Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-11-Speech-2-276"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030311.11.2-276"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, since everyone has been so polite in thanking one another, I should also like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Karas, who has certainly made efforts in the first, and now also in the second, reading to reach a compromise in the committee and in plenary. I would also back this compromise that has been reached if, under the leadership either of the rapporteur or of a delegation from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, it were to be introduced into plenary immediately following negotiations with the Commission. In those circumstances, I would support it. A submitted compromise, or a wording presented by the Commission, has a history to it, however, and such compromises or wordings seem to me to be matters of dispute within the ECOFIN Council where, according to what I have been told, one or other of the Member States was, in the end, quite prepared to use another veto.
From the time of the Green Paper up until now when the second reading is imminent, the directive has had several names. The name of the directive really does not matter now, however. What matters, rather, is the content. Allow me therefore again to extract a couple of items from one of the Commission’s or, as the case may be, Commissioner Bolkestein’s proposals, for example from the proposal, as they put it, in expectation of reaching retirement age, which legitimises also those payments made before arrival at retirement age. What this has to do with pension payments, you will first need to explain to me again.
When it comes to the biometric risks, there is clearly no European solution, particularly not in terms of guaranteeing the amounts paid in. That means that the entire capital market risk has been transferred to the policyholders, which is to say to the employees, and that is something I am unable to accept. There is no justification for saying, as has already been implied once here in Parliament, ‘Give me your money; trust me; I shall invest it and, if it disappears, that is your bad luck’.
I am particularly perturbed by the fact that, in the compromise proposal, the Commission has removed the policyholders’ obligation, upon request, to provide information about their current pension rights. I do not think that what we have here is a good compromise, and I should have liked us to have had the opportunity of a conciliation procedure with a view to arriving in the end at a sensible European regulation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples