Activities of Syed KAMALL related to 2012/2234(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on an Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions
Amendments (17)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that regulation of adequate, sustainable retirement income is the sole responsibility of the Member States in question and that the Commission should, where appropriate, encourage the Member States to look critically at their systems and engage in exchanges of experience and best practice;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on those Member States which are lagging behind to make their systems demographically sound as soon as possiblein the process of strengthening their pension systems to recognise the challenges posed by ageing populations;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Welcomes the recognition that Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 pension schemes are to be encouraged, given the need for individuals to take responsibility for their own finances and futures;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Calls on the Commission to clarify the legal basis for any proposals relating to Member State pension systems at the earliest possible moment;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the strengthening of the EU's social dimensionrecognition that Member States must strengthen their pension systems in the face of long term demographic changes, market instability and ultra-low interest rates and stresses the validity of the principle of subsidiarity in the areas affected by Initiative 1;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that 2nd pillar systems must be secure, for the sake of employees; notes in some Member States, employers' already support their pension schemes through protection schemes, segregation of assets, independent governance of schemes and priority creditor status of pension schemes ahead of shareholders in case of company insolvency; argues that these provisions offer the security that employees need without the costs associated with quantitative capital requirements;
Amendment 40 #
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, making clear that harmonisation should only be explored where there are possible benefits in terms of encouraging free movement of workers.
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Rejects regulatory harmonisation of quantitative or qualitative precautionary measures at EU level on the basis that pension systems are deeply embedded in the cultural, social, political and economic circumstances of each Member State;
Amendment 53 #
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 on taking into account the differences between the systems and comply strictlyshould not only comply with the principle of subsidiarity but also with the principle of proportionality in terms of the financial, administrative and technical burden involved;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers with regard to qualitative precautionary measures that proposalany review of the IORP directive should be restricted to areas concerning corporate governance and risk management and thoseareas regarding transparency and information disclosure obligations are useful, subject to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality being respected;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is strongly opposed to 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; notes that in order to meet these requirements, employers would have to redirect capital away from other investments such as infrastructure to pension funds, which could have serious implications for EU competitiveness and economic growth;
Amendment 83 #
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; cautions against the HBS being used as a means of introducing Solvency 2 style provisions; categorically rejects these as components of EU-level regulations on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Rejects the establishment of equal competition between life insurance and 2nd pillar systems, as the latter are not financial service providers, have a fundamentally different risk profile, do not seek to make a profit and can therefore not be compared with life insurance providers;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses that maintaining appropriate provisioindividuals must take responsibility for their own fin the 1st pillar, with its spirit of solidarity, should be the number one priority in the Member States and that the 3rd pillar can play a supplementary role as the demographic pressure decreases; rejectancial futures and that on this basis Pillar 1 pension schemes should act as a safety net; notes that Pillar 2 and 3 pension systems are more sustainable in the longer term and emphasise the importance of individual responsibility; therefore welcomes the reduction of the 1st pillar and a corresponding increase in the 2nd and 3rd pillar;
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls onHighlights that the Commission to investigate the vulnerability of 3rd pillar systems to crises and to put forward proposals to reduce the riskhas already indirectly introduced an wide range of regulations to encourage better risk management for 3rd pillar systems but notes there could be scope for further work to be done in this area such as enabling portability for workers' pensions;
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Regards discriminatory taxes as a major barrier to mobility and calls for their swift withdrawal while noting limited EU competence in the area of member state tax policy;
Amendment 132 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Stresses that unsustainable 1st pillar systems pose a major threat to national budgets; therefore welcomes the greater emphasis being placed on Pillar 2 and Pillar 3 systems;