Committee on Employment and Social Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
EMPL European Parliament
Follow its sittingsBernhard Ebbinghaus
Therefore, generally given those challenges, we have to think about the consequences of these challenges for pension reforms, but we need also to think about whether we are reproducing some of the labor market inequalities in old age. On the next slide, you see one of these megatrends, that is the increase of higher employment. The EU had set some targets in 2010, 2020, and older workers' employment has increased, but there are some countries that really struggle more and are falling behind these kinds of achievements, particularly given also the repeated economic crisis.
The next slide will show us another empirical finding, that is basically today's exit age on the one hand for men and women, and on the other hand the life expectancy at 65, so the duration then after the exit age in terms of their retirement. And you can see here certainly major differences across EU member states in average retirement age and the remaining life expectancies. This leads to varying lengths of retirement, and these are hardly in line with exit ages across these countries.
So we find some that have later retirement, some earlier retirement, but it may be not quite in sync with the life expectancies. In Europe, men exit from work on average around 64 with a retirement duration of 19 years, while women tend to retire earlier and draw pensions for four years longer.
The next slide provides us a further classification by the OECD of these different types of flexibilization of work forms, from part-time work to temporary contracts forms to self-employment and informal work. And these different types of work are more or less included in pension systems through public and to some degree occupational or private pensions. So it really matters what kind of work contract or whether one is self-employed in each country, how that is regulated by the pension system, whether one is included and therefore somewhat protected against poverty in old age.
Moreover, contributory pensions are based on the employment years, the hours, the pay, all tend to be more limited for flexible jobs. However, we have also in some of the public systems some credits, for example, for mitigating the risk of unemployment or allowing some credits for child-caring years and therefore lower employment participation, particularly of mothers.
However, occupational pension, we have to keep that in mind, are much less inclusive and dependent on either a general mandate, collective agreements in some countries, or really the decision of firms to provide such a scheme. In addition, voluntary pensions that have been also introduced in some countries across Europe depend on the capacity and the willingness to save, and this is also limited for those in flexible employment. And the next graph will show us that in terms of today's elderly household income, we can see that across Europe, public pensions, the very dark blue area, still play the main role in old-age income across Europe.
It's basically the first and basic tier of income. Within the EU, however, we have also some countries with sizeable private occupational pensions, particularly the Netherlands, followed by some of the Nordic countries with smaller occupational or personal pensions as additional tiers.
Nevertheless, what you can also see here is the white area in this graph across some of the countries on the bottom, which really indicates that these countries either have a still a tradition of agricultural work beyond 65 or have already introduced late or to some degree partial retirement, so you have a pension and are still working in a flexible work arrangement. On the next slide, we see then how this plays out, at least at the moment, in terms of old-age poverty and inequality across Europe at the moment before the pandemic, 2019. And you can see here, on the one hand, old-age inequality and old-age poverty go together largely across countries.
So we have some countries that have particularly high old age poverty and relatively large inequality, for example the Baltic states, but also Bulgaria and Romania that are not included in this OECD data. And we have then inequalities still particularly high in some Southern European countries as well as tends to be high in the UK and Switzerland as more liberal systems. And again we see there that on the other hand at the bottom left side you find some of the Nordic countries with exception maybe of Sweden that do perform relatively well.
You find also some Visegrad countries in Eastern Europe that have low poverty and inequality. But also the main model of Bismarckian system like Germany is really only in a middle position between the in the double question of old age poverty and reproducing inequalities from labor market into pensions. So my final slide then the next slide is is about the potential reform options.
Now there has been a discussion and today we heard from the German pension committees some of these recommendations in terms of increasing pension age in line with life expectancy. So that's something that is probably one general solution to some of the financial aging challenges. We discuss also then in terms of age-related provision of working longer, this might be more flexible arrangements in terms of being able to work longer, but particularly also there we might have to think about further changes to the disability schemes.
So if we expect everyone to work longer, some might not be able to do so and we need provisions for them. A third goal is something that we had also developed in the high-level group on the future of welfare states that I was involved. It's social security for all.
We really need to think about inclusion of all people working in all working people in pension systems, in pension schemes, public, but also with some measures in occupational and private pensions. I have already spoken about the credits for unemployment and child-caring years, and I think these will need to be further in these systems given the recurrent economic crisis we are facing and still the challenges in terms of reconciling work and family. And we more generally in terms of the public systems really need to think about minimum pensions to be income-tested instead of means-tested, that means not as social assistance minimum income net, but as part of the public pension system that those with incomplete contributions do nevertheless get the minimum pension.
Now challenges in the occupational and private pensions need to be also thought through in terms of increasing the coverage and the contributions of those flexible employment and work contracts forms. And more generally whether in the general move towards occupational pensions from defined benefits towards defined contribution schemes with its individualization of risks we need some forms of collective pooling like Danish models of group insurance or some forms to actually protect those most vulnerable in old age.
And the last point was then also to rethink a bit the funding basis of welfare states more generally something that we had also developed in the high-level group is whether we need to think beyond employer and employee contributions whether we can increase the funding basis of public pensions through some kind of taxes on energy AI maybe tax that contributes to pension funding.
And on the very last slide, you will see the reference to the high-level group on the future of social protection and welfare states that was presented to the European Commission, to the last European Commission, and there several ideas of preventing old-age poverty, employment opportunities, and coverage of social security for all were major parts of the recommendations. Thank you very much for your attention.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. And next I will give the floor to our second speaker, who is Mrs. Marina Monaco, ETUC senior advisor on pensions, who is replacing Mr. Giulio Romano, who unfortunately could not be here today. So please, Mrs. Monaco, the floor is yours for the next eight minutes.
Thank you very much indeed. I represent the interest of 55 million workers across the EU and the European Trade Union Confederation, which is the European level social partners organization representing workers.
Marina Monaco
And I would like to underline this role because it is not a random case that we are present here. We represent the interest not only of workers and the files that are at stake in this period, both in the EMPL and the ECON committee, call for us to remind certain points, but also as a reminder of the role of social partners as driver of economic democracy and democracy as overall. We have to remind that the demographic change is something on which social partners cope with since decades.
We have to remind that the demographic change is something on which social partners cope with since decades, and they do it through collective agreements and often paritarian, equal solutions that are jointly and mutually recognized as the most advantageous by each respective side.
And what it is important to underline here is that the development of demographic shaped solutions not only concern pension schemes or financial products that are available already on the market. These solutions are also designed for the strict benefit of members and beneficiaries, which in particular are workers. And then companies and entities of the real economy into which pension schemes are safely and soundly keen to invest.
What it is important now is to contextualize the different possible solutions that are called by the demographic change. First of all, it is true that at the moment the solution of incentivizing private, although collective schemes, can certainly represent an advantage for workers, especially in those countries where first pillar pensions are less and less available and capable to guarantee the adequacy of pension rights.
Nonetheless, the not effective and fully coverage performance of first pillar pensions, of public pensions, is not an unchangeable feature.
It is the result of precise policy decisions within the area of social policy and European economic governance. Let's not hide behind the assumption that public systems are performing badly as if it was an inescapable end. This can be changed.
This has been addressed in many countries in recent years. This has produced impacts and this is still necessary and possible, especially if we integrate investment, labour market and solidarity, as well as life cycle approach as it is required now by an overall approach to the EU demography. We cannot approach pension system and demographic change in silos.
We cannot look at possible solutions promoting one rather than another financial tool without thinking of the real objectives and roots of the institutions we are touching upon, of the rights we are touching upon. Evidence is very clear. The first pillar pensions may risk not to be sustainable in the long term if nothing changes.
But it is clear also that apart from certain contexts, and I insist, it's not countries, these are very best examples that are rooted and generated by a culture of social partnership, a public provision of services culture, which is irreplaceable outside those group of countries, as proved by decades of proposals of good practices. Apart from quasi-public occupational schemes, the private schemes are less profitable for beneficiaries and for the collectivity in general.
And this is not us saying that, this is the high-level group on occupational pensions which worked on the topic on the file in 2016. And we know very well from the studies of the OECD that every single individual private pension product risks to erode up to 20% of the revenues of pension savings for for subscribers. So I am we have to be adamant on that.
None of the solutions we can address are optimal if they are not considered into a holistic view. So, private, public pensions to be boosted via quality jobs, quality remuneration, consideration of the contributory obligations, whether they are fair, whether they are sustainable. This is an issue.
Employers contributing not at the same level as workers are detrimental, just like in for public pensions, just like in private pensions. The first root of adequate and long-term adequate pensions are long-term and adequately remunerated jobs. And when it comes to solidarity, the issue is relevant in public systems, just as it is for occupational systems. Private products are for private and individuals.
What we have to do is to provide alternatives and well-informed options to members and beneficiaries through their representatives, through social partners. We have to enable beneficiaries of the IORPs to opt for the scheme that most benefits them on the basis of evidence, clear projections, risk assessment, consideration of risk profile and the very aim of the core institutions they are doing, they are applying to.
But there is nothing that can work if it prescinds from the autonomy of existing collective agreements and the capacity of social partners to build improvable systems of complementary pensions. And I use the word and stress the complementary aspect because no occupational scheme can ensure the fulfillment of the human social rights to pension in old age without a solid first pillar.
We then go to the representatives from the political groups for one and a half minutes each and we will take them in one block. And after that I will give the floor back to the experts, so please write down the questions addressed to you. Starting with Mrs. Abadía Jover from EPP.
Maravillas Abadía Jover
Thank you chair, I will speak Spanish. Muchas gracias y gracias también a los ponentes por sus aportaciones a este debate.
La solidaridad entre generaciones es uno de los grandes desafíos que afrontamos en esta Europa cada vez más longeva. Afrontamos una profunda transformación demográfica con sociedades que envejecen, cambios en el mercado laboral y una presión creciente sobre los sistemas de pensiones y el Estado del bienestar. Pero creo que debemos evitar caer en la trampa de la confrontación entre jóvenes y mayores. Ambos se necesitan entre sí. La sostenibilidad de las pensiones no puede construirse a costa de la juventud, ni sus oportunidades deben verse reducidas por la creciente presión fiscal que ejercen algunos Estados miembros y que a la larga va contra quienes han trabajado y contribuido toda su vida.
Jóvenes y mayores son dos caras de la misma moneda. Si queremos pensiones sostenibles mañana, necesitamos hoy más empleo de calidad, más productividad y, sobre todo, una incorporación sólida al mercado laboral. Acabamos de aprobar en el Comité de Empleo la opinión sobre la Estrategia Europea de la Juventud, y una de mis prioridades era que la solidaridad intergeneracional sea un pilar fundamental de la misma.
La verdadera solidaridad intergeneracional exige responsabilidad, proteger la dignidad de quienes ya han contribuido al tiempo que abrimos oportunidades reales a quienes hoy deben sostener el futuro de nuestro modelo social. Muchas gracias.
Romana Jerković
Thank you, Chair.
Well, it is quite clear that ensuring decent pensions today in Europe is becoming increasingly complex, particularly in the context of demographic change and the profound transformations in our labor market. Well, a few concrete questions. Professor Ebbinghaus, you mentioned earlier that women tend to retire earlier. We know that this has long-term consequences, particularly for women's financial security and their higher risk of poverty in older age. So we know that women continue to face a significant pension gap due to lower pay and unpaid care responsibilities, interrupted careers.
So what in your opinion, what more should European Union do to close this gap? I mean, you probably know from the example of Germany and United Kingdom, many women, for example, many women leave the labor market or reduce their working hours because of menopause. And and this obviously also affect their future pension entitlements. Isn't it time for the EU to start addressing this issue in your opinion? Thank you.
Marlena Maląg
Szanowna pani przewodnicząca.
Według Światowego Forum Ekonomicznego kryzys emerytalny dotknie Unię Europejską w ciągu najbliższej dekady. To znaczy superstarzenie się społeczeństwa stanie się powszechne. Ponad 20% populacji osiągnie wiek powyżej 65 lat. Kilka krajów już dziś przekroczyło tę granicę, między innymi Japonia, Włochy i Niemcy. Według prognoz w ciągu 40 lat na każdego emeryta będzie przypadać zaledwie półtorej osoby pracującej, czyli połowę tego, co obecnie.
Chciałabym zapytać, czy w ogóle jest sens mówić dzisiaj o utrzymaniu obecnego modelu socjalnego?
Prognozy mówią, już w kolejnej dekadzie załamie się system emerytalny Unii Europejskiej. Czy nie powinniśmy raczej lepiej przygotować obecnie wchodzących na rynek pracy, że ich emerytury będą głodowe lub nie będzie ich wcale? Pokolenie obecnych 40-, 30-latków jest pokrzywdzone podwójnie. Nie dość, że musi ponosić rosnące koszty finansowania dziur systemów emerytalnych, to jeszcze nie może spodziewać się podobnej pomocy, gdy osiągnie wiek emerytalny. Co sądzą państwo na ten temat?
Czy obciążenie obecnie pracujących rosnącymi kosztami utrzymania systemów emerytalnych nie jest pielęgnowaniem ułudy i nieuczciwością wobec młodego pokolenia? Stara zasada mówi, że lepiej zapobiegać niż leczyć. Kryzys demograficzny jest faktem, a jego główną przyczyną jest głęboki kryzys rodziny. Rodzina odpowiada nie tylko za prokreację, a w konsekwencji liczebność przyszłych uczestników rynku pracy, ale także za wychowanie, a w konsekwencji za jakość tak zwanego kapitału ludzkiego, czyli jakość przyszłych kadr rynku pracy. Zagadnienie jakości kapitału ludzkiego jest szczególnie ważne wobec sytuacji, gdy coraz mniejsza aktywność zawodowa będzie musiała utrzymać coraz większą rzeszę emerytów.
W tych warunkach kwestie wydajności, produktywności będą podwójnie ważne. I moje pytanie jest takie: jak państwo widzicie tę kwestię? Czy i w jaki sposób polityka prorodzinna może wpłynąć na obecne negatywne trendy demograficzne i przyczynić się do rozwiązania problemów emerytalnych? Jakiej polityki prorodzinnej faktycznie potrzebuje Unia Europejska? Dziękuję bardzo.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you very much. I was thinking to talk about the families and demography measures just to continue on my previous speaker, but I will not, I will not go there because we all know what happened last week in Strasbourg on vote on the deportation regulations, so better not to go in that direction. But let's focus on the subject. Sorry? No.
I would focus on the subject and I have a question actually about this tension between the first and public pensions fund versus the private funds, which for sure now we see they do coexist and there are some benefits of this model. But what I always wonder, if we are introducing more and more private instruments, to what access are they available to the workers? Because it's the question also of the amount of the wages the workers are receiving across the European Union. So if you don't have enough good wage, of course you cannot extract extra 70 or 69 euros to put in some private fund if your wages are low. For us being paid by European Union, I think majority of us, I will not say all of us, but majority of us can afford that.
But majority of the people of European Union, for them this is non-affordable.
So my question is, are we by this measure actually deepening the gap between the rich pensioners and poor pensioners? And are this model is bringing us in this direction? So please if you can clarify on that. Thank you.
Merci pour vos interventions. Je vais parler en français. Merci pour vos constats. Et trop souvent de notre point de vue, de mon point de vue, les difficultés à financer le système des retraites, c'est présenté comme un simple fait comptable sur lequel on ne peut rien faire sauf faire travailler les gens plus tard.
Leila Chaibi
Et moi j'aimerais avoir votre point de vue sur le fait d'agir sur la démographie justement. Parce qu'on se dit bah tiens il n'y a pas assez de jeunes, il n'y a pas assez il y a trop de personnes en âge d'arriver à la retraite, en âge de retraite. Est-ce qu'il n'y a pas d'autres leviers pour agir sur la démographie? Je pense notamment à l'aide au logement parce que si les gens font moins d'enfants aussi c'est parce que les difficultés d'accès au logement. Je pense à l'accès à la procréation médicalement assistée quand on sait qu'aujourd'hui il y a un couple sur quatre qui a des problèmes pour faire des enfants et qui est obligé d'avoir recours à à la procréation médicalement assistée.
Donc est-ce qu'on peut agir sur la démographie ? Et par ailleurs, bien trop souvent partout en Europe, la solution facile, ça va être de casser le système public de retraite, de pension de retraite, et de repousser l'âge légal de départ à la retraite. Et moi ça m'intéresse, puisqu'on est dans un panel là qui parle du constat et des changements démographiques, qu'est-ce que vous avez constaté ? Est-ce que vous avez constaté comme effet négatif de ce report de l'âge de départ à la retraite et de la casse du système de retraite ?
Négatif parce que comme l'a dit mon collègue Bozanac juste avant, eh bien quand on n'a pas la possibilité d'épargner, c'est facile de dire vous allez vous avez une retraite complémentaire mais quand on a des salaires qui permettent pas d'épargner, ben c'est c'est compliqué. Est-ce que vous avez constaté aussi ben que c'est de aussi de l'argent en plus dépensé par les systèmes de sécurité sociale parce que quand on travaille et qu'on est plus âgé, c'est plus de risques qu'on prend, c'est plus de maladies donc sans parler des risques en termes de sécurité tout court. Moi je suis désolé mais je monterais pas dans un avion qui est conduit par quelqu'un qui a 74 ans, 74 ans parce que le Danemark prévoit de repousser là en 2060 l'âge de départ à la retraite à 74 ans. Vous montez dans un avion où il y a le pilote à 74 ans ? Moi non.
Mais bon, donc du coup, mais il y a les risques, mais il y a les risques aussi en termes de risques sociaux et de coûts pour la sécurité sociale. Et aussi, il me semble que la Grèce notamment il y a quelques années avait repoussé son âge de départ à la retraite et on parlait beaucoup du fait que l'espérance de vie diminuait. L'espérance de vie a toujours reculé. Et puis quand il y a une réforme des retraites, quand on fait travailler les gens plus longtemps, ben ils vivent moins longtemps. Est-ce que vous pouvez nous donner votre avis là-dessus ?
Merci.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much for this first round and I will now give the floor back to our experts for three minutes each for the answers, starting with Professor Ebbinghaus.
Bernhard Ebbinghaus
Thank you very much for these varied issues that you raised. I think generally I would think that a life course perspective is certainly called upon and that's also something we discussed in this high-level group on the future of welfare states. So many of the problems with the retirement age should be addressed much earlier on. And I think that will talk to the issues of unfairness and what we can do for young people.
Thank you.
And so investment in skills for the young to be more productive, to to have less less problems on the labor market will be in the long run, of course, something that is positive for their pensions. The gender issue is very important. And I think we should think about measures, of course, of integrating increasing the activity through the life course, but we should also acknowledge through credits for these kind of interruptions due to particular challenges that also women are facing through the public pension systems. And and finally, we had also some discussions about certainly that there's part of the private complementary pillars that need to be addressed.
And there the situation across Europe is of course very, very different. And so we have some systems where it's quasi-mandatory or collectively negotiated occupational pensions with better access. But particularly for the groups I was talking about in terms of flexible employment, access to those occupational pensions or voluntary private pensions is very, very difficult to achieve.
So that's really an area of a lot of work that needs to be done. And that leads also then to certainly for younger people having trust again in on the one hand the public pension system to provide minimum income in old age and having some incentives and ideas that they should also save in those occupational and private pensions for their own living standards in old age. But both of these need to be really trusted solutions.
I think that's part of the kind of intergenerational conflict between the old and the young, that the young are somewhat seeing that they are fearing that their more flexible working life experience and the changes in the pension systems through those reforms are actually threatening their perspective in old age. They don't want of course to take away the pensions of their grandparents or their parents, but they're worried about their own. Thank you.
Marina Monaco
Mi permetto di intervenire in italiano perché ho ascoltato la traduzione in italiano e sarei confusa. Ho sentito sollevare una domanda pericolosa o comunque che richiede una certa riflessione. Il cambiamento demografico a cui ci stiamo avviando conferma o meno il senso del nostro modello sociale.
Anche qui l'impressione è che ci siano come delle profezie che debbano assolutamente avverarsi. Esistono nel mondo dei contesti sociali e lavorativi in cui l'invecchiamento non produce le problematiche che l'Europa si affanna in questa fase a risolvere in maniera così scomposta.
L'apertura alla integrazione, per esempio, di lavoratori migranti, ma soprattutto di persone che nutrano le nostre società di nuovi nuova forza, nuovi interventi, nuove idee, nuove possibilità da qui al futuro non è assolutamente esclusa a priori. Si tratta di una decisione sulla quale probabilmente dovremo riflettere. E perché ha comunque senso lottare per mantenere il nostro modello sociale europeo? Perché vediamo benissimo che tutte le società all'interno delle quali le disuguaglianze si accentuano invece che ridursi sono delle società in perdita. In perdita economica, in perdita sociale, in perdita politica.
In perdita in termini di valori, in termini di innovazione, in termini di capacità di muoversi su coordinate globali e locali allo stesso tempo.
Questo comporta che giustamente questioni come l'accessibilità a prodotti di risparmio privati diventi un problema in società, specialmente nei paesi dell'est, dove l'alternativa a delle pensioni pubbliche il cui funzionamento dovrebbe probabilmente essere rivisto come in tre quarti se non più dei paesi d'Europa. E l'inesistenza di schemi collettivi negoziati meno che meno paritari che sono quelli che funzionano, sono quelli che garantiscono anche dal punto di vista dei datori di lavoro un vero ritorno e un vero impatto. L'accessibilità ai prodotti privati è decisamente fondamentale da considerare.
Ci sono paesi in cui i contributi dei lavoratori non vengono versati direttamente dai datori di lavoro che agiscono come sostituto d'imposta, ma vengono versati in busta paga ai lavoratori i quali hanno l'obbligo di in qualche modo versarli nelle casse delle pensioni statali. I salari sono così bassi che questo raramente avviene. Immaginate uno stagista che prende seicento euro al mese a Bruxelles a cui viene versato il lordo della retribuzione con tutti i contributi sociali.
In una situazione del genere questo lavoratore ha veramente un vantaggio a contribuire a una proposta di pensione individuale così come di pensione collettiva posto che esista? E quale dovrebbe essere il suo vantaggio?
E perché quindi non considerare che esistono delle situazioni estremamente diversificate, ma che i principi di funzionamento noi li conosciamo e sono molto, molto chiari e dovrebbero essere adottati dalla politica? La scelta di favorire dei prodotti individuali pensionistici, per quanto europei, è una scelta non solo rischiosa perché mette i datori di lavoro in una posizione di forza e di privilegio rispetto ai lavoratori e quindi altera gli equilibri tra le parti sociali, ma è una decisione che attraverso un regolamento europeo va contro persino i principi della better regulation.
Invece non impegnare le i fondi della technical assistance e della capacity building per capire per quali ragioni all'interno dei paesi dell'est, per esempio, ma anche non solo, la negoziazione di IORP collettivi non sia stata sviluppata come ci si aspettava, beh, quello sembra invece doveroso. Altrimenti l'Europa si riempie soltanto la bocca di grandi proclami sulla partnership sociale. L'ultimo punto, e lo ripeto, rappresenta la necessità di rivedere e di fare un assessment in termini di performance delle pensioni pubbliche ovunque.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much, and before we move over to the second panel, I will ask if there are any other members who would wish to take the floor in catch the eye in this first part. If not, then we move on to the second panel. Discussions in this panel will center around practical and policy responses that can strengthen pension adequacy while ensuring long-term sustainability. And I would first like to give the floor to Ms. Chiara Piccolo, Head of European Affairs from the Learning for Well-being Foundation. So please, Ms. Piccolo, the floor is yours for the next eight minutes.
Chiara Piccolo
Thank you. Thank you so much.
Thank you for this invitation. I'm happy to be on the second panel because my intervention is strictly linked of what we have heard so far.
To create, to promote, to find a way to reach solutions provided by my colleague previously, we need to create the condition to get there. And I heard also that we cannot talk about pension if we still considers and think in silos. And also I appreciated a lot the mention that if you want to talk about intergenerational fairness, and so between generation, we need to have an approach that we don't need to put in competition and in the opposite side young people, children, I would mention, and I will mention children also in my speech, and aged people. And why I'm saying that? Because if we talk about future generation, we are talking about children of today.
And so, assuring decent pension for future generation is not only a matter of public finances. It's a political choice that concern the social contract between generations, the quality of life and work and our society's ability to invest in their human capital. We cannot secure decent pension for future generation if we focus only on pension parameters. Adjusting retirement ages or contribution rates may be necessary, but they are not sufficient.
A sustainable pension system is an outcome of something much deeper. A society that invests in people, in their capabilities, in their well-being across the entire life. Basically, if we want a pension system that works better, we need to invest in more inclusive, equal and better welfare systems. And today I want to highlight four strategic areas of investment that are not only social but also economically essential. And I want to focus on gender equality, on holistic education and highlight holistic education and skills, digitalization and long-term care.
Together, these are the foundation of a system where children and young people can work and contribute and older people can reinvent themselves and age well. We have heard so much and so often about the current already aged society. Gender equality, and we have heard about the issue that is still in the access of women in the labor market and also the short and small pension that still they can get. So closing today's gap to avoid tomorrow's poverty, it's for also a better system. Sorry.
Okay. Okay.
Okay, thank you. We need, if we want a better system and pension system, we need to reduce poverty. Across the EU, women receive 24-30% lower pension than men. This is not a marginal issue, it's one of the biggest drivers of poverty in old age.
The reasons are structural: more part-time and fragmented careers, more unpaid care work and not recognized, and I'll come back on that, fewer opportunity for career progression, and pension systems that still insufficiently recognize care periods. But where we need to start in investing in the human capital, we need to invest in the human capital from day one.
So this means for day one of every person. This means expanding early childhood education and care where childcare coverage is high, woman employment rise and career interruptions fall, designing parental leave that men actually take, reducing unequally burden of care. This happen already in some countries in EU, not in all of them, we wish in all of them. Recognizing care periods in pension formulas so that caring for children of dependent relatives, and we know that we are facing more and more these cases, does not translate into poverty at seventy. And closing the gender gaps strengthen fairness but also expand the contributory base and reduce future welfare cost.
So it's one of the smartest long-term investment we can make in pension system also.
Second point, I highlighted the fact that we need to focus and invest on holistic education and skills, enabling children and young and older workers to thrive. We need to make every human capital on our society flourish and unfold their potential, because that in that case we can have young people who can study better, who can then enter in a job market also in a better condition and they can still and keep on working longer. So the second pillar is investment in skills and education, and as starting of the beginning of life and throughout it.
We know that people with higher educational level have higher employment rate, higher wages and therefore higher and more stable pension contribution. But in today's labor market, initial education is not enough. Technological and demographic transition require continuous upskilling and reskilling, especially for mid-career and older workers. And this is a matter for pensions in two ways.
As I said, for young people, quality education and vocational pathways reduce unemployment and precariousness. Stable, well-paid jobs mean stronger contribution from the start and fewer broken careers. And let me add on this that also we are facing a lot of burnout among young people who start their career in the job market. For older workers, access to training and career transition make it possible for work longer by choice and not by obligation, and people can shift roles, update their skills and re-enter in the labor market after interruptions.
This makes later retirement ages socially and economically realistic. I agree that I will not pay, I will be afraid to be in a flight with a 74-aged people person, but still maybe the 74 person can be active still in the society in a way. And investing in skill is therefore not a cost. It's a way to extend healthy, also for the 70-age person, productive working life and reinforce the financial sustainability of pension system. Third, digitalization that makes transparency, trust and inclusion.
Digitalization is often discussed in technical terms, but its impact on pension is profound.
Digital tools allow people to monitor their accrued rights, simulate future scenario and understand the consequences of careers and choices. This transparency builds trust, which is essential for the legitimacy of pensions reform. And it also empowers people to make informed decisions about any complementary pension, retirement timing or mobility. But of course, digitalization must be inclusive.
Older people and low-income groups and those with limited digital skills must not be left behind. Hybrid services, digital literacy programs, and accessible interfaces are crucial. When done well, digitalization becomes a tool for empowerment, not exclusion, and a key ingredient of a modern and resilient pension system. Last, for long-term care, enable people to age well, not just to reach retirement. The fourth pillar is long-term care.
The Pension Adequacy Reports of 2024 makes this very clear.
Adequate pensions are not enough if people face high out-of-pocket costs for care or if families, especially women, must leave the labor market to provide it. Investing in long-term care means home-based and community services that allow people to remain independent, support for formal informal caregivers who are often women at risk of future pension gaps, quality residential care that is accessible and affordable. Long-term care is also an economic opportunity and it creates also very local job. If these jobs are well-regulated and very fairly paid, they become a new source of contribution and stability for the system.
At the same times, policies for active aging from cultural participation to lifelong learning help older people stay engaged, healthier and socially connected. This reduce health cost and enhances well-being. In short, long-term care is not a social expense, it's a strategic investment in aging well. Finally, these reform alone cannot guarantee sustainability if we don't invest in those policies like gender equality, holistic education, skills, digital inclusion, long-term care.
We will simply shift the burden to the next generation if we not take care and we not take action now. A sustainable pension system is the outcome of a society that support women and men equally in work and care, equips children and young people with the strong skills and opportunity to unfold their unique potential in their human capital, empowers citizens through digital tools and ensure the older people that can age with dignity and autonomy. So, investing in people capabilities, in family, child benefit, parental leaves, and help and support child services is the key for a better pension system. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And our next expert is Mrs. Slavina Spasova, who is specialist in social protection and in particular in flexible retirement pathways. So please Mrs. Spasova, you have the floor for next eight minutes.
Slavina Spasova
Good afternoon and many thanks for the invitation. Professor Ebbinghaus talked about flexible working lives, I will be talking about flexible retirement pathways. But just before I would like to flag that we just published an article on the EU discourse and EU tools in managing the demographic transition.
So if you want to have a look at that, including also on the role of the intergroup on demography of the European Parliament. But let me now continue with our report on flexible retirement pathways. It's important to say that it's a European Social Policy Analysis Network report, ESPAN, and this report was produced for the colleagues of the European Commission. The starting point of the report was one of the main findings of the last Pension Adequacy Report, where we obviously flagged that countries have been increasing pensionable ages.
They now stand between 64 and 67 years in most of the countries. But at the same time, they have been developing also this kind of new policies in some cases, which are flexible retirement pathways. I don't have time, I have only eight minutes, so I will just focus on the two core parts of this report, which are the mapping of these flexible retirement pathways. Next slide, please. Next slide.
Thank you. So we identified four more, four main patterns, four main policies.
The first one is deferred retirement. It exists in all the Member States and Norway, we also included Norway in the report, in the statutory pension schemes, except for the Netherlands because of their specific pension scheme where they exist in the occupational pension scheme.
The incentives to defer retirement vary really a lot in the Member States. Increased pension accrual rates vary between 3 and 10% and bonuses are quite rare in the Member States. Sometimes they have been even abolished, like we know about, some of us know about the Belgian system. And we were very surprised to see that reduced taxation is available only in five Member States. What about the take-up of these deferred retirement schemes?
Well, we asked for some admin data, we know that it's not really comparable, but the highest values are found in Slovenia, for instance, 40% of people near the pensionable age, they do defer retirement, and the lowest values in the Baltic States. The second policy, next slide please.
The second policy we identified is differentiated pensionable ages. This policy is not about postponing retirement and going beyond the pensionable age, but it's about being able to retire earlier without penalty. So when we talk about flexible retirement policies, it's also very important to take into account these people who have long working careers. And 16 member states, they do provide such schemes, mostly Southern and Eastern European countries.
And long career, long contribution period means in most of the countries is set at around 40 years. And so people who have long working lives, they can retire three to four years before the pensionable age. So when we talk about flexible retirement pathways, it's also very important to talk about the possibility for those who cannot work more to be able to retire early. The third pathway that we identified is flexible pensionable ages.
It's a rare policy which exists only in three countries: Finland, Sweden, and Norway. It allows workers to choose their pensionable age within a defined range. So there is not a single pensionable age set in the country. And typically this includes incentives to retire later within the defined range. There are several examples in our report also to what type of benefits these people are entitled, but I won't go into details here.
And then finally the fourth possibility for flexible retirement is combining pensions with work. And here we identified three models: combining full pension with work, which exists in all the 28 countries under examination in the report; partial retirement with work, which is a really rare possibility, it exists only in 11 countries, including Norway, and these are mostly Western European ones; and then combining early pension with work, existing in 21 countries. I don't have time here to go into details, but again, what about the incentives for people for combining pensions with work? And here I give just the examples, next slide please. No, that's fine, no, the previous one, sorry.
I give just the examples of combining full pension with work.
What we found out, obviously, that there is a wide variation in accrual of benefits. And imagine that in eight countries, they do not provide any accrual in pension benefit after retirement if you combine pension with work. And in the remaining 20, the incentives, they vary between accrual rates being the same as before retirement or additional accrual via specific formula or lump sums.
Tax relief is available in only half of the countries. Take-up, again, admin data, we know about biases, but this is quite widespread in Norway, for instance, more or less in Latvia, and then less than 4% in countries like Austria and some Southern European countries. I won't go, next slide please. As I don't have enough time, I won't go into the reform trends. I will go directly to the second and really core part of our report, which is impact of these flexible retirement pathways.
And here I would like to mention something really important is that ex-ante but also ex-post assessments of such reforms are extremely rare. So it was really difficult for the experts to find studies and assessments of that. So this also a call for the member states and in general for policy makers to think and to go for this kind of assessments. But let me go back to our findings on redistributive effects. We looked into mostly fairness within the same generation.
And the first finding, unsurprisingly to all of you, is that educational attainment and type of employment, as it was already mentioned in the previous presentation, play really a prominent role to remain employed after the pensionable age. It's obviously most likely for high-income workers and white collars. Just some data here: 24.8% in 2023 remaining in employment against workers with a lower education, 10% in the same year. Then the second finding: health constraints and working and labor market conditions, they may prevent again many low-skilled workers from using deferred retirement schemes, while high-skilled workers benefit much more from these pathways.
Obviously, the gender effect, it's been already mentioned. Women defer retirement much less often than men because of care responsibilities. And so the impact of this pathway, of this flexible pathway, on reducing the gender pension gap remains really limited.
And what's important here is that in general, also we talked also about already pension credits. And then the final finding, and there are some really interesting examples in the report, tax relief or the ability to combine pensions with earnings tend to benefit higher income workers much more than lower income workers.
And we together with the experts, we reflected on possible solutions. And so one of these, and in some countries this has been on the political agenda and reform agenda, is to combine or or to increase incentives and to reform the differentiated pensionable ages schemes and combination and to provide the possibility to have a combination of early retirement or partial retirement, which we already heard is quite rare, with part-time work, which would benefit which would potentially have favorable effects on people with long working careers or exposed to high job strain. Next slide please. Next slide please, yeah, I won't have time to go into details here. But also in order to to to incentivize people to to take up these flexible retirement pathways, it's very important to look also into the motivations of people.
And we found out that one of the main reasons, and in most countries, especially Southern and Eastern European countries, is a financial one. It's about supplementing, people need to supplement their pensions in order to avoid income poverty and material deprivation because of lower adequacy in pensions in these regions. The second reason is enjoyment of work and social connections, and the two are not exclusionary.
Obviously, many people choose to keep working for personal satisfaction in the EU, and obviously, again, it's a strong motivation for people with high household incomes. Employers, but also unions, let's say, they play an important role in incentivizing people and ensuring that working places are adaptable and adapted to people to stay longer. And so flexibility in the motivations of people is really a key factor, among the key factors in order to stay longer, and we see that there is a growing trend of flexi-jobs among pensioners in several countries.
And then we were a bit surprised to see that health and ability to work, they both obviously seem to be important factors, but only to a certain extent. If the workplace is adapted, other psychological factors such as self-esteem and enjoyment of meaningful work play a very important role too. And with, and to conclude, next slide please. We reflected on some policy recommendations. Well, in order to, in order to continue your working life beyond pension, it's very important to get incentives right.
We saw that incentives in several countries are still lacking or are very low. Second, tailoring.
It's very clear and our report also shows this and several other studies, some people cannot continue working longer. And so these policies of differentiated pensionable ages are very interesting and there have been, I mean, interesting examples in some countries like Denmark or Germany. Then we also in the report looked into, but I didn't present this here, improving accessibility of information to flexible retirement pathways. This is key in order to have an informed decision, to have calculators, simulators on this.
And then it's really important, and this was already mentioned by Marina, to promote stronger links between the pension system and the retirement pathways. And again, monitoring of the outcomes of these reforms is very important, having research on that, on the intersection between the impacts of the pension, health, and labour market systems is really crucial. Thank you very much.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. So we will have a combined group representatives and catch-the-eye, so if all those members that wish to take the floor please can indicate it during this round. I'm starting with Mrs Geukemans from the S&D.
Estelle Ceulemans
Merci Madame la Présidente.
Je vais m'exprimer en français. Mais voilà, le débat d'aujourd'hui, je pense qu'il nous a dit qu'il était temps de changer d'état d'esprit. Parce que depuis une trentaine d'années au niveau européen, on n'entend parler que du coût des pensions, de la charge des pensions, que ce soit effectivement pour les budgets publics ou sur les jeunes puisque c'est eux soi-disant qui vont payer le prix.
Donc il est temps effectivement de changer de paradigme et au contraire d'être beaucoup plus positif. Le changement démographique, on le connaît depuis plus de 30 ans. Et c'est depuis plus de 30 ans qu'on entend ces discours. Est-ce que pourtant d'ailleurs dans les soins de santé qui vivent la même chose, on va commencer à dire : "Ah mais on va moins investir dans les vieux pour les soins de santé, on va réduire, on va moins les soigner, on va peut-être s'arrêter de les soigner" ? Et finalement pourtant c'est ça qu'on fait au niveau des pensions puisque les recettes qui sont appliquées aujourd'hui, c'est soit de diminuer le niveau des pensions ou c'est soit effectivement imposer de travailler plus longtemps même si les gens ne sont pas en condition.
Or les pensions, et il est temps de le rattraper, de s'en rappeler, c'est aussi un soutien économique parce que demain on arrête de financer des pensions correctes, excusez-moi mais les pensionnés ils consomment, ils consomment bien donc il y a un enjeu économique aussi dans les pensions publiques. C'est un enjeu de solidarité intergénérationnelle parce que quand demain les pensions ne seront pas suffisantes, sur qui la charge financière repose ?
Bah sur les jeunes aussi, hein, qui vont être effectivement beaucoup plus devoir aider leurs parents âgés. Il s'agit aussi, et ça a été dit, de justice vis-à-vis des femmes parce qu'aujourd'hui toujours elles paient le prix non seulement du temps partiel, de l'écart salarial, des carrières qui sont effectivement interrompues. Pourquoi ? Parce que c'est elles qui continuent effectivement à prendre la charge des enfants ou d'un proche dépendant.
Donc voilà, c'est un choix politique, ça nous a été rappelé aujourd'hui, et ça fait effectivement du bien parce qu'il faut au contraire augmenter la qualité de l'emploi pour permettre et baisser la pénibilité pour pouvoir permettre de travailler plus longtemps et pas de l'imposer parce qu'il est temps justement d'avoir une meilleure égalité, en tout cas équilibre entre vie privée et vie professionnelle. C'est un enjeu pour les femmes, mais pour les jeunes aussi, ça a été dit, et parce qu'effectivement c'est la seule capacité aussi de permettre de travailler aussi plus longtemps. Et puis c'est avoir des salaires corrects pour avoir des niveaux de pension corrects. Donc il faut faire exactement l'inverse de ce qui est fait dans beaucoup d'États membres comme la Belgique, par exemple, où on attaque quoi ? On attaque la réforme des pensions, attaque les niveaux des pensions, attaque les femmes en particulier et la possibilité de départ anticipé.
Donc voilà, c'est effectivement un enjeu politique, il s'agit d'arrêter de dire que there is no alternative et au contraire de dire there is plenty of alternatives.
Donc c'est TINA plutôt que TAPA et il est temps effectivement d'entendre ce discours-là par rapport aux pensions. Merci.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much. I have one other group representatives and that is Mrs. Schibi from the Left. Mr. Bosanac from the Greens. Okay, I will take you first and then Mrs. Schibi.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you, Chair. And thank you for the presentations. In this discussion, I would also like to highlight the pension gap between East and West. Because what we are seeing, I'm coming from Croatia where the average pension is 700 euros.
And majority of the pensioners are not even receiving this amount. So people are living with 600 euros or less per month. So it's really to wonder how they can survive. And many of them are unfortunately pushed under the line of poverty. And I know this is the big problem which we even don't have a competence to deal in this house, how to make less differences between East and West on the pension scheme.
But we also have to be aware that there has been some really wrong political decisions made around the pensions. So it's not only about the health of economy, but it was also some political decisions which were very, very bad.
And also there are some country-specific issues. For example, my country, who also suffered the war in nineties, today also has a lot of war veterans who are retired. Maybe this will happen very soon with Ukraine if Ukraine join, and I hope it will soon, European Union.
And you see in this model, for example, the government made a decision that those who retired immediately after the war, who didn't, who were not able to work or didn't want to go back to work, or couldn't get back to work because their factory has been destroyed in the war, or they have been destroyed in a very bad privatization process, they retired and today they are receiving three times bigger pension than those who after the war went back to work and continue with their job. And so this is like a clear wrong political decisions which made big differences between the war veterans. And this is why I think that also we have to learn how not, how to avoid bad political decisions related to the pensions because it's not only about the health of the economy. But before we go there, maybe as a parliament we can do much more on other side, like what can we do for our senior citizens? Because for sure we have a little power to increase the pensions as a parliament.
But there are some ideas floating around like we are having a program Erasmus for youth, why shouldn't we have the program Nestor for senior citizens where they can also exchange, they can travel, they can use health and cultural benefits across the European Union. Or why are we not stopping with the discrimination of senior citizens when they come in one country to the another, they are not enjoying all the discounts which are available to the senior citizens. So maybe there is also time for European pension card. Thank you.
Leila Chaibi
Oui, moi j'aimerais avoir votre votre point de vue, merci pour vos interventions. Je voudrais avoir votre point de vue sur les propositions récentes de la Commission européenne et notamment le produit paneuropéen de retraite. On en discutait ce matin, hier, ce matin pardon, ici dans cette commission et et on est un certain nombre à être très inquiets, à considérer que les propositions de la Commission européenne et ben elles risquent de mener à une casse des systèmes publics de retraite et notamment du système de de répartition. Parce que même si c'est pas dit officiellement, à partir du moment où on développe les piliers 2 et 3, on abandonne le premier, on déshabille Paul pour habiller Jacques comme on dit en France ou l'inverse.
Et du coup, on donne des raisons au gouvernement pour laisser le privé gérer de plus en plus le secteur des retraites. Donc question : est-ce que vous pensez que ça risque pas d'augmenter les inégalités et de dégrader les conditions de vie des retraités, ces propositions de la Commission européenne, notamment le produit paneuropéen de retraite ? Deuxième question : quelles conséquences pour l'épargne ? En France, nous avons le livret A qui permet en partie, en grande partie, de financer le logement social. Et c'est un acte de solidarité important et c'est fait grâce à l'épargne des Français et des Françaises.
Et si tout le monde met son argent dans le PEP, dans le produit paneuropéen de retraite, et bien c'est pas seulement le système de retraite par répartition qui est attaqué, mais c'est aussi un système public, le système de logement public qui est définancé.
Et je voulais savoir donc si vous avez des bonnes pratiques de financement des systèmes de retraite sans avoir à passer par le privé ou sans faire travailler les gens plus longtemps.
Li Andersson
Thank you, and because I combined the catch-the-eye, I still have Mr. Goerke and Angel. One minute please, starting with Mr. Goerke.
Niels Geuking
Ja, vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende. Ich danke auch allen Beiträgen oder allen Rednern heute, die mit ihrem Beitrag dazu beigetragen haben, das Problem noch mal umfassend zu beleuchten.
Aber ich möchte das Offensichtliche vielleicht auch noch mal ganz klar aussprechen. Das Hauptproblem ist ja eigentlich gerade beim Umlageverfahren, dass wir eine starke Familienpolitik brauchen, damit es überhaupt den Steuerzahler von morgen gibt. Also die niedrigen Geburtenraten seit den 70er Jahren. Die eine Kollegin sprach ja auch davon, dass wir seit 30 Jahren hier auch schon auf europäischer Ebene darüber diskutieren. Wir kommen nicht voran bei diesem Thema, wenn wir am Ende des Tages Familienpolitik nicht als Wirtschaftspolitik verstehen.
Denn genau das ist es am Ende des Tages, warum wir heute die Finanzierungslücke haben. Deutschland wurde heute auch vielfach genannt.
Inzwischen ist der Steuerzahlerbeitrag zusätzlich zu den Beitragszahlungen bei 120 bis 130 Milliarden Euro. Zusammen nur mit dem Entwicklungsbereich einer der kleinsten Bereiche deutscher Politik ist das schon insgesamt der Gesamtbeitrag, den die Europäische Union jährlich ausgibt. Nur das, was wir als Steuerzuschuss haben plus Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. Das ist schon der gesamte europäischer Beitrag.
Das zeigt auf, wie groß die Lücke insgesamt ist und dass wir am Ende des Tages das Problem nur in die nächste Generation verschieben und von Generation zu Generation weitergeben, wenn wir keine angemessene Familienpolitik betreiben und für werdende Eltern Kinderarmut und vor allem das Armutsrisiko Kind nicht reduzieren, denn das ist die Wurzel allen Übels. Uns fehlt der Steuerzahler von morgen, der Beitragszahler von morgen. Und da wäre dann auch meine Frage an die Experten, welche familienpolitischen Maßnahmen sehen Sie als größten Hebel, um diesen Kreislauf einmal zu durchbrechen? Denn das müssen wir hinbekommen, denn ansonsten gehen wir den Weg Südkoreas, die inzwischen bei 0,9 bis 0,8 sind und auch da fehlt es am Ende des Tages den einen Impuls, der dazu beiträgt, dass wir die Beitragsseite steigern. Vielen Dank.
Marc Angel
One remark and one question. The Pay Transparency Directive is there to close the gender pay gap. And we have the gender pension gap. And the fact that only four countries so far have transposed it and that it's so slow, this doesn't help here. And I think especially Article 19 of that directive, where it's not about equal work, equal pay for equal work, but equal pay for work of equal value, I think is very important.
Marc Angel
Especially those sectors where it's dominated by women, they are underpaid and often it's the same kind of work.
So I think we really have to push the Member States to transpose that directive. Now my question, the pensioners are hit by the cost of living crisis like everybody and especially the housing crisis. And I wanted to ask those pensioners who have, who are owners, who had paid their mortgage, of course they have less problems to have a proper life with their pension. But those who have to rent or who are dependent on, on, on, on, on, on paying, paying for their housing, there's a lot of problems.
In my member states, a lot of old people, pensioners have to move out of Luxembourg and have to go live in Germany, France or Belgium because they cannot pay their rents anymore. So the impact of the housing crisis and the speculation and the inactivity on of member states to act against all this, is there some studies or do you have some information about that, how we could how this problem of the housing crisis affects pensioners? Thank you.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much.
And since you all love to speak about this topic, you will all be with me here at least until five past, because now I still have the floor back to our experts, three minutes each, and then we have the Commission for three minutes. So, starting with Mrs. Piccolo.
Chiara Piccolo
Grazie. Anch'io parlerò in italiano perché ho sentito come la mia collega Nina in italiano e anche perché essendo la mia lingua nativa riesco a esprimere meglio quello che vorrei dire. Credo veramente che ci debba essere un cambiamento di prospettiva attraverso cui vediamo questa solidarietà tra generazioni e come queste due generazioni possono trovare un terreno e un vantaggio comune nella collaborazione.
Lavorare, perché ho insistito molto nell'educazione e nel fatto di includere nel discorso anche i bambini? Perché se bisogna cambiare prospettiva anche rispetto a un sistema pensionistico che i dati ci dicono non è sostenibile, dobbiamo cambiare esattamente l'approccio a questo. E dobbiamo investire, come dicevo prima, nel capitale umano.
E se si vuole investire nel capitale umano, bisogna investire nei primi anni di vita di ognuno, perché questo permette anche politiche sul gender gap migliori, ponendo anche sostegno alle famiglie, come sosteneva il deputato Geuking, includere, incentivare la direttiva sul gender gap, come diceva il deputato Engel.
E perché investire sull'early childhood? Perché significa investire su riconoscere che, ad esempio, la maternità è un momento di formazione per le donne, piuttosto che un momento di solamente cura dell'infanzia. Perché quando le donne ritornano al lavoro dopo il periodo di maternità, sono persone più competenti, più flessibili e più, il termine che piace tantissimo, il multitasking, ma capaci di risolvere i problemi più velocemente.
Investire nell'early childhood vuol dire anche investire nel parental leave, e quindi un parental leave equo che permetta anche ai compagni o alle compagne di poter usufruire di un periodo di presa in carico della famiglia e dei bambini, anche quello visto come un momento di training. E ultimo, fare in modo che i servizi siano accessibili a tutti, sia anziani che bambini, perché questo vuol dire che prepariamo già il terreno per dei nuovi e più competitivi lavoratori che andranno al lavoro facendo, sperando, un lavoro che gli piaccia, in condizioni che lo — che gli permetta di poter vivere e continuare a lavorare con piacere seguendo il proprio benessere e la propria aspirazione di vita.
Credo che questo sia il cambiamento veramente di mentalità se vogliamo cambiare il sistema. Sul pane europeo della commissione non mi posso...
Li Andersson
I'm sorry, we are already over time, so I must ask you to respect the speaking times. So now I will give the floor to Mrs. Pasova for three minutes.
Slavina Spasova
Tout d'abord pour répondre à Madame Solémans, vous avez mentionné vous avez mentionné la pénibilité au travail.
Moi, je pense que c'est aussi un débat qui doit être remis sur l'ordre du jour. Pendant des années, les vingt dernières années, les États ont aboli ce type de système. Et maintenant, on voit, et j'ai pas eu le temps de présenter ça dans le rapport, dans ces differentiated pensionable schemes, on peut voir qu'il y a un retour en arrière et une combinaison entre pénibilité au travail et des carrières longues. Et donc, peut-être là, il y a quelque chose à faire, mais à voir. Deuxième question, Madame Chaibi, merci pour votre question.
Moi, je ne suis pas experte sur ces questions, mais d'un côté, je pense qu'ici, bien sûr, l'interprétation politique de ce produit dans chaque État sera extrêmement importante.
Et deuxièmement, le design de ce type de schemes. Donc ici je pense que les partis politiques, les syndicats, les employeurs ont beaucoup à jouer dans chaque pays. Et deuxièmement, en ce qui concerne vraiment le deuxième pilier des pensions, je pense que là bien sûr encore les partenaires sociaux et les syndicats ont encore beaucoup à jouer aussi par rapport au design de ces schemes, y compris tout ce qui est les care credits comme on appelle dans ces schemes. Donc voilà, merci.
Li Andersson
Thank you very much, and the last speaker is Mrs. Dana Bachmann from the European Commission for three minutes.
Dana Bachmann
Thank you very much and very happy to be here for the debate and connect also with some of the experts that we work closely on pensions. Maybe before drawing some conclusions, quickly to echo some of the key findings we have from the pension adequacy report. It has been mentioned a couple of times. It's a report we prepare with Member States every three years, looking at different dimensions of pension adequacy across all Member States and Norway.
And of course we see as a key trend that pension replacement rates are likely to fall in most of the Member States in next 40 years, meaning that adequate pensions will increasingly depend on longer careers. At the same time, it's very important to highlight that being able and willing to work longer is not a given for everyone. Depends very much on healthy life expectancy and the quality of life and the quality of jobs, so all things happening before reaching the retirement age.
Pension adequacy also shows some and important inequalities. We see people that are self-employed receiving on average one third lower pension entitlements than full-time employees, similar lower entitlements for people with non-linear careers and atypical jobs, and very importantly the gender pension gap, which is very much driven by inequalities earlier in life. We are working together with OECD to look into what are different ways of addressing the financing gap and financing challenges for social protection.
That report will be published later in the autumn, so we hope that will provide further inspiration. Now, with regards to the solution, what we see in the Member States and also what are the key messages that we take forward in the employment guidelines and in the European Semester is obviously promoting longer working lives, so reforms within the pension systems and then reforms broader.
In the pension systems, echoing trends across Member States, promoting longer working lives, development of multi-pillar systems, lots of focus on strengthening the adequacy of public pensions in the first pensions, but also efforts towards addressing gender gaps through pension credits for career breaks and also to enhance financial literacy and pension awareness, including through pension tracking and pension dashboards. We are working again with Social Protection Committee in 2027, we will prepare a report that integrates analysis of adequacy of pensions and long-term care together, and we announced in the anti-poverty strategy that we'll follow with a high-level policy exchange on measures to tackle challenges in this respect.
Now looking beyond pension system, important very much to look at how to ensure let's say the social investment element for people earlier in life, so enabling people to fulfill their aspiration and to reach their full potential. Union of skill putting a focus on lifelong development and lifelong learning supporting transitions. Quality jobs roadmap that and the expected act that aims to enhance the quality of jobs that also enhance the healthy aging and the capacity to work longer. We will be working building on the care strategy for a care deal to be developed in 2027. And maybe I would also pick up on the issue linked to housing to say that in the 2027 report on adequacy of social protection in old age we will also look at the interaction not only pensions long-term care but also housing and and health inequalities.
Li Andersson
Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone for a very active participation. We have reached the end of the hearing. And before we end the meeting, I would also like to hear in this format tell everyone that this is the last time Boža will be sitting next to me here as head of unit.
On behalf of the whole committee once again, I really want to thank you for your leadership, for your calm, your professionalism, for always providing help and guidance to all of the groups, everyone working here, of course also in the secretariat, so you will be missed. Thank you very much and I have a small present also for you before we leave. And now I will let you out if you want to leave. Thank you.
Hi Luca, if you're ready we can test.
Speaker 34
I'm on English. Perfect. French. Sorry? Sorry, French was fine online.
Okay. Italian? Great. Spanish? Yes.
Portuguese? Thank you. Polish? Okay, thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.