The European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee debated the revised Pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEP 2) on 3 June 2026, exposing a split between those who see it as a necessary supplement to state pensions and those who warn it undermines social security. Commission representative Tilman Lueder (DG FISMA) outlined three key features: a life-cycle product sold online without advice, workplace applicability including auto-enrolment, and tax advantages. Rapporteur Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Renew, France) proposed renaming it 'Euro Pension' to boost appeal and stressed simplicity, tax incentives, and alignment with existing rules. Janusz Lewandowski (EPP, Poland) welcomed the revision but urged flexibility on fees and advice, and integration with occupational pensions. Francisco Assis (S&D, Portugal) warned against eroding state pension systems and questioned the justification for removing mandatory sub-accounts.
Catarina Martins (The Left, Portugal) strongly opposed the proposal, arguing it privatises social security and citing poor returns of Portuguese private funds. Lueder countered that PEP 2 supplements declining state replacement rates and that sub-accounts remain optional. On horizontal rules for EU programmes, Lewandowski (EPP) proposed deleting horizontal principles (e.g., 'do no significant harm', climate tracking) from the performance regulation, arguing they duplicate sectoral rules. Jonás Fernández (S&D, Spain) read a statement opposing removal, calling it a political choice that undermines EU priorities. Voting on amendments is scheduled for 23 June.
The debate highlighted a cleavage between those prioritising individual retirement savings and market flexibility (Yon-Courtin, Lewandowski) and those defending public pension systems and regulatory safeguards (Assis, Martins). For EU citizens, PEP 2 could offer higher returns but also risk exposure to market volatility; for pension providers, it opens a new distribution channel but imposes compliance costs; for employers, auto-enrolment may increase administrative burdens; for member states, it could reduce pressure on state pensions but also complicate tax coordination.