EU PENSIONS
17 January 2011
The ECON committee held a consideration of the amendments to the
draft opinion on the EMPL report entitled "Towards adequate,
sustainable and safe European pension systems". Please find a
summary of the debate of this INI report below.
George Sabin Cutaş (S&D, RO) began the debate by saying that
this report is a challenge for the future of Europe. He noted that
there are many amendments and that he held a meeting with the
shadows last week. Following this, he believes that compromises
should be possible. However, he will not support the deletion and
he argued that they should be trying to improve the text rather
than delete it. There will be another meeting with shadows on
Wednesday. He concluded by saying that he wants to see a “European”
report.
Dirk Sterckx (ALDE, BE) argued that paragraph 6 needs to be
looked at in detail. Should the EU be putting forward an amount
that would be deemed an acceptable pension level? He is opposed to
this. He then explained that a sustainable economic system with
sustainable public finances must underpin a sustainable pension
system. As such, sustainability is the key issue. With this in
mind, the stability and growth pact (SGP) needs to be considered.
Moving on to the mobility of pensions, he urged caution and said
that how to introduce an appropriate method of oversight needs to
be considered. He then noted that solvency II is clearly a problem
and that Skinner’s amendments is interesting. He concluded by
saying that they should avoid unnecessary difficulties and work
closely with the EMPL committee.
Vicky Ford (ECR, UK) spoke about public pension liabilities and
the SGP. She argued that it is essential to ensure that the wording
is compliant with that in the economic governance reports. It is
essential to avoid changing the rules for countries. She would also
like to see an examination of the open method of coordination. If
this is working, it would be preferable to strict rules. As regards
to solvency II, it cannot simply be applied 100 per cent to
pensions, but pillars II and III could be looked at. It is
essential to get the right tools. She concluded by calling upon the
commission to look at its own pension scheme.
Danuta Jazłowiecka (EPP, PL) noted that the importance of
amendments indicates the importance of the matter. Taking the EPP
position into account, it is essential to look at the subsidiarity
principle and a feasibility study. She noted that adequate pensions
are important, but this should not be prescribed at the EU level.
She called for the elimination of pre-mature retirement, but the EU
should not set the age of retirement. The age of retirement should
be determined by the length of lives and the needs of the work
force. Regarding the mobility of pensions, it is important to not
block the operations of pension institutions. Concerning capital
requirements, she would like to see unified rules.
Peter Skinner (S&D, UK) said that the report goes in the
right direction. Elements of solvency II could be applied and this
includes the transparency pillar and the quality of regulators.
However, the diversity of pensions across the EU means that not all
of solvency II could be applied. He noted in this respect that the
IORP directive does not apply to all member states. It is essential
for the EU to properly understand its pension industry. As regards
to capital adequacy rules, this would be preferable for the pension
operators than the application of solvency II. He concluded by
saying that solvency II cannot be fit onto the pension
industry.
Thomas Mann (EPP, DE) noted that there are differences in the
EMPL and ECON approaches. ECON should focus on sustainability and
the issue of mobility. He called for the retention of subsidiarity.
He then said that it is essential for different countries to be
able to take different approaches. As such, solvency II cannot be
applied. He then said that company pension schemes must be stable
and sustainable. He argued that it is important to build upon the
status quo. He then said that occupational pension schemes are
important for employers in attracting staff.
Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (EPP, HU) noted that subsidiarity and
sustainability are important. However, the EU should ensure the
comparability of pension systems. She argued that pensions are a
highly politicised subject, but the sustainability of pensions
should not be so. She explained that pensions have costs, but it is
essential to be able to judge them. She then called for an
examination of the issue of discrimination against women.
Sari Essayah (EPP, FI) spoke about pension liabilities and asked
if it should be included in terms of the SGP. She said that in the
light of the crisis, this would not be ideal in the short term, but
it could be done in the long-term. Subsidiarity is essential and
solvency II cannot be applied. She concluded by saying that pillar
I pensions should be excluded from IORP completely.
Pervenche Beres (S&D, FR) noted that the commission has been
very interventionist in the creation of the European Semester, as
it is calling for lower wages and higher retirement ages. The
commission has no business in demanding higher retirement ages. The
real debate at the EU level should be the mobility of pensions. If
this issue is not resolved, there is no point in talking about the
mobility of workers. Moving on to the issue of regulation, the way
that the funds are used is essential and she noted that the
governance of pension funds is not really dealt with in the report.
She concluded by saying that the commission should not be getting
involved in matters of social cohesion in the member states.
George Sabin Cutaş (S&D, RO) noted that pensions remain a
national competence. He has no intention of not respecting
subsidiarity. However, the EU should be better included in national
policies.
Information and documents for consultation
Next steps:
- 25th January 2011: Vote in ECON
- 1st February 2011: Vote in EMPL
- 14th/17th Feb 2011: Plenary vote
