Activities of Philippe DE BACKER related to 2012/2234(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on an Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions PDF (353 KB) DOC (250 KB)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that 2nd pillar systems must be secure, for the sake of employeemust ensure solidarity between generations and reflect the modern work patterns;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that there are considerable differences between the Member States in terms of the composition of the 2nd pillar. and its providers;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Demands that EU legislative initiatives should respect the choices made by Member States with regard to the providers of second pillar pensions;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Insists that 2nd pillar pensions, regardless of their providers, should not be jeopardized by EU regulation that does not take into account their long-term horizon;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that Commission proposals regarding quantitative and qualitative precautionary measures are only of value if they lay stress onshould takinge into account the differences between the systems and comply strictly with the principle of proportionality in terms of the financial, administrative and technical burden involved;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is strongly opposed toBelieves that Europe-wide harmonised requirements concerning own capital or evaluation; rejects any review of the Pension Funds Directive (the IORP Directive) which aims to achieve this of pension funds may be beneficial and is looking forward to the review of the Pension Funds Directive (the IORP Directive) in this respect; however, does not consider the application of Solvency II requirements to 2nd pillar systems the right instrument;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that the application of the quantitative Solvency II requirements of Solvency II poses a great risk to pillar 2 systems, since these may, as a result of increased costs, be forced in future to accept low; therefore opposes the application of Solvency II requirements to 2nd pillar systems ; however, company pensionalls for to stop them altogether; emphasises that this is not in the interests of employees; therefore concludes that therEuropean approach in setting capital requirements for the pillar 2 systems that will provide for the msust be no provisions at EU level aiming to apply Solvency II to 2nd pillar systemsainability of all pension providers and promote cross-border activity;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises the likelihood of a long- term, low-growth economic scenario, which will require Member States to consolidate their budgets and reform their economies under austere conditions; recognizes that this scenario also impacts the financial strength of employers and the active population; subscribes, therefore, to the view expressed in the Commission's White Paper that to the extent that it is possible people will need to build up complementary occupational and if possible private pension savings; points out that, to encourage people to continue saving more and longer for their pension, it is important to maintain and improve fiscal incentives;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that the application of quantitative Solvency II requirements poses a great risk to pillar 2 systems, since these may, as a result of increased costs, be forced in future to accept lower company pensions or to stop them altogether; emphasises that this is not in the interests of employees; therefore concludes that there must be no provisions at EU level aiming to apply Solvency II to 2nd pillar systemrules that do not fully take into account the long-term should not apply to 2nd pillar systems managed by pension funds or insurance companies;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Rejects the establishment of equal competition between life insurance andcognizes that, although there are differences between pension funds and life insurance providers, similar 2nd pillar pension systems, as the latter are not financial service providers and can therefore not be compared with re organised and offered by both pension funds and insurance companies alifke insurance provider a number of Member States;
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that, according to the OECD, there is a lack of mobility between the Member States and that only 3% of working-age EU citizens live in another Member State;* 1 OECD (2012), "Mobility and migration in Europe", p. 63. In: OECD Economic Surveys: European Union 2012, OECD Publishing. 1 believes that the lack of legal certainty for the transfer of pension rights constitutes one of the main obstacles to labour mobility in Europe;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. StressWelcomes therefore that cross-border pension tracking services are only worthwhile if they are extremely efficient, legally and administratively small-scale and highly cost-effectivee Commission's intention to promote efficient cross-border pension tracking services;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii
Paragraph 4 – point ii
ii. a funded, employment-related, mandatorywide- spread collective second-pillar pension, preferably governed by (sectoral) social partnersgoverned on the level of the sector or on the level of an undertaking;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recognises the importance of all pension fundproviders as substantial and reliable long-term investors in the EU economy; emphasises their significance for achieving the Europe 2020 strategy's headline targets concerning economic growth, more and better jobs and attaining socially inclusive societies; urges the Commission not to jeopardise the investment potential of pension fundproviders when introducing or changing EU regulations, especially when reviewing the directive on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Welcomes the call in the White Paper for developing funded, complementary occupational pensions and private savings; stresses, however, that the Commission should rather recommend collective mandatory occupational pension savings, as collective (second pillar) pension systems − usual- possibly governed by (sectoral) social partners −- allow for solidarity within and between generations, whereas individual schemes do not; stresses the need to start building up complementary occupational pension systems now, despite the crisis;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses the low operating costs of (sector wide) collective not-for-profit occupational pension schemespension schemes managed on a large scale, as compared to individual pension savings schemes; emphasises the importance of low operating costs as even limited cost reductions can yield substantially higher pensions;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Urges the Commission to go further in assisting Member States and social partners to inform citizens properly about their accrued pension entitlements, and to raise their awareness and educate them so that they are able to make well-informed decisions as regards future additional pension savings; calls on the Commission to complement its EU-wide work on pension tracking services by conducting an EU impact assessment to understand the economic benefits of Member States and pension providers providing consolidated pension information to citizens in one accessible place; calls on the Member States to formulate and enforce strict disclosure rules regarding the operating costs and risk and return on investments of pension funds operating within their jurisdiction;
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Notes the Commission's proposal to assess possible linkages between Regulation 883/2004/EC on the coordination of social security systems and ‘'certain’' occupational pension schemes; highlights the practical difficulties experienced in applying the said regulation to the 27 Member States' markedly differing social security systems; points to the complexity of applying a coordination approach to the tens of thousands of very divergent pension schemes operating in the Member States, and therefore questions the practicability of applying such an approach in the field of pensions; stresses the importance of researching the diversity of pension systems in the EU member States;
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to work ambitiously to set up and maintain tracking services that enable citizens to track their employment- and non-employment-related pension entitlements and thereby make timely and well-informed decisions on additional, individual (third-pillar) pension savings; calls for coordination at EU level to ensure adequate compatibility of the national tracking services; welcomes the Commission's pilot project in this field; and calls on the Commission to ensure that the pilot is complimented by an impact assessment into the economic benefits of the provision of consolidated pension information for EU citizens in one accessible place;