Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mr Fatuzzo on his report on a subject I know is close to his heart. I have two points to make, and they are in actual fact the same two points Mr Kuckelkorn touched upon, one concerning the open method of coordination for pensions and the other concerning the internal market for supplementary pension schemes. Open coordination, through which the Member States set common objectives and guidelines for future policy in the pensions area, analyse developments and exchange experiences, is in many ways a fruitful form of cooperation. It is especially heartening that the debate on future pensions is no longer concerned only with national finances and with how expensive it will become over the next ten years because of the many pensioners. It is a good thing that the Member States are talking together about how we ensure that good, secure conditions for pensioners can be afforded in the future. However, I wish nonetheless to highlight the problem that exists with open coordination, namely the democratic deficit. The objectives and guidelines agreed by the Member States for future pensions are initially drawn up by so-called ‘high level’ representatives in the shape of officials despatched by the governments of the Member States. The agreements are then confirmed by ministers of the Member States who, it must then be assumed, have popular mandates. It is a case of having to ‘assume’ because there is no democratic debate on this matter here. When we adopt legislation in the EU, there are public debates in the Member States, that is to say in the national parliaments. There is a system for consulting special interest groups so that the politicians have an objective basis for making decisions. Here in the European Parliament, we have our open debates so that the public can hear and understand what the arguments are behind our decisions and so that special interest groups can make their presence felt in the debates. Open debate and this basis for decision-making are totally absent when countries cooperate by means of open coordination. If we are serious about this cooperation and want to see it reflected in actual policy, then the doors must be thrown open when decisions are made concerning objectives and guidelines. The national parliaments must be far more actively involved, and local authorities and special interest groups must play their part. The European Parliament can also play a positive role in this cooperation, for it is in this context that we of course bring all cultures together and look at things in their overall context. It cannot be emphasised enough that efforts must be made to democratise open coordination, and I would urge the Council to address this subject. Cooperation on a subject such as future pensions, in particular, demands transparency, for this is a subject that deeply affects us all, and I believe that a lot of the fear concerning the possible implications of pension reforms could be exorcised through greater openness. The second point I wish to mention briefly is that of calling upon the Council and the Commission to bring about the speedy adoption of the Directive on Supplementary Pensions. It must, of course, be the right form of directive that we adopt. We must avoid constricting rules that hamper existing schemes. With that in mind, however, it is important to get things moving. By means of common rules, we can make life easier for employees in companies that operate across borders and can promote competition and efficiency on the part of pension providers.

Political group: ELDR