Anyway, in Frankfurt I listened to a discussion on pensions that was almost a bit ideological which surprised me in that setting. The policy makers in Europe are currently trying to go forward with IORP 2, a directive on institutions for occupational pension funds. The European Commission wants to make these IORPs to, easily put, contribute to the long-term financing of the economy by stimulating cross border activity of the institutions. The proposal also wants to establish a common pension benefit statement for the EU. Interesting to note in this perspective is that less than half of the population in Europe have occupational pensions today. What I failed to understand in this discussion on establishing an internal market for occupational pensions was what the added value is for the beneficiaries and members of pension schemes. Shouldn’t the main aim of reforming the occupational pensions system be to improve conditions for the employees when they retire and not only to stimulate economic growth?

Another interesting aspect of IORP 2 is whether the institutions should be considered as financial institutions or social institutions. The argument for the last option is the role of the occupational pension institutions in society. They fulfil a very important social function where the social partners are key stakeholders. Maybe that is the reason why it is not so simple to transfer financial regulation to an area that is to a large extent covered by social and labour law. The discussion on IORP 2 is far from over even after I leave Frankfurt, it has actually just started in the European Parliament.

On the insurance side we await the complex implementation of Solvency 2 but also the completion of IMD 2, i.e. the revision of the insurance mediation directive. Both the Council and the European Parliament have adopted their positions on IMD 2, now they just have to find a way to get along and reach a compromise. If you haven’t heard about IMD 2 before, it is a legislative act that strives to increase consumer protection in insurance mediation, which is something that we of course support. But there are some aspects in the proposal that we have criticised, such as excessive transparency of the employees’ pay to the customer. Still, many of our opinions on IMD 2 were adopted by the Parliament and we hope their position won’t be watered down too much in the trilogue with the Council.

NFU will of course continue following the development of these issues and do our best to ensure that the proposals take the interests of employees into account.

Ella Sjödin, Head of EU Affairs
@EllaSjdin