13 Amendments of Philippe LAMBERTS related to 2012/2234(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Emphasises the likelihood of a long- term, low-growth economic scenario, which, coupled with increasing demographic pressure, inevitably means that a given level of income post retirement will require higher contributions during an employees working life. This will require Member States to consolidate their budgets and reform their economies under austere conditions in order to provide a poverty- proof retirement income under the first pillar; Underscores that adequate provisioning and solvency requirements are essential to ensure that pricing of second and third pillar pensions and savings properly reflect the increasing risk of overreliance on unsustainable assumptions of economic growth rather than adequate contributions;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Considers it to be a fundamental principle that first pillar pensions must be poverty-proof, available to all, whether they have been active or not in the labour market, adopting a lifecycle approach which takes into account the whole career along a life-course, including career interruptions and changes, so as not to punish people with "non-standard" working lives and to recognise the contribution, which is both socially and economically beneficial, of voluntary work and other unpaid care work;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that regulation of adequate, sustainable retirement income iacross the sole responsibility of the Member States in questingle market by the Member States is essential to the stability of pension provisions and free movement of labour in the Union and that the Commission should, where appropriate, encourage the Member States to look critically at their systems and engage in exchanges of experience;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that implementing structural reforms aimed at having people work more and longer is not the only feasible way to generate the tax revenues and social and pension premiums needed to consolidate Member State budgets and to fund adequate, safe and sustainable pension schemes; Points out that adjustments to general taxation as well as paying proportionally higher contributions for given benefits are equally valid components of a policy response to the economic and demographic challenges faced;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. RejectsCalls for regulatory harmonisation of quantitative or qualitative precautionary measures at EU level, following a thorough analysis of the provision of all three pillars of pensions in the Member States, with the aim of establishing such minimum standards as a necessary to promote adequate provisioning, a level playing field and worker mobility within the Union;
Amendment 55 #
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 comapply strictly withthe principle of 'same risk, same rules' as well as the principle of proportionality in terms of the financial, administrative and technical burden involved;
Amendment 62 #
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 thiin favour of Europe-wide minimum harmonisation of requirements concerning own capital and realistic valuation of both assets and liabilities;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. StresseAccepts 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 acceptresult in lower company pensions for to stop them altogethera given level of contributions; emphasises that this is notit is in the interests of employees; therefor for the econcludes that there must be no provisions at EU level aiming to apply Solvency II to 2nd pillar systemomic and demographic realities to be honestly and accurately reflected in the provisioning and risk management of pension providers;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers the further development of variations to Solvency II, such as the Holistic Balance Sheet Model (HBS), toshould be useful only ifnsitive to specific national requirements are complied with and if they are presented as recommendations; categorically rejects these as components of EU-level regulations;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Rejects the establishment of equal cognises that given the competition between life insurance and 2nd pillar systems, as the latter are not financial service providers and can therefore not be compared with life insurance providersit is essential that products with the same risks be subject to the same rules to avoid misleading beneficiaries and provide them with the same level of prudential protection;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Welcomes discussion of the establishment of cross-border pension tracking services for the 2nd pillar to make it easier for workers to move between member states without losing track of their pension rights;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Emphasises the need to broaden the base by opening schemes to non-standard workers and self-employed, reducing barriers to access such as long vesting periods and age restrictions; stresses the need to remove discriminatory elements from the existing occupational pension schemes points to the fact that some Member States have increased barriers to social security including pensions during the crisis;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses therefore that cross-border pension tracking services are only worthwhile if they arshould be extremely efficient, legally and administratively small-scale and highly cost-effective;