11 Amendments of Sophia IN 'T VELD related to 2012/2234(INI)
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph D a (new)
Paragraph D a (new)
Da. whereas the study 'Women living alone an update', requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, shows the implicit risks of some of the existing pension arrangements in aggravating gender imbalances, especially for women living alone;
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 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that, when Member States’ pension arrangements do not take into account the particularities of women living alone or gender in general, predominantly women are indirectly discriminated against and exposed to higher poverty risks;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
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 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers the further development of variations to Solvency II, such as the Holistic Balance Sheet Model (HBS), to be useful only if specific national requirements are complied with and if they are presented as recommendations; categorically rejects these as components of EU-level regulations;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
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;