Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-282"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.8.2-282"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the report by Mr Andersson stresses the need to take account of the poverty suffered by many pensioners and the inequalities between the pension entitlements of men and women. With this in mind he recommends a sufficient level of minimum guarantee pensions and increasing the employment level among women in a bid to promote equal opportunities. I and my group agree with these parts of the report. Mr Andersson even indicates that he is anxious to ensure that a balance is struck between social and financial concerns. Unfortunately, this undertaking is contradictory and causes the rapporteur to call into question fundamental social principles in the name of financial criteria.
Indeed the vote in the committee was not unanimous. We did not vote in favour of this report in the parliamentary committee because it supports the Commission's proposal to raise the retirement age. In so doing, it aligns itself with the liberal approach, manifest at many European Councils in the past, which advocates greater flexibility and increased working time. We are opposed to this kind of reform, which imposes increased working time and yet does nothing to resolve the employment issue. The report claims that the Member States have taken measures that are heading in the right direction, which is to say towards increased working time. Given that a majority of workers in France, Austria and Germany have demonstrated that they reject a move towards increased working time and funded pension provision, do we wish to settle the European debate on pensions without public involvement?
With my group's support, we are tabling amendments that seek to reflect these aspirations. In them, we of course oppose raising the statutory retirement age and extending the contributions period. We are also opposed to funded pension provision, which provides no guarantee of an income and undermines the principle of solidarity inherent in pay-as-you-go schemes. We propose that contributions be calculated taking into account how hard the work is and the number of dependent children. Finally, we propose studying new ways of financing legal pension schemes.
The argument of increased life expectancy is used to broach the issue of funded pension schemes; this does little to mask the financial appetites of multinationals in favour of this option. There are other ways to resolve the issue of financing in the long term that are more viable and characterised by greater solidarity. We propose, for example, extending social security contributions to all revenue, with the amount adjusted depending on whether the companies are creating jobs or not. These proposals do not appear to me to be entirely irresponsible.
In conclusion, I would say that faced with mounting criticism of the choices made in this field by Europe's Heads of State or Government, what matters now is to listen to the demands that people are making and not to go against them, unless we wish to see the people of Europe grow even more disaffected with the Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples