; it deals with the freedom of pension funds to invest where they would like and in which currency; it deals with the European passport for the pension fund industry. These are significant issues and as Mr Huhne knows full well, the sums involved are considerable. In conclusion, the Commission now finds itself caught in a crossfire between Mr Kuckelkorn and Mr Huhne and therefore perhaps the golden mean is the right place for the Commission to be."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"ein Schritt"1
"le mieux est l'ennemi du bien"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples