BETA

Activities of Thomas MANN related to 2010/2239(INI)

Plenary speeches (2)

2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/2239(INI)

2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/2239(INI)

Amendments (74)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that the existing European coordination and legislative framework for pay-as-you-go pension systems and for occupational pension schemes is fully sufficient, has operated successfully for over 50 years in some cases and does not need to be extended;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Stresses that statutory PAYG schemes have proved their stability and reliability in the test of the financial and economic crisis;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Emphasises that many Member States face major challenges as to how they ensure that pensions can be safeguarded in accordance with citizens’ expectations; stresses that the Member States should be supported at EU level primarily through the exchange of information on how to overcome these challenges;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Emphasises that pensions and pension systems are without a doubt matters that come within the exclusive competence, responsibility and decision-making power of the Member States; calls on the Commission to ensure clearly that it strictly respects the subsidiarity principle in this policy area;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)

1e. Notes that harmonisation, additional regulation, monitoring or supervision of pensions systems under the first and second pillars constitute an infringement of the subsidiarity principle and make no sense owing to the totally different arrangements and legal bases in the Member States; in particular with regard to voluntary occupational pension schemes, they would even put the continued existence of such schemes at risk;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)

1f. Considers that, in view of demographic trends and the need to ensure that pensions can be paid for, it is necessary for more people to participate in the labour market and to do so for longer; observes that life expectancy is growing; but rejects an automatic adaptation mechanism in the form of a (Europe- wide) linkage between life expectancy and the statutory retirement age, since the statutory retirement age must always be judged against the background of the social and labour-market policy conditions prevailing in the Member State concerned;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 g (new)

1g. Considers that it is impossible and counterproductive to set a harmonised retirement age at European level since this age depends largely on the specific conditions prevailing in each Member State; stresses instead that effective measures must be takento combat the sharp rise in unemployment in many Member States;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas a nuanced assessment of the implications of the crisis for the Member States and retirement pension systems is needed, in particular because there are substantial differences between Member States’ retirement pension systems, ruling out any possibility of proposals for improvements and modernisation which would be valid throughout the EU; whereas, further, in recent years some Member States have already prepared the ground for the measures needed to modernise retirement pension provision,

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Insists that Member States better include the EU dimension in their policies with a view to improving the functioning of the internal market and facilitating workers' mobility;~~deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Firmly opposes new EU legal provisions which seek to standardise, call into question or hamper the continued implementation of functioning state pension systems;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Notes that the existing European coordination and legal framework for pay-as-you-go pension systems and occupational retirement pension systems is entirely adequate, has been operating successfully in some cases for more than 50 years and does not need to be expanded;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Observes that pension reforms are necessary in the context of demographic ageing and the financial and economic crisis, but notes at the same time that the first objective of a reform should be to ensure adequate retirement income for all;deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Emphasises that pay-as-you-go state pension systems have demonstrated their stability and reliability by passing the stress test constituted by the financial and economic crisis;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Rejects, in the light of the subsidiarity principle and the differences between state retirement pension systems, any attempt to define the concept of ‘adequacy’ in the context of pensions, occupational pensions or retirement incomes;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Rejects a definition of the term ‘adequacy’ in the context of pensions or retirement income on the grounds of the subsidiarity principle and the diversity of national pension systems;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that many Member States face enormous challenges in ensuring that pensions meet citizens’ expectations; emphasises that the EU should help the Member States to overcome these challenges first and foremost by fostering exchanges of experience;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that the EU has a strong role to play in developing a definition of an adequate retirement benefit, in the form of a set of goods and services that older people need to enjoy for a decent life;deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Sorely misses any mention of~~Points out that SMEs, which are one of the main sources of employment in the EU ~~and can, must and wish to~~, make a major contribution to the sustainability and adequacy of pension systems;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Recognises that there is no perfect pension system, but is convinced that a balanced multi pillar system of public, voluntary work related and voluntary private as well as funded and unfunded should be found; ~~is of the opinion that each Member State should define a minimum target income level after retirement so as to avoid raising poverty among ageing population;~~

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that ~~pensions and pension systems are a primary responsibility of the Member States~~the Member States indisputably have sole responsibility for and exclusive decision-making powers in respect of pensions and pension systems; strongly urges the Commission to comply strictly with the subsidiarity principle in this policy area;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

MOBILITY 11a. Emphasises that, while mobility is becoming increasingly important and necessary in national labour markets, it plays a lesser role at European level and cannot, therefore, be used to justify the introduction of EU minimum standards for occupational pensions, particularly given that EU minimum standards would jeopardise the continued existence of voluntary occupational pension systems in some Member States;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Observes that the EU lacks a set of common criteria which illuminate the various pension systems and that there is therefore a lack of transparent supervision applicable to all systems;~~deleted

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11b. Firmly rejects any new EU statutory provisions that call into question voluntary occupational pension systems or make it harder for them to continue to operate – such systems being, not financial-market-based entities, but rather employers’ voluntary social welfare systems which are not profit-orientated and are insolvency-proof under the terms of national rules and arrangements (such as the Pension Guaranty Associations in Luxembourg and Germany);

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 c (new)

11c. Emphatically rejects EU minimum standards for the acquisition and receipt of occupational pension entitlements in the case of employer-financed occupational pension schemes; rejects in particular any reduction in, or ban on, time restrictions for pension entitlements when people change employer, as either option would lead to a 30% increase in costs, which would spell the end of employers’ voluntarily funded pension schemes, thereby harming employees’ interests too – voluntary schemes of this type being worth a total of more than EUR 450 billion in Germany alone;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 d (new)

11d. Underlines the fact that employer- financed occupational pension schemes are, most importantly, ways in which companies generate loyalty and create a bond with their employees; as demographic change continues, sharply reducing supply on the labour market, occupational pension provision will become even more important than it already is, right across Europe; in Germany alone, more than 65% of all employees have an occupational pension;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 e (new)

11e. Stresses that in the case of employer- funded occupational pensions a vesting period of at least five years must apply, since they serve only as a means of staff retention and a reward for staff loyalty;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 f (new)

11f. Takes the view that EU rules on transferability of occupational pensions must apply only to fully funded pension schemes; accrual-funded pension schemes and others that are not fully funded must continue to be untransferable;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that, in the light of the widely differing arrangements and legal bases in the Member States, the standardisation or additional regulation or supervision of retirement pension systems under the first and second pillars is also pointless; points out that in the specific case of voluntary occupational retirement pension systems any such move might jeopardise their continued existence;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 g (new)

11g. Calls for a Commission study on the extent of cross-border labour mobility;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 h (new)

11h. Calls for an examination of whether pension insurance associations such as those that exist in Luxembourg and Germany to protect the second pillar in the event of bankruptcy can be recommended to other Member States as a hedging mechanism and best practice;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 i (new)

11i. Calls on the Commission to have an impact assessment carried out with a view to analysing what additional costs the introduction of EU minimum standards and standardisation measures for the second pillar (e.g. changes to the vesting period, new provisions governing dynamisation, inclusion of pension commitments in the scope of the pension fund directive) would generate in the Member States;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 j (new)

11j. Notes that pension entitlements under the first pillar are governed by the relevant coordinating regulation, and that for second-pillar pensions solutions to the problem of the EU-wide transferability of employee-financed occupational pensions would be desirable, but proposals concerning the portability of employer- financed occupational pensions should be rejected as unnecessary;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 k (new)

11k. Considers that in view of the widely differing nature and the complexity of the second-pillar schemes basic conditions could be laid down to govern the EU-wide transferability of employee-financed occupational pensions;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 l (new)

11l. Notes that less than 60% of all EU citizens are insured under second-pillar additional retirement pension schemes, but that the importance of the second pillar in the area of pensions has been recognised, and that the second pillar must be developed further, since it represents a means of organising additional capital-based retirement pension provision in an efficient and cost- effective way;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 m (new)

11m. Is opposed to a European agency or regulatory authority for occupational pensions, as the subsidiarity principle must be strictly adhered to, which precludes European supervision and control;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 n (new)

11n. Calls for occupational pensions provided voluntarily by companies to be exempted from EU minimum standards in order to prevent their reduction or elimination and to protect the interests of employees;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Takes the view that, given the structural differences in pension systems and differences in performance targets between the Member States, there can be no single market for occupational pensions in the European Union;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Calls on the Commission to clarify when a cross-border activity is triggered, also taking into account the provisions of the Posted workers Directive and the position of expatriates in general, and that national social and labour laws, including compulsory membership, applies only to pension schemes; in addition calls on the Commission to further harmonise rules concerning technical provisions, in particular the technical rate of interest, in order to prevent supervisory arbitrage; suggests that Member States should allow ring fencing;deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

~~9. Stresses the importance of individualising pension entitlements in such a way as to guarantee the economic independence of men and women;~~deleted

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Emphasises that a thoroughgoing reform of the Pension Fund (IORP) Directive (2003/41/EC) is currently neither necessary nor appropriate, since the framework governing cross-border activity established by the directive is entirely adequate; no dramatic increase in worker mobility between Member States is likely; most IORPs are active at national level as welfare schemes run by individual firms;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Takes the view that the Pension Fund (IORP) Directive (2003/41/EC) should be revised only once the Member States have gained sufficient experience with its application; in addition, any revision should be carefully thought-out, since there is a danger of placing an excessive burden on IORP providers and institutions; at present the only improvement required is a clarification of the definition of ‘cross-border activity’, which is interpreted in different ways by some Member States;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 c (new)

13c. Emphatically opposes any move to bring firms’ in-house welfare benefit schemes, for example ‘book reserve schemes’, within the scope of the IORP Directive, on the grounds that they do not constitute financial market products; the application of IORP rules would lead to a huge increase in costs and, as a result, to the abolition of firms’ in-house schemes, a development which cannot be in the interests of employees and is blatantly at odds with the aim of strengthening retirement pension provision;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 d (new)

13d. Emphasises that the Pension Fund (IORP) Directive (2003/41/EC) must maintain confidence in pension promises predating the new law, so that there must no ex post tightening up of the rules on own capital and other supervisory provisions, as this would pose a threat to the existence of voluntary occupational retirement pension schemes; pension commitments should not fall within the scope of the pension fund directive, since no payments are made to external pension funds and, in the event of insolvency, national safeguard mechanisms take effect;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Considers that Solvency II is a valuable starting point for developing a solvency regime for IORPs; underlines that such a regime needs to be adapted to the specificities of pensions, in particular as regards the conditionality of pension rights, the duration of pension portfolios and the dedicated purpose vehicle operating a homogenous product portfolio;deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Is firmly convinced that the Solvency II rules governing life assurance must not be applied to IORPs (e.g. pension funds), since such systems are not financial institutions, life insurance undertakings or traditional investment funds, but rather employer-funded voluntary welfare schemes which are not intended to generate a profit, in respect of which the social partners have far-reaching codetermination powers, and which are already secured against insolvency by special protection and guarantee systems (such as the Pension Guaranty Association in Germany and Luxemburg), as proven by the stress test constituted by the financial crisis; applying the Solvency II rules to IORPs would increase costs by 40 to 60%;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Opposes the establishment of a European guarantee fund, on the grounds that such a system cannot take proper account of specific national characteristics and differences between countries;

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Considers the qualitative elements of Solvency II to be of great importance for their application to IORPs; notes that this applies in particular to requirements in relation to good risk management;deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

~~16. Observes that pension funds, including IORPs, are still regulated and supervised as stand alone financial entities, although in practice conglomerates undertake these activities;~~deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 19

19. Calls on the Commission to closely follow the implementation of this Directive, take action against Member States where justified and when reviewing the Directive to take account of the specific situation concerning the financing obligations of the employer vis- à-vis the employee or its pension fund; is of the opinion that as a principle employee's pension rights provided by employers should be fully funded and separated from that employer;deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 20

20. Stresses that the questions related to the solvency regime for pension funds, including IORPs, and a pensions guarantee scheme are closely linked to a sufficient resolution of the issues related to Article 8 of the Insolvency Directive;deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Notes that national budgets are under severe pressure and that many Member States are reviewing the efficiency of expenditure; calls on Member States to consider introducing compensation so that all taxpayers who cannot achieve the level of ambition in the first and second pillars are entitled to a supplementary offset of pension contributions in the second pillar or of contributions to private pension schemes in the third pillar;deleted

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 23

23. Recalls that President Barosso has put pensions as a priority already during his first term; is of the opinion that so far a coherent and comprehensive approach was lacking; welcomes the Green Paper as a first step to such an approach; looks forward to concrete legislative proposals in the near future;deleted

2010/12/10
Committee: ECON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Considers that, in view of demographic trends and the need to ensure that pensions can be paid for, it is necessary for more people to participate in the labour market and to do so for longer; observes that life expectancy is growing ~~and calls on Member States to cons~~; rejects, however, an automatic adjustment mechanism in the form of a (Europe-wider) link~~ing~~age of the statutory retirement age to life expectancy, as the retirement age must always be judged in the light of the social and labour-market situation in a particular Member State;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Considers it impossible and counterproductive to set a uniform retirement age at European level, as such an age is very dependent on specific circumstances in the individual Member States; stresses instead that unemployment, which has risen substantially in many Member States, must be combated effectively;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Stresses the growing importance of mobility on national labour- market ~~mobility in the EU, as well as the need for such mobility~~s, as well as the need for such mobility, but notes that at European level this is a factor of relatively minor importance, which therefore cannot be cited by way of justification of the introduction of EU minimum standards for occupational pensions, particularly bearing in mind that EU minimum standards jeopardise the survival of voluntary occupational pension schemes in some Member States;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Firmly opposes new EU legal provisions which call into question voluntary occupational pension schemes or hamper their continuation; observes that these schemes are not, after all, financial market schemes but a form of voluntary social provision by employers, not based on any intention of making a profit, which is immune from insolvency thanks to national rules and systems (such as the pensions insurance association in Luxembourg and Germany);

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Expressly opposes EU minimum standards for the acquisition and preservation of occupational pension entitlements if the occupational pensions have been financed by the employer; rejects in particular any reduction of, or prohibition on, periods in relation to which occupational pension entitlements no longer lapse when an employee changes employer; observes that both would increase costs by up to 30%, which would mean an end to the occupational pension schemes voluntarily financed by businesses, which cannot be in the interests of employees either; observes that in Germany alone, such voluntary schemes have a total volume of more than €450 billion;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 c (new)

22c. Stresses that employer-financed occupational pensions are primarily instruments of loyalty to the business and serve to retain employees; notes that, due to demographic change and the associated substantial reduction in the availability of labour, occupational pensions, which are already of great significance, will become even more so throughout Europe; notes that, in Germany alone, 65% of all employees are already affiliated to occupational pension schemes;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 d (new)

22d. Stresses that the Pension Funds Directive must protect legitimate expectations in the form of pre-existing commitments, so that it is not acceptable for the requirements relating to capitalisation and other supervisory aspects to be retrospectively rendered more stringent; stresses that this would jeopardise the survival of voluntary occupational old-age pension schemes; observes that direct commitments have no place within the scope of the Pension Funds Directive, as no payments are made to external pension funds and as national safety mechanisms operate in the event of insolvency;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 e (new)

22e. Stresses that a vesting period of at least five years must apply to employer- financed occupational pensions, as they solely constitute an instrument to bind employees and reward loyalty to the business;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 f (new)

22f. Observes that EU rules on transferability of occupational pensions may only apply to pension systems with full capital cover, while systems financed by liability reserves and other systems without full capital cover must continue to be excluded from transfer;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 g (new)

22g. Calls for a Commission study on the extent of cross-border labour mobility;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 h (new)

22h. Calls for investigation into whether pensions insurance associations, such as those that exist in Luxembourg and Germany to safeguard second-pillar pensions in the event of insolvency, can be recommended to other Member States as security models and best practice;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 i (new)

22i. Calls on the Commission to commission an impact assessment analysing the additional costs entailed in the Member States through the introduction of EU minimum standards and the standardisation of aspects of second-pillar provision (e.g. vesting period changes, new indexation arrangements and the inclusion of direct commitments within the scope of the Pension Funds Directive);

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 j (new)

22j. Notes that the structural differences between pension systems and differing performance targets in the Member States rule out any EU internal market for pensions or occupational pensions;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 k (new)

22k. Firmly rejects the inclusion within the scope of the IORP Directive of any form of in-company social cover, e.g. ‘book reserve schemes’, because such schemes do not constitute financial market products; emphasises that applying IORP provisions would generate huge cost increases, thus leading to the abolition of in-company schemes – an outcome which cannot be in the interests of employees and which is glaringly at odds with the political aim of improving pension provision;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 l (new)

22l. Calls for companies’ voluntary occupational pension schemes to be exempt from EU minimum standards in order to prevent their curtailment or abolition and to protect employees’ interests;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Notes that while, in the first pillar, pension entitlements are governed by the relevant coordinating Regulation~~, but that, for~~ and, in relation to second-pillar pensions, arrangements ~~are needed to ensure portabilit~~for the EU-wide capital transferability of employee-financed occupational pensions are desirable, proposals to make employer-financed pensions portable should be rejected as unnecessary;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Considers that, because of the diversity and complexity of the various second-pillar systems, conditions need to be laid down concerning the portability of acquired pension entitlements in the sense that portability begins when new contracts are concluded, an application for transfer being approved only if the actuarial sum transferred is to be placed in a fund whose purpose is payment of old-age pensions; considers that tax must be calculated and paid in the Member State where the entitlements have been accumulated;deleted

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Considers that, because of the diversity and complexity of the various second-pillar systems, conditions ~~need to~~could be laid down concerning the portability of acquired pension entitlements in the sense that portability begins when new contracts are concluded, an application for transfer being approved only if the actuarial sum transferred is to be placed in a fund whose purpose is payment of old-age pensions; considers that tax must be calculated and paid in the Member State where the entitlements have been accumulatedEU-wide transferability of employee-financed occupational pensions;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25

25. Notes that ~~in many Member States~~, while fewer than 60% of all EU citizens are covered by supplementary second-pillar pension schemes, the importance of second-pillar ~~pension~~ provision has been recognised~~, and that it must also be ensured that such provision meets European conditions and criteria applicable to second-pillar provision~~ in many Member States, and that the second pillar needs to be further developed because it provides a context for the efficient and cost-effective organisation of supplementary capital- covered pension schemes;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Calls on the Commission to investigate how employees’ right to participate in the second pillar can be facilitated ~~and to make proposals for developing such a pillar where it does not yet exist~~;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

~~30. Supports the establishment of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA); stresses the need to equip it so that it can perform effectively the tasks entrusted to it;~~deleted

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)

30a. Opposes the establishment of a European agency or supervisory authority for occupational and other pensions, as these are policy areas in which the principle of subsidiarity must be strictly observed, thus ruling out European supervision and control;

2011/01/10
Committee: EMPL