Activities of Thomas HÄNDEL related to 2012/2234(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on an Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions PDF (353 KB) DOC (250 KB)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on an Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions
Amendments (58)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
Citation 8 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 9 October 2008 on promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty, in the EU1, __________________ 1 OJ C 9E, 15.1.2010, p. 11.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the provision and regulation of adequate, sustainable retirement income which maintains standards of living 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;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A – indent 1
Recital A – indent 1
- the sheer gravity of the pension challenge presented by an ageing population, a challenge severely aggravated by the financial and economic crisis;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A – indent 4
Recital A – indent 4
- the moral obligation of the Member States to guarantee public (first-pillar) pensions which guarantee an adequate standard of living - if needed, complemented by minimum income provisions - to provide a decent income at least above the poverty line for all citizens;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A – indent 6
Recital A – indent 6
- the need to consider linking the statutory retirement age to life expectancy while at the same time enablingenable workers to lead longer, healthier working lives with a view to extending working careersso that they can continue working until the statutory retirement age;
Amendment 14 #
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 possibleto bring their systems into line with the requirements of a pension which maintains the standard of living and, in doing so, to place the emphasis on the 1st pillar, which must provide adequate and secure pensions with a broad financial basis, in accordance with productivity trends;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A – indent 10
Recital A – indent 10
- the importance for Member States to take concrete steps to implement the EU 2020 strategy, as raisingncrease employment, productivity and inclusive economic growth, is imperativen order to attaining adequate and sustainable pensions;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the worst financial and economic crisis in decades has turned into an acute sovereign debt crisis that hascurrent austerity policy is an attempt to resolve the worst financial and economic crisis in decades, one which has put a serious strain on public finances and severely affected the pension incomes of millions of EU citizens;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that the Commission and Member States should pursue a different strategy with regard to retirement age, which should initially lead to a general rise in employment rates, broaden the financial basis of pension systems and above all bring about greater participation of higher incomes in pay-as-you-go and tax-financed systems in the 1st pillar and gear adjustments in pensions to the development of productivity;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the first cohort of the so-called ‘baby boom generation’ has reached pensionable age, causing the demographic challenge to no longer be a future challenge but today’s reality, causing the number of people aged 60+ to increase by more than 2 million per year – double the amoundemographic change is a long- term process which the highly developed industrialised societies have for decades been offsetting by means of higher productivity; whereas, for example, in Germany in 1900 there were 12 workers for every one retired person, but whereas in 2000 this ratio had gone down to four workers for every one retired person and it ais compared to previous decadesexpected to diminish further to two workers for every one retired person by 2040-2050;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the demographic indicators used to determine whether pension systems are viable are much less important than is generally claimed: for example, between 1950 and 1990 in West Germany real GDP increased by 473 %, whilst over the same period the number of people in employment rose by only 42 %, meaning that only 9 % of the increase in production over that period could be accounted for by ‘demographic factors’, whilst the increase in the real capital stock, productivity, etc. made up the remaining 91 %; whereas, therefore, the decisive factor determining the ‘sustainability of pensions’ is ‘economic’, not ‘demographic’, in nature;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas even set apart from the economic crisis, long-term demographic and productivity trends point to a low- growth economic scenario for Europe, withand whereas if the current austerity policies are continued economic growth rates significantlycould be lower than those attained during previous decades;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas, according to the Commission and leading economists, maintaining average annual labour productivity growth of 1.1% to1.4%, as in recent decades, is key to safeguarding the sustainability of pension systems; whereas further productivity reserves could be mobilised by increasing energy and resource efficiency (factor 4 by 2020-2025 and factor 10 by 2050); whereas such overall productivity growth can make it possible for value added to go on increasing despite a diminishing workforce, and can provide a sound basis for a fair redistribution of revenues between economically active and non- active persons (such as pensioners, children, schoolchildren, students, etc.);
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that 2nd pillar systems must be secure and transparent as regards costs and risks to society as a whole and to the individual, for the sake of employees;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas rising unemployment has hurt pay-as-you-go pension schemes, while funded systems are hit by disappointingas a result of normal stock market fluctuations, crashes and/or the financial and economic crisis funded systems are hit by losses of their entire capital or unpredictable financial markets returns;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas in its Green Paper the Commission partially admitted the failings of funded schemes when acknowledging that ‘the return rates and solvency of funded schemes have been affected through falls in interest rates and asset values: private pension funds lost over 20% of their value during 2008’, that ‘many still remain far off the required solvency levels’ and that, moreover, ‘several sponsors of occupational pension funds were hindered in their ability to honour their obligations’;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)
Recital E b (new)
Eb. whereas it has become clear that the concept of a three-pillar pension system, as called for by the EU, the IMF and the World Bank, consisting of a scaled-down first pillar comprising state schemes which guarantee only a basic pension, a second pillar comprising funded occupational pension schemes, and a third pillar based on private pension provision, does not work, a state of affairs which undermines the security and adequacy of pension provision as a whole, and whereas the financial and economic crisis has rendered meaningless the asset growth projections of fund models linked to this concept;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. RejExpects regulatory harmonisation of quantitative or qualitative precautionary measures at EU level, which should render transparent the costs and risks of the 2nd and 3rd pillars to society as a whole and to the individual and should have the aim of safeguarding the accumulated entitlements of employees;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that a Commission proposalsDirective regarding quantitative and qualitative precautionary measures are onlywould be of value if ithey lays stress on taking into account the differences between the systems and comply strictlyies with the principle of proportionality in terms of the financial, administrative and technical burden involved in contrast with costs and risks to society as a whole and to the individual;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is strongly opposed to Europe-wide harmonised requirements concerning own capital or evaluation; rejectFavours any review of the Pension Funds Directive (the IORP Directive) which aims to achieve thiimprove transparency and information and the protection of entitlements arising from occupational pension schemes;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises the likelihood of a long- term, low-growth economic scenario, which will require Member States to consolidate their budgets and reform their economies under austere conditions; subscribes, therefore, to the view expressed in the Commission’s White Paper that people will need to build up complementary occupational and if possible private pension savings, if current austerity policies are maintained, the likelihood of a medium-term, low growth scenario;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. StressObserves that the application of quantitative Solvency II requirements poses a greatpossible risk to pillar 2 systems, since these may, as a result of increased costs, be forced in future to accept lower company pensions or to stop them altogether; emphasises that this is not in the interests of employees; therefore concludes that there must be no provisions at EU level aiming to apply Solvency II to 2nd pillar systems are inappropriate where the latter are not financial service providers and/or based on the capital market, and can therefore not be compared with 3rd pillar systems; nonetheless considers that better minimum requirements should apply to 2nd pillar systems with regard to the security of contributions which have been paid, minimum yields and transparency and portability;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers proposals for the further development of variations to Solvency II, such as the Holistic Balance Sheet Model (HBS), to be useful onlyas components of EU- level regulations if specific national requirements are complied with and if they are presented as recommendations; categorically rejects these as components of EU-level regulations;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that first-pillar pensions remain the most important source of income for pensioners; calls on Member States to implement reforbring their systems into their first-pillar systems aligning contributory years to the changing ratio between pensioners and people in working age, also to prevent public pension costs crowding out other impline with the requirements of a pension which maintains the standard of living and, in doing so, to place the emphasis on the first pillar, which must provide adequate and secure pensions with a broad financial basis, in accortdant government spendingce with productivity trends; calls on the Member States to ensure first-pillar pensions - if necessary complemented by minimum income provisions - to provide a decent minimum income; maintain the standard of living and at least to provide a decent minimum income; __________________ 1 EP resolution of 9 October 2008 on promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, including child poverty, in the EU (OJ C 9E, 15.1.2010, p. 11.)
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Rejects the establishment of equal competition between life insurance and 2nd pillar systems, aunless the latter are not financial service providers and/or based on the capital market, and can therefore not be compared with life insurance provider3rd pillar systems;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Believes it would make sense for the Commission to have an overview of national guarantee schemes and measures and, to propose reliable procedures for simple, cost-effective and proportionate procedures, to draw attention to risks in the systems and to formulate effective and adequate European minimum requirements applicable to these systems;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Notes that, according to the OECD, there iwas a lack of mobility between the Member States until 2010 and that only 3% of working-age EU citizens were liveing in another Member State;* assumes, however, that there will be a further massive increase in mobility as a result of the financial and economic crisis; * OECD (2012), ‘Mobility and migration in Europe’, p. 63. In: OECD Economic Surveys: European Union 2012, OECD Publishing.
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
Paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Observes that the financial and economic crisis has revealed the vulnerability of both funded and pay-as- you-go pension schemes in particular; recommends multi-pillar pension systems, consisting of at least:
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Stresses therefore that cross-border pension tracking services are only worthwhile if they are extremely efficient, legally and administratively small-scale and highly cost-effectiveeffective and proportionately cost-effective with reference to transparency and added value to employees;
Amendment 114 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Stresses that maintaining appropriate provision in 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; rejects the reduction of the 1st pillar and a corresponding increase in the; rejects all measures which detract from the 1st pillar in favour of the 2nd or 3rd pillar;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point i
Paragraph 4 – point i
i. a public, first- pillar, decent minimum pension pension which guarantees an adequate standard of living;
Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Regrets that 3rd pillar systems can b, in particular, are as a rule more cost- intensive, more risky and less transparent than 1st and 2nd pillar systems; pillar; calls for stability, reliability and sustainability for the 3rd pillar;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes that in some Member States, 3rd pillar pensions, 2nd and 3rd pillar pensions are available only to people who are employed by thriving or large undertaking or whose income is sufficient for them to pay contributions; calls therefore for the acceptance of people with low or mid- range incomes ina concentration on developing the 3rd1st pillar, and for their access to that pillar, to be reinforced in a secure and sustainable manner which maintains standards of living;
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Recalls, with regard to Initiative 9, the need for unconditional adherence to the principle of subsidiarity;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
Amendment 122 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Calls on the Commission to investigate the vulnerability of 3rd pillar systems to crises and to put forward proposals to reduce the risk;Does not affect the English version.
Amendment 123 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Recommends that the legal cost limits at national level for contract conclusion and management, change of provider or change of contract type be investigated and that proposals be made in this regard;
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Rejects the notion of voluntaCalls for compulsory codes of conduct with regard to quality, information provision to consumers and consumer protection in the 3rd pillar and urges the Member StatesCommission to assume regulatory tasks in these areas;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point ii
Paragraph 4 – point ii
Amendment 131 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Calls on the Commission to involve social partners in an appropriate way by means of the structures available on an equal footing;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – point iii
Paragraph 4 – point iii
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1
calls on the Member States to consider introducing such or comparable schemes where they do not yet exist; calls on the Commission to ensure any existing or future regulation in the field of pensions to be conducive to multi-pillar pension schemes;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is of the opinion that to arrive at a comprehensive solution to the pension challenge, taking into account the need to continue to work for longer while at the same time preserving one's health, to adapt working conditions and lifelong learning so as to enable people to work lonuntil they reach the statutory retirement ager, consensus between governments and social partners is paramount;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. WelcomesRejects, for the reasons adduced, the main thrust of the White Paper that suggests focusing on: balancing time spent in work and retirement; developing complementary occupational and private pension savings, and enhancing the EU’s pension monitoring tools;
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that implementing structural reforms aimed at having people work more and longer is the only feasible way to generate the tax Considers that the Commission and Member States should pursue a different strategy with regard to retirevmenues and social and pension premiums needed to consolidate Member State budgets and to fund adequt age, which should initially lead to a general rise in employment rates, safe and sustainable pension schemes; points to the risk of part-time work leading to only partial pension entitlements; calls on the Member States to put funds aside to combat the risbroaden the financial basis of pension systems and above all bring about greater participation of higher incomes in pay-as-you-go and tax-financed systems in the 1st pillar and gear adjustments ing public costs of the retiring populationensions to the development of productivity;
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises the acceleration of the pressure posed by demographic developments on national budgets and pension systems now that the first cohorts of the ‘baby boom generation’ retire; nNotes the uneven progress and levels of ambition across Member States in formulating and implementing structural reforms aimed at raising employment, phasing out early retirement schemes and putting both the statutory and effective retirement age on a sustainable footing with increases in life expectancy; stresses that Member States that fail to implement gradual reforms now may at a later stage find themselves in a scenario where they have to implement reforms shock-wise and with significant social consequences;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Emphasizes that a general rise in the statutory retirement age and an extension of obligatory contribution periods are not necessary at all; considers that - while maintaining the current overall level of employers’ contributions - a return to parity financing of statutory pension schemes (at least 50 % of contributions to be paid by the employer) would allow most Member States to maintain or return to a statutory retirement age of 60;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Calls on Member States with first- pillar pay-as-you-go systems to base their statutory pension systems more on solidarity and redistribution by extending the contributory base to the self-employed, civil servants, etc. and at the same time abolishing the ceilings on contributions which exist in some Member States; considers that the contributory base of statutory pension systems could be further broadened by making obligatory contributions from all types of revenue – including, for example, rents and interest payments;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Reiterates the call for closely linking pension benefits to years worked and premiums paid (‘actuarial fairness’), to ensure that working more and longer pays off for workers by having a better pension; recommends that the Member States, in consultation with social partners, allow individual workers, on a voluntary basis, to continue working after the statutory retirement age, as extending the period of premiums paid while at the same time shortening the period of benefit eligibility can help workers reduce any pension gaps at a fast pacobserves, however, that this does not, conversely, imply any restriction with regard to its call for decent minimum resources in old age;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Stresses that the assumption behind early retirement schemes, whereby older workers are allowed to reConsiders that work organisation and working time arrangements must be adapted to demographic change; points out that improved stability of employment, shorter collectirve early so as to make jobs available for the young, has been proven empirically wrong as the Member States displaying the highest youth employment rates, on average, are also the ones displaying the higweekly working time, social security and health and safety at the work place are necessary to enable a better integration of young and older workers alike to keep them in gainful employment, motivated and healthy until they reach the st employment rates for older workersatutory retirement age;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the social partners to adopt a life-cycle approach to human resources management and to adapt workplaces; calls on employers to come up with programmes to ensure that employees can work lonuntil they reach the statutory retirement ager; calls on workers to engage actively in available training opportunities and to keep themselves fit for the labour market at all stages of their working life;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Considers that the Council and the Commission must come forward with a European Youth Employment Guarantee securing the right of every young person in the EU to be offered a suitable well- paid job in line with their qualifications and skills, an apprenticeship, additional training or combined work and training, within three months of becoming unemployed, thus also improving the scope for young people to build up proper pension entitlements;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Calls on the Council to agree on an EU target for minimum wages (statutory or based on national, regional or sectoral agreements on terms of employment), which should ensure that employees are paid at least 60% of the relevant (national, sectoral, etc.) average wage so that more employees can acquire individual pension entitlements which will keep them above the poverty line;
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Calls on the Council also to agree on a guarantee of a minimum pension (retirement pension, disability pension, etc.) above the Union’s at-risk-of-poverty threshold of 60% of the national equalised median income in order to prevent poverty in old age;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15