The European Personal Pension Product is a painted wall that was badly constructed: despite a number of improvements in consumer protection, PEPP still lacks a Pan European vision, say S&Ds
Date
04 Apr 2019
Sections
Social Europe & Jobs
S&D Euro MPs today abstained in the final vote on the pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP) because the final comprise lacked a true pan-European approach, keeping the authorisation process at a national level. However, the European Parliament, led by S&Ds, achieved a number of improvements on consumer protection in the PEPP during the inter-institutional negotiations. The PEPP is part of the so-called third private pension pillar, after the first pillar of state pensions and the second pillar of company pensions. S&Ds will keep prioritising the further development and enhancement of the first and second pillar to provide a secure and substantive social protection for all citizens in old age.
Pervenche Berès, S&D Group spokesperson on economic and monetary affairs, stated:
“The outcome of the new pan-European Personal Pension Product is far from what we Socialists and Democrats asked for. We are concerned about the secondary role of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), which was not strengthened, but even lowered by the Council during the negotiations. Following this text, it will be possible to give the pan-European flag to pension products as long as they would be presented in two countries. The PEPP is only at the current stage of a painted wall that was badly constructed.”
Roberto Gualtieri, chair of the economic and monetary affairs committee, said:
“We have achieved a number of improvements in consumer protection, namely the 1% fee cap for the Basic PEPP and the compulsory advice. The S&D Group led the EP negotiating team in reaching these objectives against the reluctances of member states. However, the lack of ambition by member states limited the pan-European nature of the product and, therefore, we decided to abstain in the final vote. Once again, the Council missed the opportunity to show a European vision on this file, as already occurred in other important files such as the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) 2.2, and European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) review during the last months.”