Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
ECON European Parliament
Ihren Sitzungen folgenTilman Lueder
That's a form of opportunity cost which has to be disclosed, but there is at this stage in the negotiations no big disagreement on the disclosure part. I'll stop here and give back one minute, maybe to have a better debate.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. I will now give the floor to the rapporteur Stéphanie Yon-Courtin for Renew.
Stéphanie YON-COURTIN
Merci Madame la Présidente, chers collègues. Merci. On voit que le défi est clair : comment garantir la sécurité financière des Européens à la retraite ? Car soyons clairs, dans beaucoup de nos États membres, le mot retraite ne suscite plus la confiance, il suscite beaucoup d'inquiétude et de peur. Certains voient dans la capitalisation un désengagement de l'État ou peut-être même une américanisation de nos modèles sociaux et cette peur existe, nous ne pouvons pas l'ignorer.
Mais nous avons une responsabilité, celle de dire clairement qu'investir pour sa retraite ne remplace pas les systèmes publics, elle les complète. Elle offre aux citoyens une option supplémentaire pour une retraite pour une retraite plus digne et plus sûre et cette responsabilité est collective. D'abord les États, et je salue à cet égard la recommandation présentée par la Commission sur les retraites. Dans cette responsabilité collective, il y a aussi les entreprises, les partenaires sociaux, les acteurs financiers et la société civile ensuite parce qu'il s'agit d'un véritable débat de société. Et enfin l'Union européenne parce que lorsque le défi est européen, la réponse doit également l'être européenne et c'est pourquoi le paquet retraite présenté par la Commission est essentiel et doit surtout apporter des résultats concrets.
Parce que les chiffres sont là et ils sont sans appel. D'ici 2070, les retraites publiques ne couvriront qu'environ 38 % des revenus d'un travailleur. En Grèce, à Chypre, en Pologne, en Allemagne, des millions de retraités vivent déjà avec moins de 1000 euros par mois et parfois même moins de 500 euros par mois et la démographie ne joue pas en notre faveur. La question est donc la suivante : voulons-nous préparer les citoyens à cette réalité ou continuer à faire comme si cette réalité n'existait pas ? Ce qui est frappant, c'est que les Européens investissent déjà et souvent sans le savoir.
Là où ils existent, les produits d'épargne retraite, PEP, complètent la retraite publique et garantissent un niveau de vie plus digne et c'est précisément pour cela que le PEP est au cœur de ce débat : offrir une solution là où elle n'existe pas en Europe, l'harmoniser finalement au niveau européen et davantage de choix là où les citoyens en ont besoin. Jusqu'ici, le PEP, ça a été rappelé par la Commission européenne, n'a pas tenu ses promesses. Nous avons donc aujourd'hui une occasion de changer cela, il faut qu'on la saisisse et c'est dans cet esprit que j'aborde ce dossier en tant que rapporteur avec sept priorités principales. La première priorité, c'est d'envisager un changement de nom qui rende le produit plus parlant pour les citoyens et peut-être aussi pour oublier l'échec du PEP passé. Par exemple, le terme Europension proposé par l'EIOPA pourrait être une piste à creuser.
Deuxième priorité, une exposition au risque plus adaptée pour le PEP de base pour améliorer les rendements de long terme. Troisième priorité, un conseil simplifié lorsque cela est possible pour rendre le produit plus accessible et compréhensible et je me félicite d'un des premiers messages que la Commission a fait passer tout à l'heure en parlant de ce produit simple avec ce online execution only. Troisième priorité donc je l'ai dit, conseil simplifié. La quatrième priorité, je soutiens la proposition de la Commission concernant le Work PEP même si certaines clarifications seront sûrement nécessaires. Cinquième priorité, la cohérence avec le cadre européen notamment avec les autres textes qui sont ailleurs sur là également les pensions et également RIS pour éviter les contradictions réglementaires.
Sixième priorité, le PEP doit avoir un traitement fiscal incitatif, sans signal fiscal fort il n'y aura pas d'adhésion et là je rejoins également ce que disait la Commission tout à l'heure. Et septième et dernier point, un document d'information, le KID, qui a été rappelé par la Commission, simple et lisible parce que si les citoyens ne comprennent pas le produit, ils ne l'utiliseront pas. Sur cette base, je me réjouis des échanges à venir sur ce dossier et d'entendre la Commission et également mes collègues à ce sujet. Merci Madame la Présidente.
Aurore Lalucq
Merci, chère rapporteure. And I will now give the floor to Mr. Lewandowski for EPP.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you. Good morning. Apologies for... here's the text. Apologies for being unable to attend due to illness. For S&D, this proposal for an amended and reformed Pan-European Personal Pension Product is welcome.
Encouraging Europeans to supplement their retirement savings by investing in a private pension product is vital. But we all recognize the limitation of the original proposal, therefore good to have the second chance. If PEPP really is to be a success, we need to see it in the context of a savings and investment union. It should be part of a solution in terms of opening up access to finance that is currently not being used productively across the EU. Member states are already making innovative policy choices in this area, from tax relief to auto-enrollment.
There is a lot that we can learn from each other. The advantage of PEPP is that it can be offered to all Europeans, no matter where they live in the EU. But in order for it to be a success this time, we need to be ambitious and recognize certain realities about the nature of the market while recognizing subsidiarity and important existing member states' competences. Firstly, it is vital that we make this product attractive for providers to offer to customers by use of a carrot and not just the stick. This means we need to see reform in terms of fees, in terms of boosting competition among suppliers and reducing costs.
When it comes to advice, we should ensure maximum flexibility and not impose unnecessary costs. For the basic PEPP in particular, mandatory advice can add undue cost to a product, particularly where there is standardized design and default investment options. There may be better ways of assessing it. We should also look at ways to increase flexibility, diversification of assets and adaptability in respect of tailored offerings to allow for products that are designed with the customer in mind to meet their needs at any stage. The move more generally to a more principle-based approach on safeguards is welcomed and should be replicated.
We should also be more open about the possibility of crossover between occupational pensions and personal pensions, and this product can play a role here. A number of years ago, I served as a Minister for Social Protection in Ireland, where I launched the work on Ireland's first ever mandatory auto-enrollment pension scheme. This scheme broke new ground and allows for a kind of flexibility that reflects the fact that a career in the 21st century is not the single straightforward path that it was in the past. Member states have different approaches to occupational pensions and it should be possible to integrate PEPP with all of them instead of maintaining a separation between them. Finally, when it comes to the value for money framework, we should be skeptical of new benchmarks and systems.
Instead, we should be using existing product data to group products by risk and allow for meaningful comparisons.
That is all at this stage, looking forward to cooperation for the benefit of European pension investors, and this is more or less what I would personally say on this product. Thank you.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you, and in words on behalf of Ms. Doherty. I will now give the floor to Francisco Assis for the S&D.
Francisco Assis
Muito obrigado, senhora presidente. Começarei por dizer que o grupo S&D acompanha a Comissão Europeia na necessidade de rever o regulamento que criou o PEPP. Estamos disponíveis, como sempre aliás acontece, para debater e procurar os consensos necessários com os restantes grupos políticos. Entendemos, porém, que a proposta apresentada teria beneficiado de uma avaliação de impacto detalhada das normas atualmente em vigor. Porque se é evidente que não se alcançaram os objetivos traçados em 2019, já não é clara a razão desse falhanço.
A Comissão acredita que é sobretudo na oferta que está o problema. Isto é, que a legislação condiciona exageradamente os operadores, o que resulta na sua falta de interesse em oferecer ao mercado este produto. Reconhecendo que algo pode naturalmente ser feito neste domínio, parece-nos contudo uma abordagem um pouco redutora. Se esse fosse o problema, o mercado tê-lo-ia resolvido com recurso a outros produtos. Teríamos certamente 27 mercados europeus pujantes de produtos individuais de poupança.
Não é, manifestamente, o caso. No fundo, mas não o assumindo, a própria Comissão também sabe que o problema está mais do lado da procura. E é por isso que quer introduzir a subscrição automática. Ao contrário do que se verifica noutras regiões do mundo, temos sistemas públicos de pensões robustos de décadas. Assim como esquemas de pensões profissionais desenhados em sede de negociação coletiva com excelentes resultados.
A principal razão para a falta de procura de produtos individuais de poupança reforma está na eficácia, na segurança e na estabilidade que estes sistemas proporcionam. E é por essa razão que dizer que rejeitamos partir para esta revisão com o pressuposto de que os sistemas públicos de pensões estão condenados a definhar e que no futuro estarão impossibilitados de oferecer uma proteção digna da velhice. Este é sobretudo um debate de opções políticas. Não é um debate puramente técnico. Sabemos dos impactos que as transformações sociais e económicas têm nestes sistemas.
Mas em vez de aceitar passivamente a sua erosão, devemos estar disponíveis para introduzir reformas. E é também na procura de soluções de sustentabilidade dos sistemas públicos de pensões que a Comissão deve atuar. Para o S&D é essencial que o terceiro pilar mantenha o seu cariz suplementar e não seja apresentado como uma solução complementar a um sistema público inevitavelmente mais débil. Os desafios atuais não justificam que transitemos silenciosa e inconscientemente de um sistema de repartição assente na solidariedade para um sistema de proteção na velhice de pendor individual, gerador de maior desigualdade e pobreza. Serão as pessoas com salários mais baixos, trabalhos precários e intermitência contributiva que sofrerão com essa transição.
O que não invalida, por outro lado, a necessidade de estimularmos a subscrição voluntária destes produtos para melhorar o retorno da poupança dos europeus e fomentar o crescimento económico. Voltando ao PEPP, entendemos que o seu ponto essencial está na padronização, está num produto desenhado a nível europeu que possa ser colocado no mercado em cada Estado nacional e movido para qualquer ponto deste mercado. Terminava com três breves perguntas.
Thank you, I think there was a little problem of translation of interpretation with your third question, Francisco.
Aurore Lalucq
Primeiro, a Comissão tem dados que nos possa apresentar que demonstrem que o retorno destes produtos individuais é muito superior aos sistemas coletivos, principalmente os sistemas públicos?
Could you repeat your third question?
Segundo, a introdução destes produtos individuais em contexto de empresa, nomeadamente através da subscrição automática, não afeta negativamente os esquemas de pensões profissionais do segundo pilar?
Aurore Lalucq
Third, I think there were three questions or the last one, could you repeat it? Yes, please.
Francisco Assis
A Comissão propõe a simplificação dos requisitos do lado dos prestadores, como seja eliminar o aconselhamento obrigatório no PEPP básico ou a obrigatoriedade de ter em pelo menos duas subcontas. Terceiro, a Comissão propõe a simplificação dos requisitos do lado dos prestadores, como seja eliminar o aconselhamento obrigatório no PEPP básico ou a obrigatoriedade de ter em pelo menos duas subcontas. Propostas que eliminam uma boa parte dos custos.
Como justifica a Comissão a necessidade adicional de eliminação do limite máximo das comissões conjugada com a subscrição automática?
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. Okay, for PPE, I don't know if Othmar Karas is here. No, he's not. Ms. Malak for ECR is not here. All right.
For the Green, no one. So I will give the floor to the Left and to Ms. Martins on behalf of Mr. Schirdewan.
Catarina Martins
Muito obrigada, senhora presidente. Eu queria começar por agradecer a candura da Comissão, porque veio aqui dizer-nos que o principal ponto e o primeiro ponto deste projeto é que não haja aconselhamento nenhum sobre o que é este produto de pensões pan-europeu. E eu percebo, porque se houvesse aconselhamento, as pessoas podiam perceber o que existe e não querer. Porque a verdade é que a direita tem vindo a tentar impor uma agenda de privatização da segurança social com profecias da desgraça em relação aos sistemas públicos e de ilusões em relação aos produtos privados. Só que nós temos um problema, a realidade não ajuda.
Já aqui foi perguntado que garantias é que há sobre estas rentabilidades face a sistemas públicos. Eu aproveito para dar os números do meu país, de Portugal, de 2025. Os fundos de pensões de capital garantido privados apresentaram uma rentabilidade média de 1,9% nos últimos cinco anos. 87% destes fundos não conseguiram sequer acompanhar a inflação. Ou seja, quem investiu neste tipo de fundos viu destruído o valor real que investiu.
E já a segurança social pública, bem, a segurança social pública teve 3,9% de rentabilidade em 2025. Em 2024 foi de 5,87%. O sistema previdencial registou um excedente de 6.712 milhões de euros só em 2025. O horizonte de sustentabilidade avançou mais de uma década. Não há nenhum problema de colapso dos sistemas públicos de pensões na Europa.
Só se for, isso sim, dos fundos privados. E como o desempenho dos fundos privados é tão medíocre, a Comissão vem aqui com as suas segundas prioridades que é basicamente pôr os Estados a obrigar as pessoas a investir nestes fundos e pôr mesmo dinheiro público nestes fundos. Ou seja, roubar as pessoas duas vezes. Quer impor benefícios fiscais ao seu produto pan-europeu de pensões, a que ninguém liga nenhuma porque não serve para nada, pondo os contribuintes a pagar pela rentabilidade inexistente e pelos lucros das seguradoras e bancos, e esses sim existem, e pressionar os Estados para imporem a inscrição automática, roubando uma parte do salário sem consentimento e as pessoas apenas com 30 dias para o impedirem. É verdade que há pensões indignas, e no meu país sabemos bem disto, que não asseguram condições mínimas de subsistência.
Mas não é com o casino dos mercados financeiros que este problema se vai resolver. Aliás, em experiências semelhantes o que aconteceu foi que as pensões desapareceram integralmente. O que nós vamos precisar seguramente é de salários dignos, é de carreiras contributivas estáveis. Meter as pensões na bolsa só vai sacrificar os pensionistas atuais e os futuros. E as escolhas que a Comissão nos propõe continuam a residir integralmente em convencer os Estados a desproteger os sistemas públicos que dão garantias de estabilidade e rentabilidade para investir em sistemas privados que retiram garantias de qualquer pensão futura.
A pergunta é se o sistema é bom, porque é que querem obrigar os Estados a canalizar as poupanças e os benefícios fiscais para este sistema?
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. So I will give... Anikó Győri?
No? Okay, so I will give the floor back to the Commission.
Tilman Lueder
Right, so there are a couple of issues which we need to address here. In relation to these private pensions, it's true that not all investment funds have good returns. There are good investment funds and there are bad investment funds, and the returns that you just mentioned, 1 point something percent in a period where the stock markets have performed in double digit, is indeed like a super bad return, and we would never recommend a product like this. There are, however, also products which reflect the success of the stock markets and they have double digit returns, and they have double digit returns over longer period, and a lot of pension funds also have annualized returns of 8, 9% over a decade. So in that sense, there is indeed a challenge to not recommend any product, but to recommend those products which have a decent risk and return profile.
This is why we constructed the PEPP as a life-cycle product, because it has high returns in the beginning when you're invested in the markets, and then it gradually de-risks and goes more into debt and fixed income instruments which pay dividends, stock which pay dividends or fixed income instruments which pay dividends, so that the risk is gradually decreased. But you should not go the initial high returns, because that is how you save money. I think also to in response to the last intervention, there is a difference between a defined benefit, which is the state pension, and a supplementary pension, which is based on the performance of markets. The two are not mutually exclusive, they complement each other, that is why it's called a supplementary pension. But your state pension, which is a defined benefit, so it's X percent of your salary, is gradually decreasing.
So the defined benefit that is financed through the state pension is in decline. And that is why a sort of investment-based supplementary pension is necessary so that you have a decent retirement as you said yourself. So in that sense, I don't see a contradiction between keeping the state pensions, but also supplementing them with a market-based investment tool so that your overall replacement rate is not going to go to 40% of your final salary, but still stays in the 80 or 90% range. And for that you need to have these supplementary pensions. We're not forcing anybody to do the supplementary pensions, but we do think that you should have fiscal incentives to subscribe to them, because the replacement rate by relying on your state pension alone will decline for obvious budgetary reasons.
Then there was a more technical question about sub-accounts and compulsory sub-accounts. I think the sub-accounts are essentially a bit of an anomaly in a pan-European product which should be which you should subscribe in every single country in terms of product design, in terms of distribution. The only rationale for the sub-accounts is the tax benefits. So in that sense, if you want to offer this in several countries and if you want to have your contributors also being beneficiaries of various fiscal incentives, you will automatically do the sub-accounts anyway because it's part of your business model. So there's no need in our view to make those sub-accounts mandatory, because if you want to offer this with the fiscal advantages of the different host Member States, you will basically have to do sub-accounts to accommodate these fiscal differences anyway.
So therefore we're not making them mandatory, but we're not actually saying that you should not have sub-accounts.
So overall the message is we're not trying to replace public pensions. I think the rapporteur was extremely clear on this point as well. We are trying to supplement the declining replacement rate that those pension systems will have to have a decent return and we're using all the means at our disposal, including markets, including investment tools, because these investment tools are not there for their own sake, but they're there to give you a better retirement income. Thank you very much.
Stéphanie YON-COURTIN
Merci madame la présidente. Oui, je me réjouis des échanges que nous entamons là et que nous aurons dans les prochains mois sur ce dossier. J'ai pris note des remarques formulées par mes collègues et comme la commission, je pense qu'il faut un peu reprendre plus clairement et réexpliquer l'objectif du PEPP qui n'est absolument pas de remplacer les dispositifs des systèmes publics mais de les compléter. C'est donc un avantage pour toutes et tous et je crois que quand on fait appel au marché, c'est pas un gros mot. Quand on parle de capitalisation, c'est pas un gros mot, mais au contraire derrière ces mots, l'idée est d'aider les citoyens.
Donc je pense que tout le monde peut être d'accord que quand il s'agit d'aider les citoyens, eh bien il faut qu'on essaie de travailler ensemble. Donc pour moi la proposition de la commission constitue bien sûr une base de travail solide sur laquelle nous pouvons construire et elle va dans la bonne direction. J'estime qu'il y a quelques ajustements qui seront nécessaires et bien évidemment il faudra qu'on en parle avec les collègues pour renforcer l'efficacité du PEPP au-delà de nos sensibilités politiques respectives. Accordons-nous sur un point : pour que le PEPP fonctionne réellement, on doit nous assurer qu'il soit plus simple, qu'il soit plus visible et qu'il soit plus attractif pour les citoyens et les entreprises. Moi c'est pourquoi je voudrais résumer les défis de ce sujet autour de trois A.
A, premier A, l'accessibilité parce que 76 % des Européens n'ont jamais entendu parler du PEPP et un produit que personne ne connaît est un produit qui échoue, qui ne peut pas réussir. Deux, deuxième A, l'attractivité : les citoyens placeront leur argent dans un produit simplement si justement il est simple à comprendre et à utiliser et avec des incitations fiscales claires et des perspectives de rendement. Et trois A, l'alignement : alignement avec les textes existants parce que là encore on est dans une phase de simplification et il faut on peut réussir que si les règles européennes ne se contredisent pas. Et donc ayons ça à l'esprit et tout au long de nos négociations qui vont commencer sur ce sujet. Merci madame la présidente.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. And the presentation of the draft proposal is scheduled for of meeting of July 15 or 16. Thank you so much all of you. We now turn to the consideration of amendment of the ECON opinion on the performance regulation framework. The presentation of the draft report by the rapporteur on May 5th in ECON committee already led to an interesting debate on budget performance reporting with different perspective on indicators including social and environmental ones, but also reporting simplification.
So we will now listen to the groups' views on the amendments tabled, and we will now turn to the rapporteur, Mr. Lewandowski.
Janusz Lewandowski
Good morning again. Performance regulation has been presented as the simplification by the European Commission, and indeed it is simplification, but rather for the Commission, easier to collect data, to compare data, to present overall overview, but not for Member States, not for regional authorities and the other beneficiaries. Some elements I find useful, for example, reduced number of indicators in Annex 1, but generally I am not a fan of this regulation. My approach was to make it a real performance regulation, tracking, showing how money is spent and what it delivers, and not another rulebook, not another level of compliance, deciding via horizontal conditions which programs deserve funding and which do not deserve funding. This is a logic of my compromises presented yesterday for the shadows, and a clear position, very honestly articulated, are emerging.
What is not controversial is technical amendments, some of them submitted by S&D. This is mainly nomenclature: who is recipient, who is final recipient, beneficiary, and this is not controversial. What is a real issue is about horizontal principles, and after receiving 100, around 130 amendments, I decided not only to delete "do not significant harm" principle, but also delete them all, having very strong backing not only in my political families. I don't think these principles should be applied universally across all the financial programs because they have different nature, different beneficiaries, different goals, and this is better to place them in, they are more tailored to these sectors when they are placed in specific policy areas. So our position is not against these objectives, our position is to avoid additional layer of reporting, with strong backing not only in my family, but as it was clear yesterday, this is concern of the left side.
But I have to say that we are not discussing whether horizontal principles matter. They do matter. They are obvious. But discussion is whether we should duplicate them, and we are not killing them because they have clear place in financial regulation and should have clear place in sectoral regulations. So after receiving these amendments and with strong backing of some political families, I see a chance for voting in line with my proposal.
Voting on 23rd of June. Thank you.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you, the rapporteur, and I will now give the floor to the shadow rapporteur on behalf of Clara Fritá, Jonás Fernández for the S&D.
Jonás Fernández
Thank you, thank you so much, Chair. As you said, our S&D shadow cannot attend to this meeting, so I'm going to read the paper that she wrote me. President, Chair, rapporteur, colleagues, the amendments tabled by the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs from the far right will remove the horizontal principles from the Commission proposal: climate tracking, social objectives, gender equality, and do no significant harm criterion.
They are not bureaucratic constraints or ideological impositions. They are the tools that ensure the European budget remains coherent with the Union's priorities. Removing them is not a technical adjustment; it is a political choice, and we should be clear about what that choice means. The do no significant harm principle in particular has become a target for some groups in this Parliament. Yet all it asks is that European public money does not actively fund activities that harm the environment.
That is not a revolution; it's a basic consistency. EU citizens have a right to know their money serves their priorities: the climate, social fairness, equality between women and men. Not to see those priorities quietly erased in a committee report. For our group, these horizontal principles are the backbone of the European budget's political coherence, and we will oppose their removal with determination. Thank you so much.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. For PfE, no one is here, so on behalf of Ms. Malarczyk for ECR, Mr. Szoncha.
Exactly.
Bogdan Rzońca
Okay, okay, I'll read their comments and observations. I will switch to Polish. Zmiana paradygmatu budżetu w kierunku podejścia opartego na rezultatach jest bardzo niebezpieczna dla państw członkowskich i grozi pozbawieniem ich swobody kształtowania własnej polityki gospodarczej. Co więc zrobić w sytuacji, kiedy Komisja uparcie forsuje takie podejście? Należy zadbać o to, by obowiązkowe wskaźniki nie zawężały jej swobody nadmiernie, a przede wszystkim, by nie czyniły krajowych i regionalnych planów partnerstwa zakładnikami szalonej polityki klimatycznej.
Tymczasem aż trzy z proponowanych przez Komisję współczynników odnoszą się do kwestii zielonych, jeden do kwestii społecznych. Za to w ogóle nie ma wskaźnika dotyczącego konkurencyjności czy efektywności ekonomicznej. Jest to nielogiczne i niezrozumiałe nie tylko z perspektywy celów gospodarczych państw członkowskich, ale także w kontekście promowanej przez Komisję odbudowy konkurencyjności unijnej gospodarki. Zielony ład to kula u nogi, którą sami sobie zafundowaliśmy. Teraz udajemy, że problem da się obejść poprzez pakiet uproszczeń, jakoś go zagadać czy tam jakoś odroczyć.
Przecież proponowane ramy monitorowania wydatków budżetowych to nic innego jak dalszy ciąg pewnego rodzaju szykan i autosabotażu unijnej gospodarki. Rezygnacja z kryterium zasady niewyrządzania poważniejszych szkód to absolutne minimum, podobnie jak ograniczenie gender mainstreaming jedynie do wybranych obszarów, w których może mieć realne znaczenie. Potrzebujemy odniesienia do konkurencyjności i ekonomicznej efektywności wydatków budżetowych.
Stąd nasza propozycja, by uzupełnić zestaw współczynników przypisanych do obszarów interwencji, dodać współczynniki odzwierciedlające wkład danych sektorów w rentowność i odporność ekonomiczną. Ponadto proponujemy, aby państwa członkowskie mogły wybierać odpowiednie obszary interwencji i odpowiadające im wskaźniki w swoich krajowych planach, uwzględniając specyfikę i potrzeby krajowe. Mogłyby one uzupełniać listę obszarów interwencji i wskaźników określonych w załączniku pierwszym, aby odzwierciedlić szczególne potrzeby krajowe lub regionalne. Ogólnie celem naszych poprawek jest zapewnienie wystarczającej elastyczności dla państw członkowskich oraz rozluźnienie ciasnego gorsetu zielonych wymogów. Dziękuję bardzo.
Ludovit ODOR
Thank you very much and I wanted to thank also for the rapporteur for his work on on this file. Actually, sometimes it's not easy to reach a compromise if there are really diverse views on on some of the issues and and this is the case. So where there is a general support, these are the technical amendments, reduced numbers of indicators. I'm also sympathetic to talk about potential competitiveness indicators. But where the problem is, the horizontal principles, since some of our colleagues took this idea quite ideologically, that this has to do something with, I don't know, the Green Deal or objectives in this area.
But the horizontal principles are simple expressions of European values, that when we are dispersing our money, we want to respect some important principles for us. So in this regard, we are quite close to the position of the S&D group in this regard and we are not happy to delete all the horizontal principles from from the proposal. So that is why where we clearly disagree with the rapporteur. So basically I do not want to repeat some of the arguments already mentioned, so that is our clear political position. Thank you.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. I think that Rasmus Andresen is not in the room for the Greens. Okay, so Jean-Marc Germain is not here for BUDG. So I will invite Ms. Dominika Biegon, EESC co-rapporteur on this file, to take the floor.
Dominika Biegon
Yes, thank you for giving me the floor. The EESC has debated also the horizontal principles we are about to adopt an opinion tomorrow in our ECO section. So we have debated in particular gender budgeting, social policy and the do no significant harm principle and we by and large support these horizontal principles as a means to target the EU budget towards its broader political objectives. From our negotiations amongst employers, trade unions and civil society organizations, I can report that we are not questioning the do no significant harm principle in general or fundamentally. In the EESC we share the view that environmental sustainability considerations must be taken seriously in the implementation of EU funding programs.
At the same time, proportionality needs to be respected. We think that implementation problems that have arisen with the do no significant harm principle, for instance in the context of the recovery and resilience facility, can be solved if better guidance is provided by the European Commission. Beyond these broader political conflict lines, we see substantial challenges associated with the implementation of the performance framework in the context of social investments. In our EESC opinion, we therefore demand more flexibility in the framework, in particular for social investments, allowing for instance political authorities to opt out in certain restricted and justified cases from the performance framework and adopting a cost-based approach. We are in favor of a more narrow definition of social spending that focuses on ESF core objectives, and we are in favor of a horizontal application of social conditionalities, meaning that only those companies should be eligible for EU funding that apply collective agreements, commit to site retention, or offer qualification and training for employees.
Thank you.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you. There is no catch-the-eye, so I will give the floor back to the rapporteur for some closing remarks.
Janusz Lewandowski
Thank you, thank you. Noted, noted comments, not after yesterday's meeting of shadows, not surprising me at all, because this is transparent, honest position taking, and that is what we should expect in the European Parliament. I am repeating once more that I am not disputing horizontal principles. Simply I don't want them to be duplicated in this regulation, because better place, and they cannot be universally applied across all the segments of MFF, better place, they are already anchored in the financial regulation, they should find place in sectoral regulations, this is better place, they deserve the place, so we are not killing horizontal but really trying to find the better place for them and not in this regulation that should be about tracking how money is spent and what it delivers. So here is the position of rapporteur.
Thank you.
Aurore Lalucq
Thank you, and the vote will take place on June 23rd. Thank you so much to all of you, and we will be back at 2:30 this afternoon.
Redner 24
Good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to this meeting of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. We have a very full agenda today, so I'd like to get started as soon as possible. First, I'd like to ask if there are any objections to the agenda as it has been circulated. Seeing none, the agenda is adopted.
Next, we have the approval of the minutes of our last meeting. Are there any comments or corrections to the minutes? If not, the minutes are approved. We now move on to the main item on our agenda today, which is the discussion on the current economic situation in the European Union. We are very pleased to have with us today the Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, who will give us an overview of the latest developments.
Commissioner, you have the floor.
Redner 23
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here with you today. As you know, the economic situation in the European Union remains challenging. While we have seen some signs of recovery in recent months, the overall outlook remains uncertain. The main risks to the recovery are the ongoing geopolitical tensions, the high level of inflation, and the tightening of monetary policy.
However, we are also seeing some positive developments. The labor market remains resilient, and the energy situation has improved significantly since last year. We are also seeing a gradual decline in inflation, although it remains well above our target. In this context, it is essential that we continue to implement our economic policies in a coordinated and effective manner. We need to focus on supporting growth and investment, while also ensuring fiscal sustainability.
I look forward to our discussion today and to hearing your views on these important issues. Thank you.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.