Proposition 50K1049

Proposition de loi modifiant la législation relative aux pensions en ce qui concerne le paiement des petites pensions.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Greta D'hondt, Luc Goutry, Yves Leterme, Trees Pieters, Jo Vandeurzen

Submission date

Jan. 17, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

pension scheme survivor's benefit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V LE FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Vincent Decroly (Ecolo) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Léon Campstein (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• François Dufour (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Zoé Genot (Ecolo) abstained from voting.
• Jean-Pierre Grafé (LE) abstained from voting.
• Tony Van Parys (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

March 12, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, I am here to report on a part of the bill on supplementary pensions that was discussed there. This bill was explained by the Minister in the committee before the summer vacation. The actual discussions took place during the months of December and January.

In his introductory presentation, the Minister points out the importance of this bill. This project is not only an important achievement in the context of the democratization of the so-called second pillar, it has also been achieved thanks to a constructive contribution of the social partners. In addition, it is about the implementation of an important point of the government declaration.

As a substantial amendment to the second pillar, it was decided to completely replace the existing Act of 6 April 1995 on supplementary pensions.

The democratization of the second pillar means that the supplementary pensions are made accessible to all workers and thus not only to the executives and employees but also to the workers. Democratisation also implies that the second pillar is designed not only for the large companies but also for the many SMEs that our country counts.

The draft law stipulates that membership in collective systems will be mandatory for all employees from 25 years of age. It is important that it is also determined that this applies to all employees. Any form of discrimination is impossible. Thus, in other words, one cannot be excluded on the basis of gender, medical examination, position in the company, and so on.

The scope of this new law is very broad. The bill covers both sectoral pension plans as well as corporate pension plans and individual pension commitments. This wide scope of application is entirely in line with the spirit of the law, namely the democratization of supplementary pensions.

It is important to note that the bill also provides for the so-called opting out principle. Specifically, this means that a sectoral CAO can allow the employer to develop its own pension scheme for the implementation of a pension scheme. Transparency is the other goal of this new law, clarity for both the founders and the beneficiary. An annual report is compulsory. This report should be communicated to all interested parties, both the founders and the employers and workers.

In addition, a minimum yield is guaranteed a ratio of 3.75%. This is a longer-term return, which concrete means that the minimum return must not be achieved annually but at the moment of the withdrawal. If this minimum performance guarantee does not exist at the time of withdrawal, the previous or new injector must adjust.

With regard to the acquired reserves and benefits, the main principles of the existing Supplementary Pensions Act have been adopted and, where necessary, supplemented and improved. It is provided that the reserves acquired to the members are allocated one year after the accession. There is also an information obligation. Specifically, this means that the founder must annually provide a pension sheet with an overview of the achieved performance and reserves.

In addition, the draft also provides for so-called social pension plans, namely pension schemes that meet specific conditions. These pension plans are subject to an additional tax incentive. After all, these plans enjoy the exemption from the insurance tax of 4.4%. Furthermore, such pension commitments fall outside the wage standard.

The draft also defines the concept of “exit”. There is a distinction between withdrawal for corporate pensions and for sector pensions. In the case of an enterprise pension, there is withdrawal at the moment that the employment contract was terminated. In the case of a sectoral pension, there is a case of withdrawal at the moment the employee leaves the sector concerned.

Furthermore, that bill introduces paritary management for all pension funds. Exception is provided only for multi-enterprise funds.

The control is entrusted to the Insurance Control Service. Within the Control Service, there is already a department responsible for overseeing the second pillar. That audit service shall be required to produce a two-year report by sector system.

Finally, the proposal provides for the creation of two new bodies, namely the Supplementary Pensions Board and the Supplementary Pensions Committee. The Council should first provide for consultation and cooperation. The committee, on the other hand, has the primary task of addressing all sorts of issues related to the Second Pillar.

From the discussion of the draft law, I especially remembered that all members emphasized the importance of the development of that second pillar in our country. In addition to these positive approaches, several members formulated questions to the Minister for clarification. Several amendments were submitted, both by the government and by the members of the committee.

The amended bill was adopted at the meeting of 23 January last year with eight votes for and one abstinence.

I would like to thank the services for their work on this troubling report.

Mrs D'Hondt, your wishes have been fulfilled. You ask, we are turning. The Minister of Finance is present. You are right. The two reports date from February 2002. I had overlooked that the financial report of 2003 is. It is therefore relevant and the report is also comprehensive. My apologies because I thought that Finance was not involved in this. Finance is really involved. You are right to call the Minister to the Chamber.

Mrs Gerkens and Mr Borginon, co-rapporteur, refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Colleagues, I would have given the legacy of Jean-Luc Dehaene a better fate. Indeed, during the previous legislature, Jean-Luc Dehaene, both personally and as prime minister, paved the way so that a legal system for supplementary pensions would be part of our country’s social opportunities. Anyone who has been involved with the dossier knows that a few years ago there was no evidence that the social partners had more or less unanimous views on this issue. With great regularity, concerns were expressed that addressing proposals for arrangements or for a generalization of supplementary pension schemes would actually mark the beginning of the breakdown of the statutory pensions.

It has been the merit of Mr. Dehaene that he effected the terrain and made the spirits mature in this connection. He made us realize that supplementary pensions could indeed be complementary, without prejudice to the lasting importance of the statutory pension system, but, on the contrary, to secure and improve that system. It is in that sense that we, as the CD&V group, then still as the CVP group, have been positive from the outset towards a general scheme for supplementary pensions even if that was not the case for the social partners. We favored a generalized system of supplementary pensions with a legal basis, provided that that system of supplementary pensions contains sufficient solidarity mechanisms and provided that it would in no way jeopardise the statutory pension system and its improvement.

It was therefore in that spirit that we were delighted, Mr. Minister, that at the beginning of the current legislature the relevant bill was prepared and submitted to the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, you just got a little lost in the reports. That is understandable. I would like to remind the meeting that, in fact, we were almost forced, in July 2001, just before the summer holiday, by the minister to begin the discussion. The Minister strongly insisted on this. I still remember his PowerPoint presentation in the Conference Hall. I must honestly say that I almost died of anger at that moment because he caused us that exhaustion blow. The design should and should be dealt with!

It was July 2001! Today is March 12, 2003! And that for one of the so-called crown pieces of politics.

The Social Affairs Committee concluded the discussions on 23 January 2002. In my speech I have emphasized that a number of matters should be placed in sufficient light. This was the case for ⁇ ining the statutory pensions. The improvement of these statutory pensions should, in my opinion, remain the first policy priority. At that point I regretted — two years later I do so more — that no initiatives were taken to consider a system of supplementary pensions for the public sector. I hope that the system of supplementary pensions for the private sector’s wage and wagerers can become a success story for the benefit of the pensioners or future pensioners. However, I am convinced that at the moment when those rights for the private sector come at cross-speed, we will end up in a reverse world. I explain myself more closely. To date, public sector pensions are the better pensions. At the time when the additional pensions for the private sector will be at cross-speed, the public sector will know the least favourable pension schemes. The public sector with the more favourable statutory pension but without a supplementary pension will have accumulated less pension rights during its career in euros and euro cents than the private sector.

Mr. Minister, after the second part, in this case the fiscal gap, I remain even more convinced than in the past that the bill contains a number of administrative burdens which, especially in the light of the information obligation, are very logical that they may have a counterproductive effect.

I abstained in the voting in the Social Affairs Committee, not because I was not in favour of the draft as it was proposed in the committee. I underlined that the CD&Vfraction would let its final vote depend on the second part. For Christian Democrats, the social and fiscal gap form one whole. We will make our consideration on account of the fiscal gap.

In this regard, my message is no longer so positive. The conclusion that the fiscal part is being dealt with one and a half years after the approval in the Social Affairs Committee by the Finance Committee raises a number of questions. There are a number of things to be taken from my heart on this subject, and here I will of course address both ministers. Their

After the examination of the fiscal gap, we must have concluded — which may be due to the long time between the discussion of the two drafts — that the fiscal gap contains a number of matters, Mr. Minister, which do not belong to it. In the fiscal part, supplementary insurance was subject to a number of conditions and linked to a tax penalty, while these conditions actually belonged to the social gap. The consideration is appropriate, gentlemen ministers, whether there is a completed text to be submitted for voting in the plenary session and whether some items that were dealt with in the Committee on Finance should not be sent back to the Committee on Social Affairs, because they deal with social affairs and not with taxation, Mr. Minister.

I recommend to all colleagues, who have not yet done so, the reading of the note of the Financial Inspectorate, dated 31 July 2002, which repeats with many more words what I say here briefly, namely that the fiscal office is not the appropriate partner to supplement and control the social character of a legislation. Nevertheless, it is what is happening in the fiscal gap of the bill on the supplementary pensions. The tax authority introduces provisions relating to social matters and not to tax matters. The Inspectorate of Finance says very clearly in the note I have just quoted that it is not desirable that a tax law defines various terms such as hospitalization, daycare, serious disorders recognized for the Minister of Social Affairs, palliative home care and dependence. This happens here! The Finance Inspectorate says more than rightly that this should not actually be done. The Financial Inspectorate asks why these definitions were not included in the draft law on supplementary pensions, which we discussed two years ago in the Social Affairs Committee. The Financial Inspectorate says that these definitions belong to the legislation on social security and they are right. Finance further states that there is a risk that these definitions will differ or will differ from the meaning given to them in the social legislation, which in no way benefits the transparency of the legislation and can only give rise to controversy. That is an additional reason, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, to re-examine in the Committee on Social Affairs to what extent the concepts defined in this bill correspond to the content given to these concepts in the social security system.

A second matter, which is important enough to be mentioned here, which we have already touched in the committee and which also comes from the note of the Financial Inspectorate, concerns a very dangerous point of the bill. The Minister of Social Affairs may amend or supplement the list of serious illnesses. We believe, and we have also said so in the committee, that that power goes too far and that this should actually be done at least by the Council of Ministers, not by the minister alone. What we deeply regret is that the draft law, which we were still positively opposed to, has not been kept clean. It has incorporated a wide range of supplementary personal insurance that does not benefit the transparency and logic of the legislation on supplementary pensions.

On a third issue that I would like to point out, we have also spoken in the Committee on Finance, Mr. Minister, namely: the conformity of what is in the fiscal gap with European legislation. In your reply in the committee you acknowledged that this is indeed a problem. You said that you no longer have the possibility to adjust the tax gap to the European regulation. I truly regret that in the year and a half, or almost two years, between the submission of the social gap on supplementary pensions and that of the fiscal gap, the government has failed to deliver a text that is in accordance with Community law. I am not a specialist in Community law — there are greater specialists in this field in the hemisphere than I am, who may be able to give me the right — but I am certain that here is actually taking a loop with Community law.

This implies that the government obliges the rightholders to go to the courts to enforce European law. Then, of course, the snowball rolls: we complicate the tasks of Justice, and so on.

The question is whether all this was necessary. This could have been avoided. It has even taken the time to submit the tax gap one and a half to two years after the social gap. It is incomprehensible that one then delivers another product of which, as soon as the first questions are asked, one acknowledges that this is not in accordance with European legislation.

This means that we are slowly coming to an aberrant situation. As for electoral legislation, the Arbitration Court has destroyed the electoral reform. Regarding supplementary pensions, the Court of Arbitration states that taxing a compensation for a physiological disability without effective loss of income is unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I think this is not insignificant for the future. I refer to the opinion of the State Council in our documents. That opinion points out the relevance of this judgment for the new provisions of Article 74 presented here today.

The worst thing is that the government, having knowledge of the judgments of the Arbitration Court and of the Council of State, in the Explanatory Memory on this bill, acknowledges that there are indeed problems here. However, the government says that it will not do so now in this bill, because the adjustments that need to be made if we want to take into account the Arbitration Court and the State Council, are too cumbersome. This bill has been on the dool for three years and then the government says it will not do so now, but it undertakes to do so in a separate legislative initiative.

Who are you laughing at here? We have been here for three years in committee meetings over and over with a bill whose government now says that if we approve it tomorrow, it will immediately take a legislative initiative to correct what it makes us approve here. It is wrong, and he acknowledges it.

This is not the first time. This has happened several times in the last few months. That is fooling the room. One knows that one delivers bad legal work and yet one says: we approve it, but tomorrow, colleagues, you can really count on that we submit a new bill and that will be settled. If we continue this way in this Chamber, Mr. Chairman and guardian of our work, then we must gradually read the content and the entry into force of a new law in the following law...

On the website of the Belgian Staatsblad.

I like a word game and a boutade, but this is of course serious. This is about the seriousness of parliamentary work. I’m not going to spend my time and energy on something that they say to me, “Go on, but it’s not good. We recognize that and we will fix it as soon as possible.”

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the plea of Mr. D'Hondt. You go about it quite rap, with a touch of humor or with a boutade, but in fact we are always faced with gigantic program laws that must be as rap as possible. In the end, it turns out that we approve wrong things, including ordinary bills. Then somewhere there must be a repair. Today it is the same with the eco-tax. That law had to be swept through anyway, for the sake of Francorchamps, Nepal, and so on. At the time the law was passed, we already knew that there are things that are not right. You know that yourself too. I think that you, as the chairman of this Chamber, should maintain a certain quality of work in the interest of the people. I think there is too little happening in this.

Mr. Leterme, first, in the last legislature that is now in operation, the 50th , the Chamber for the first time has a legal service, which works well. Secondly, the Rules of Procedure were amended so that on the legal level a committee would have another 48 hours to improve legislative texts. Third, it happens regularly that I here, with the agreement of the Chamber, by the way, introduce further improvements. I can tell you from experience that there have been fewer errata in the Belgian Staatsblad in recent years than in previous legislatures.

Mr. Speaker, you should not hide behind that new service. It is usually about mistakes that are noticed even politically, but that cannot be changed, because the procedure is too advanced, because there is urgency, and so on. It’s not about publishing small errata for details, it’s sometimes about very fundamental things that are completely wrong. Mrs. D'Hondt requires this very rightfully attention, also more attention from you.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have said that we must indeed vote here on a law that will be the subject of a new legislative initiative tomorrow, in order to correct what is wrongly approved here.

However, it becomes quite bizarre when we have to regulate in this bill something that – at least in my opinion – does not occur in reality. The proposed article 38 §2 2 paragraph fourth states that for other personal insurance or similar commitments this relates to a type of insurance or commitments that are currently not common. I do not know. The methods of its application are not yet known. Their

This is also recognized. I refer to the report on this subject. The explanation therefore is that this limitation must serve to exclude any misuse that may result from the application of those insurance or commitments. How can one prevent abuse on something that does not exist? I think this is a very strange period.

This type of insurance should apparently evoke the imagination in government circles. However, it would be good to know what this is about. I still do not understand what insurance is intended with this article 38 §2 2 paragraph fourth. I do not understand. The government actually writes laws here where they, like Don Quixote, fight against insurance that does not exist. Don Quixote’s windmills did not exist. Their

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, colleagues, if the legislation stipulates that a regulation must have meaningful content, as is the case here in the new Article 99, what legislative work is that. What kind of legislative work is it when we say in a law that that law must have meaningful content, Mr. President? If it is not meaningful of content, then why should we vote on it. These are provisions of which one asks with which one will fill this later. What if somebody ever asked me what I approved here? It must have meaningful content.

However, neither in the memory of the explanation nor in the article itself can be found but a trace of a beginning of filling meaningful content. Here are eminent lawyers, which I am not, but I wish the court a lot of success that must decide whether something is valid in the context of the supplementary pensions and the meaningful content there is.

I can continue this way for a while. I will do this in the discussion of the articles also extensively for certain articles. What I want to emphasize again here in the general discussion, Mr. Minister, is that despite the twist — I now address the Minister of Social Affairs with the concerns I had formulated and which were rather of a positive nature — I would have voted in February 2002 on your part. Their

Now, of course, the fiscal gap must be linked to it. However, that fiscal gap has been used to put things that actually belong to your subject matter into it. The provisions and sanctions surrounding the supplementary insurance are actually matters within your jurisdiction. I think the Social Affairs Committee should have spoken about this. Mr. Minister, during the examination of your section in 2001-2002, I asked you whether the social partners had consulted and expressed their views on the provisions in your section. You responded positively and that was effectively the case. You rightly said yes. I here explicitly ask whether the elements of a social nature — at least those of a social nature — have been discussed with the social partners. I would like to receive a response from both ministers. I would also like to get a copy of the advice of the social partners. This has also occurred in the social gap.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will keep this up for the general discussion. We have had a lot of concerns in the discussion of the articles and we have also submitted amendments to which I am, by the way, no longer making me any illusion that they would be adopted. However, one cannot say that we have not pointed out a number of anomalies, errors, shortcomings and dangers in this draft law. I repeat it, the legacy of Jean-Luc Dehaene had deserved a better fate.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, I will address here the part analyzed in the framework of the discussions in the Committee on Social Affairs which, let us remind you, completed its work on 23 January 2002. The bill submitted to us today fulfils the point of the government statement aiming at stimulating the second pillar pension funds within the framework of sectoral CCTs by also allowing them to be extracted from the wage standard. This should lead to a democratization of complementary pensions. Instead of being intended for only a few workers, they must, on the contrary, be introduced for all.

The draft law takes as a starting point a second integrated pillar. All collective forms of complementary pension and individual pension promises, which are based on an individual contract or a collective labour agreement, fall within the scope of the project. The choice of a second integrated pillar also implies that there will be no separate regulatory component for sectoral pension schemes or for individual pension promises.

The bill establishes a distinction between, on the one hand, ordinary pension commitments and, on the other hand, social pension commitments.

In order to promote the development of more social schemes and especially mainly sectoral schemes, certain specific tax advantages are granted to social pension commitments which must meet strict conditions.

In drafting this bill, the social partners committed to supporting the complementary pension reform. They have signed a statement in which they confirm this commitment. The support of the social partners was in fact fundamental to ensure the implementation of the mechanism. From a political point of view, this is the first time they are on the same wavelength on the subject. On the one hand, employers have opened up to the idea of democratizing the second pillar, while on the other hand, trade unions have dropped their traditional aversion to the principle of capitalization in terms of pensions. by

Important amendments have been introduced and adopted by our committee. Thus, we can quote: - the reduction to 60 years (compared to 65 in the original project), the age at which workers starting early retirement will be able to apply for their supplementary pension. In addition, a transitional period has been arranged until 31 December 2009 for pension plans that provide for retirement before the age of 60. For plans currently under development, the 58-year limit is tolerated provided that they are concluded within six months following the publication of the law. After this six-month period, the age limit of 60 years will be imposed. In any case, from 1 January 2010, no plan can provide for retirement before the age of 60.

- Then, three conditions were added to individual pension commitments that the employer could eventually grant to certain employees. First, such commitments will be made only on an occasional and non-systematic basis. Secondly, the employer may not grant an individual pension commitment during the 36 months preceding retirement or prepension. Third, before making exceptions, there must be a collective pension plan at the company level.

- Finally, the introduction of the general principle of the prohibition of subjecting a pension commitment under a pension scheme to a medical examination. It is only allowed in two cases, namely when the affiliate can choose between a retirement or death cover and when the death capital is at least 50% higher than the capital in case of life.

This bill constitutes an important step for the Reform Movement as the economic burden of the aging population imposes thinking from now on the “sustainable” development of the second pillar.

It was therefore important to rethink the system in such a way that all workers have the right to participate in a complementary pension plan.

The necessity to constitute extra-legal pensions also derives, it must be acknowledged, from the limit that naturally imposes on the solidary income of the first pillar. Indeed, the logic of the social security system provides for the existence of a ceiling of allocations for the calculation of benefits.

Therefore, if we want to constitute higher pensions on tranches of allocations exceeding this ceiling, we can no longer resort to solidarity. The notion of deferred income — the second pillar — or the notion of savings income — the third pillar — is naturally imperative.

This project therefore gives a greater place to the capitalization system by responding to the legitimate concern that has developed about the future of pensions.

Encouraging and developing capitalization has the advantage of making each of the actors accountable for future deadlines, avoiding transferring the entire weight of the cost of future pensions to younger generations.

Here are, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, the various remarks I intended to make during this debate as a member of the Social Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Colleagues, there seems to be an inverse proportion between the importance of a draft law and the attention that such a draft law receives in Parliament. All this may be the result of the media that mostly lusts to hapklare pieces, simple information and twist. When it comes to more complicated designs, a certain lethargy or laziness dominates parliamentarians and the press.

The present draft is an example of a very complex matter. For months, the draft has been the subject of discussions between the direct stakeholders such as the pension funds, the funds for subsistence assurance, insurance companies, companies, trade unions. The debate had to be repeated at numerous meetings of inter-kabinet working groups where eventually compromises were reached with which today nobody seems to be really satisfied, nor should be. The result is adjacent.

This should not surprise us. How can liberals, with their predilection for the second and third pillars, on the one hand, and their certain form of aversion to the system of statutory social pensions, on the other hand, be aligned with those who say they are the great defenders of statutory pensions? Their

In general, the compromise was achieved by allowing the liberals to build their second and third pillars, however not in the way they wanted it, but in a way in which the trade unions come to their traits with the collective arrangements. I let in the middle or with it the retirement landscape and the human rights to receive solid social protection in old age, be improved in the long run. Their

Apparently, this design had to be pushed through in the last month of our activities. In the last Finance Committee, the draft was completed in a quarter of an hour. Ministers and a majority who can handle such a complex matter in a quarter of an hour will ⁇ not have the trouble of giving a concrete answer to my 10 questions. My questions may be due to the fact that I do not understand this subject sufficiently. I will be completely reassured if I can return home with an answer to these questions. If this is not the case, then you may be better evolving to a different conclusion and better referring an unfulfilled draft back to the committee. First, I would like to highlight some punctual and symptomatic imperfections. Next, I will address a few more general points.

My first observation relates, in my opinion, to the misconduct of the concept of “enterprise”. With the term "enterprise", the authors would rather refer to the social law definition of the concept of enterprise as a technical business unit. This definition plays this design that does not contain its own definition of the concept of enterprise, parties because the concept is used in the tax code, the Code of Income Taxation where enterprise has a completely different meaning. I refer to the provision of Article 23 of the Income Tax Code that defines the professional income, in particular the concept of profit. This leaves the concept of profit from enterprise. In the comments No. Under enterprises are meant industry, trade and agricultural enterprises belonging to each of the three major domains of the economy, as well as enterprises of a mixed nature and the crafts. Commercial undertakings are not only undertakings which consider the trade in natural and industrial products as goods, but also undertakings which provide services such as business surveillance offices.

A similar argument is followed in the provision of Article 24 of the Income Tax Code. I will save you the reading of the article. The provision in Article 24 refers to all establishments and thus goes far beyond the concept of undertaking in social law. In addition, the concept of enterprise is also very closely linked to the concept of profit. This means that out of the boat of the tax enterprise concepts fall those who employ staff as practitioners of a freelance profession, or the employees of legal entities within the meaning of tax legislation. I think of VZWs, for example.

Very concrete: I do not know. When I read the word enterprise in these drafts, does that mean the concept of enterprise in the social-legal sense? Then, however, we would do better to define this because the Income Tax Code defines the concept of business in a different way.

I suspect that. I have seen the minister knock.

The latter provision on enterprise, in particular Articles 38-18 (new), discriminates because it refers to ‘in the enterprise’. As a result, employees of VZWs risk falling out of the boat, because they do not fall within an enterprise in the fiscal sense of the word, but in the social sense of the word. As regards that latter provision, it is sufficient that there is a collective commitment for a particular category. We thought that in the social gap there were much higher demands. I would also like to have an explanation on this. One speaks of a certain group of workers while it is in the social gap, Mr. Minister of Social Affairs, yet the intention was that one would put more requirements than just the validity for a particular category. I am referring to the 18th of Article 38. Third, let us look at the 19 paragraph of Article 38. It reads that there are no advantages of a general nature, which are, I quote, "the benefits for business managers who receive the salaries referred to in Article 30, 2°, which arise from the payment of contributions and premiums which may be deducted from the business results pursuant to Article 195 § 1, second paragraph". This is set out in Articles 38-19. It follows a contrario that those contributions and premiums which cannot be deducted from the business results are, therefore, benefits of all kinds and therefore give rise to immediate taxability.

It would therefore be logical that, since those contributions give rise to immediate taxation — in so far as the operator cannot recover those expenses elsewhere, which in the hypothesis is not the case — they at least do not constitute a taxable advantage if the supplementary pension is paid. This, however, is not the case in the absence of a special exclusion, which makes it fall within the definition of Article 34, secondly new, that it has about capital and such which have been formed in whole or in part.

In other words, the contributions are not deductible and yet there is no release of the final amount paid.

Fourth, another point of criticism is the restriction imposed on the favourable regime of conversion rate. I am referring to Amendment No. 64 for the introduction of a new Article 169, which allows the system of taxation of conversion interest only for advances on group insurance. The scope of its application is limited to the extent that advances have been granted or loans have been concluded for the construction, acquisition, reconstruction, improvement or repair of a single home located in Belgium which is intended exclusively for personal use by the borrower and his family members. Their

This, however, seems to me to be somewhat contrary to the terms of the social part, which wants to allow advances for housing in the European Union. Apparently there has been a change in the period of one and a half years. We even hear that the administration, by means of an implementing decision to the Code of Income Tax, intends to torpedo advances for houses outside Belgium by prohibiting the deduction of premiums for group insurance whose regulations do not limit the advances to Belgium. Their

I wonder whether the difficulty caused by the draft law on investments and mobility outside Belgium can still be defended — I refer, for example, to the Danner judgment — now that we must conclude that the taxation of the final performance is not an element of fiscal coherence, given the fact that Belgium, in most double taxation treaties, transfers the power to tax pensions — both statutory and complementary — to the State of residence. I would like to know your opinion on this.

Fifth, I come to the provision of Article 171, which introduces a primo h with the following content. You can read it. I quote: "The referred capital shall be considered as a pension when the capital under the circumstances referred to in 4° g is paid by the employer or the company to a beneficiary other than that referred to in 4° g without having been formed with prior deposits." If we want to understand this, let us look at Article 171, 4° g. I’ll save you the lecture.

It is important to refer here to non-externalized pension funds paid to the manager as a result of retirement on the normal date, or in one of the five years preceding the date, or as a result of the death of the person of whom he is the rightholder. Article 171, paragraph 1, letter h, thus allows the payment of an unexternalized pension capital to a worker at a taxation more favourable than the marginal interest rate, without regard to when this capital has ever been formed. This, however, seems to me to be somewhat contrary to the general, even criminally enforced, obligation to outsource and then again to refrain from taking into account the moment when the commitment was made. This is very strange. I do not understand. Per ⁇ you can provide a further explanation on this. Their

Sixth, as far as I have understood, an individual pension claim may remain after leaving the employer. However, this can only be done on the condition that the new employer does not have a pension plan at the enterprise or sector level. There are also a number of other, additional conditions. Therefore, the existence of any collective plan, even if it is significantly limited, blocks the possibility of carrying out the pension requirement. I wonder whether this restriction will survive the test of the equality and proportionality principles. It is about the following. Someone has an individual pension commitment. He leaves his employer and goes to work elsewhere. Then he can only continue this commitment on the condition that there is no collective arrangement with the new employer. However, there is no question of the quality of the collective arrangement. Although this scheme is very minimal, it still blocks the possibility of retaining the individual pension requirement also with the new employer. Do you understand? Do I express myself clearly?

In my seventh point, we address a number of more general issues. They may only be laterally discussed. I do not find them irrelevant.

I personally do not understand why, in accordance with the Act on Supplementary Pensions for Self-Employed Persons, the tax certificates must be provided by the Social Insurance Cases for Self-Employed Persons. That completely escapes me. Why is the intervention of these institutions still provided in an era of data exchange? In this regard, they have no task. Is it merely meant to curb the actual freedom of choice of independence and to undermine the European liberalization desired on this market? That is the only way I can explain it.

Eighth, now that we are talking about Europe, I would like to know what status the Minister provides for the arrangements that are now the subject of our discussions, within the framework of the portability directives and possibly the coordination arrangements of the European Union? Will we try to escape these arrangements? Or will we fully play the game of greater interchangeability?

My ninth point is still about Europe. If the pension fund decides to entrust the implementation of a plan, in whole or in part, to an insurer, will the fund then have to respect the competition rules of the European Union when choosing the insurer? So will the fund have to contract the choice of the insurer at European level? This is a big contract. So I’m not talking about whether one can do it himself. If a decision is made to delegate tasks to a private insurer, should the selection of that insurer not respect the rules of procurement and open the market to other providers than the national insurance companies?

We have already talked about my next point in a different context. We know that half of the subsistence assurance funds completely clean the floor with the publicity requirements and other accounting obligations. Can the Minister assure me that these funds will be kept completely out of the implementation of the Supplementary Pensions Act?

Finally, I would like to point out a possibility. I am not saying it is so. I would only point out whether at least a possible infringement of the autonomous powers of the Communities, contained in the Act on autonomous pensions, has been investigated. Does the federal legislature, in so far as, for example, dependence schemes are also taken into account for the qualification of a second or third-pillar scheme as “social” does not enter the field of personal care? Does it not thus enter the realm of Community law?

In addition, I would like to remind you that there is an agreement that federal taxes would not break into community or district powers through federal tax regimes. We have recently seen this with regard to the deductibility of regional taxes, which was abolished federally, precisely to respect the neutrality between the governments. That arrangement seems to me to be put on foot here, at least if the dependence arrangements were to be introduced as a condition for the social character, and therefore for a better federal fiscal regime.

Mr. Speaker, many colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, unless I am completely mistaken and unless I have sold zotternias on a timely basis, I would like to get an answer to my questions. I would have liked to be answered question by question because I think this contributes to clarity. I see, however, that the Minister of Finance has been leaving the chamber for a while, probably because these are really too easy questions. If I do not get an answer to my questions, I see only a solution, Mr. President, namely: not to deal with this matter in a quarter of an hour in the plenary session but to refer the bill back to the Committee for Finance because unless I am mistaken it is a draft that rammels on all sides. It is full of imperfections and therefore it is not worthy to be approved by us tomorrow or next week.

Thank you, Mr Peterson. It is the turn of Mr. Chabot and then Mrs. De Block. I will let her search. I think the minister is only absent for a few moments because I see his documents still on his bench.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, the PS Group will approve this bill because it shares the idea of an integrated second pillar and because it finds in it the great principles that were not negotiable in the context of a democratization and a greater solidarity of complementary pensions.

First, the priority given to sectoral pension plans is crucial to us. These resolutely fit into a perspective of solidarity and equality because they are the result of a convention negotiated on the occasion of collective consultation. They offer the democratic guarantees to which business plans, too often based on merit alone, do not or do not adequately respond. Another point that is worth emphasizing is that the possibilities of “opting out” will be strictly conditioned, which will prevent workers from being hurt. They will even be banned for the solidarity component of social pension commitments. Since this component is intended to cover socially uninsured situations and the cost of which will be borne by all, admitting that the employer can organize the commitment of solidarity himself would have been completely illogical.

We have two regrets. First, we would have preferred that the benefits that could be included in the solidarity component as well as the minimum solidarity that opens the door to tax advantages be defined by the legislator, which would have given the guarantee that this solidarity could not insidiously replace the solidarity organized by the social security. Then, corporate pension schemes still suffer from a lack of democracy and transparency. The only exception to the exclusive competence of the employer to establish, modify or repeal a pension scheme is capable — and it is also a curious paradox — to curb the extension of the benefit of the supplementary pension to all employees of the undertaking.

Second, the current trend is to give preference to purely capitalized systems where, ultimately, all risks rest on the affiliates themselves. When it comes to a delayed salary — and it is known that a certain jurisprudence assimilates employer premiums to remuneration — such a transfer of risk from the company to the worker is unacceptable for us. Therefore, and not unlikely to employer organisations, we support the extension of the obligation of a minimum return on employer premiums that are paid as part of a "defined contributions" type plan.

Thirdly, the argument that an extra-legal pension proceeds from a long-term vision and must therefore serve as a complement to the statutory pension is legitimate, but it cannot serve as a pretext for weakening prepensions. We are therefore satisfied with the new version of Article 27, which opens the right, regardless of the employee’s status, to the payment of the supplementary pension at the age of 60 years, as well as the provisions aimed at preventing already affiliated workers from being the victim of a contract breach at the time when they are placed in pre-pension.

That said, the PS group has some reservations regarding this bill that does not escape, whatever some say, to some ambiguity in its philosophical foundations. May I also be allowed to warn against the temptation, always possible, of improper use of the development of the second pillar.

The development of complementary pensions will inevitably pose a problem of social cohesion and will accentuate duality, even with the stimulation of sectoral schemes.

Certainly, the second pillar has its role to play in the context of the legitimate evolution of the needs, aspirations and therefore activities of seniors in general.

Under no circumstances — we have said and repeated it throughout this legislature — this second pillar can serve to counter legal regimes which, one day, and because of a failing political will, would no longer be able to ensure the basic needs of the existence of our elders. Let us not be afraid to say that this is the major risk that is taken with this type of bill. We therefore do not like the claim that professional schemes must be used to provide a reasonable or decent replacement income after retirement.

This is ⁇ the role of the legal regimes. That is all the importance that the French-speaking socialists attach to the constant improvement of the first pillar, including the role of the silver fund by 2030.

For us, the first pillar is and must remain the absolute priority.

In conclusion, it is with caution and especially with caution that we will vote this bill.

I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, the draft law on supplementary pensions has the important ambition to involve as many employees as possible in the supplementary pension savings. After all, it is a fact that the statutory pension still means a significant break with the income that the persons concerned enjoy during their active life. Only officials are an exception to this rule.

If the gap between income levels during working life and life after retirement is to be slightly reduced, the supplementary pension should be strongly encouraged. Of course, this approach should not mean that we, as a government, would lose our attention to the statutory pension. It was also stated so. It is and remains the main source of income for pensioners.

This draft is an important principled step due to the government by recognizing the importance of the supplementary pension. In addition to adequate protection, the promotion of supplementary pensions is also important. People are now mobile in the labour market. This means that they move quickly from one employer to another. Therefore, a good system for supplementary pension savings at business level only makes sense if this mobility is not punished. The fiscal measures encourage the supplementary pension for both the employee and the employer. At the same time, it is not insignificant that contributions paid under social pension schemes will not be taken into account in the calculation of wages. It is the ambition of the government to involve many employees in this project.

During the discussion in the committee, I expressed my concern about the limitation of the scope of this draft to employees. In the meantime, this was corrected by the Program Law.

Mrs. De Block, the Minister wishes to interrupt you for a moment.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee for Business requests my presence for ten minutes. Colleagues Reynders and Flahaut are present here, so I assume that is not a problem.

I do not know how many submissions are still to be made in the general discussion. However, when we begin the article-by-article discussion, I have – as I have also announced – still a number of very relevant questions to which I wish the Minister’s answer.

Mr D'Hondt, you also submitted three amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I plan to be here again in 10 to 15 minutes. In addition, in the meantime I will take note of what Mrs. De Block has said and I will still have to respond to that. I also need to provide some answers to the general statements of Mrs D'Hondt.

Mr. Speaker, I had criticized in the committee at the time that this draft was developed only for workers. In the meantime, this has been corrected by this government. In fact, in the Program Law of December 2002, a similar draft for the self-employed was dealt with and approved. In this way, self-employed workers in the future can also be encouraged to build a second pillar of retirement more than today, including a social gap that is not insignificant to them, given their so far limited social status.

The only group of assets not yet covered by such arrangements are the officials, with the exception of those included in the law. I realize that the gap between income during active life and income after retirement is less large for officials, due to the system of deferred salary and the calculation of pension on the bet of the last five years. Many will therefore find it unrealistic that a system should also be established for officials.

However, I would like to refer here to the Netherlands, where public authorities have set up additional pension savings for their officials and have now built up a long-standing tradition in this regard. In our country, by the way, there are also additional pension insurance in certain state-owned companies. These are not unsuccessful.

A positive point in this design is undoubtedly the luke solidarity. It includes a number of benefits that will be organized on the basis of solidarity. A royal decree will determine which benefits may be covered by that solidarity. This social gap is undoubtedly an added value to the existing system. It provides the possibility to provide additional accommodation opportunities when building up reserves for a number of employees, when they are a little less lucky in life. I think of illness or accident. I refer here to the financing of the further construction of the pension commitment during certain periods of inactivity.

A great advantage in this design is the great clarity that is sought in communication with the employee. Until now, many insurers were sent annually from their pension funds a document concerning the accumulated reserves, which could little be interpreted. It is of course intended that in communication the recipient also understands what is communicated to him.

However, there is a problem with this design. It was like leaving an empty field. The field of supplementary pension savings has been occupied in part for years. Many companies already have pension plans or have established pension funds. Many have even played a leading role and provided a lump of solidarity. Some were creative, others were rudimentary, but they still existed. One company had managed to remove many of the differences that exist today between workers and servants. Now these companies are faced with sectoral pension plans, with ⁇ more limited options in opting out, and with a minister who has yet to determine in an upcoming royal decision what exactly can be inserted into the social gap.

For many, this law seems to be overwhelming. They wonder what will happen with their own pension plans that already exist. Mr. Minister will undoubtedly be able to give me an explanation as soon as he has terminated his phone call. They fear that the system you set up will have to be completely reversed, and that some of the positive elements of the pension plans already existing with them will be completely lost or become impossible. There is therefore a slightly suspicious view of the pension plans sector and in particular of the limited possibilities to opt out.

It is feared that only large companies will have sufficient power to enforce that opting out in their sector, while that will no longer be possible for smaller companies. The latter could constitute a major barrier in deciding whether or not to set up a pension fund. Not few are also afraid of the paritary-managed pension funds. They are not so much opposed to a dialogue with workers’ organisations, they are also concerned that the trade unions could involve other negotiating elements which are separate from pension formation but which are related to the actual organization of work in the enterprise in the negotiations on pension funds. In this way, of course, the proper functioning of a pension fund can be jeopardized.

The experience in this area in the coming years will therefore be crucial and need to be evaluated. If in the first years the workers’ organisations would use or abuse their power in that area, this law threatens to arouse an aversion for the employer rather than to be an incentive. I think that is not the intention.

The imposed return can also discourage employers. Pension funds must have a minimum return of 3.75%. Otherwise, the difference will be paid to the employer. In times when the financial markets are going well, this seems obvious and not so difficult to ⁇ . In recent years, however, we have learned that there is no certainty in the financial markets. There have been significant losses suffered by the pension funds due to the low of the stocks. Often this loss can be compensated by the higher returns from the past. However, no one has a glass ball to see where it is going in the future. What if it cannot? The difference must be paid to the employer. That worries most people because they wonder how much they will have to pay extra to reach the minimum return.

Lastly, there are also employers who have some comments regarding the administrative obligations. It is an important thorn in their eyes that it will be accompanied by more administrative obligations. However, communicating the pension bill in an understandable language is an acceptable and I would say obvious requirement. Especially the list of data to be provided is quite broadly understood. Many things have already been limited through government amendments, but I think it remains necessary that we evaluate the feasibility and cost of these commitments within one or two years to update them if necessary. Their

Mr. Minister, I will decide. It is important to increase pension savings in Belgium through the second pillar because in this way more people will be able to enjoy a supplementary pension in the future and because there is also a certain solidarity that will be accompanied by a number of solidarity mechanisms. I therefore ask on behalf of my group that during the next legislature we make an evaluation of this law to gain an understanding of the success factor but also in the critical factors or the less successful factors in order to be able to adjust and thus engage even more people for the supplementary pension. The VLD group will therefore fully support this draft.

Specifically, my colleague of Social Affairs, Mr. Vandenbroucke, of course, wanted to answer longer to some aspects that had been mentioned.

Per ⁇ I would like to come back to an element of procedure and how the work was carried out in the Finance Committee. We have repeatedly tried, in the Finance Committee, to address a number of points. I acknowledge that we have often experienced difficulties in reaching the quorum, and that is an euphemism!

Of course, when the quorum was reached for a certain number of texts, we did everything we could to continue the examination of the files. This was the case with regard to the file of tax amendments in the area of supplementary pension. I think the issue has been treated very well in the committee. All amendments could be submitted, although they were not always fully defended.

And what concerns the necessity, after the passage and commission des Finances, the returner and commission des Affaires sociales, you will say that we enter then into a vicious circle. It was not intended to have a general discussion in the Finance Committee on the social gap of the second pillar. I don’t think it makes sense to go back to the Social Affairs Committee with the same texts and measures as it decided in the Finance Committee. It is now, in the plenary session, that we can proceed with the comparison of the two gaps if necessary. Peterson has already said so. There are different terminologies. The concepts in the texts differ. For the fiscal measures, I must tell you that we stay with the definitions that apply to the Tax Code.

The [...]

I mean the tax gap. Mr. Peterson, wait a few seconds.

I repeat that now, in the plenary session, it is possible to make a comparison. There is no point in organizing a new investigation in a special committee or in the social affairs committee. I know that Mr. Vandenbroucke is willing to give more explanations on the social gap and on the comparison between the social and fiscal gap. I will therefore leave it to Mr Vandenbroucke to explain this aspect in more detail.

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think that the tax aspect has been properly examined in the committee. If comparison elements refer to the social aspect of the debate, it must be authorized in plenary session. I repeat this, Mr. Vandenbroucke is quite willing to answer these different questions here. by

As for the concepts used in tax matters, they are obviously taken from the usual tax terminology.

Per ⁇ we can address the first question I have asked. I would like the idea to be held. I don’t know if I heard it right. Does the Minister of Finance here say that, when "company" is used as a term in the tax loop of this legislation, it refers to "company" within the meaning of the Income Tax Code? This specifically means that employees of VZWs and employees of self-employed persons who do not have a business within the meaning of the Income Tax Code are excluded.

I am confident that this is the correct version. Please forgive me if I would like to hear this again from the Minister of Social Affairs.

Mr. Reynders, where is Mr. Vandenbroucke going?

He is in the business committee. He will return. He would be away for ten minutes.

He likes to talk!

Does he answer questions?

I would like to open the article discussion.

Mr. Speaker, can you start the article-by-article discussion without closing the general discussion? I do not think that this is possible.

It is good. I will not close the general discussion yet.

Mr. Speaker, it is evident already from the question of Mr. Pieters, but also from a number of questions that we keep for the article-based discussion and to which we would like to have a clear answer, that it would be good that the Minister of Social Affairs would also be present at the article-based discussion. After all, some answers are not deprived of importance. Mr. Pieters has already pointed out that when one uses a certain interpretation of the concept of “enterprise” and either completes that concept as it occurs for social matters or as it occurs for fiscal matters, it is not neutral. I will give as an example the categories listed by Mr. Pieters that we want to ask very clearly in the discussion of certain articles whether we have well understood the intention of the government in this regard.

It would therefore be good, both for the conclusion of the general discussion and for the article-by-article discussion that the Minister of Social Affairs is present.

As regards the answer of the Minister of Finance, I have not in any way intended to argue in my argument that the discussion in the Committee on Finance has not been conducted correctly. Only, in all categories of the population there are, of course, wonder boys and wondergirls, but you should at least try to bring together the social loop of the bill and the fiscal loop of it, which we deal with today, both with the necessary expertise. It is not distorted easily. Therefore, in almost every article we still have questions after the hearing in the Committee on Finance. Indeed, in that committee, we have failed to reach quorum several times and the discussion has been delayed several times, causing us to get hopelessly in the way of our agendas. It can be taken into account that a draft law on supplementary pensions will be discussed in the Committee on Finance in a certain period of 14 days and its work in another committee will be coordinated accordingly, but it can, of course, not continue weeks in a row when the discussion must be postponed every time because the necessary number of parliamentarians is not present in the committee.

I just want to ask, Mr. Speaker, that we suspend the meeting for a few minutes until the Minister of Social Affairs returns, and that we then begin the article-by-article discussion.

As I promised to Mr. Peters, I will not close the general discussion. I have 114 articles here to read, so it will not go so quickly, ⁇ with the voting problems I have now, but I promise that I will suspend the meeting if Mr. Vandenbroucke is not here before I come to the end of the article-based discussion. Is it for you?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the sense — I don’t know what the other colleagues will do — that in a number of articles after the end of the work in the Committee on Finance I have a number of questions about the comparison with what is stated in the texts of the Committee on Social Affairs. I have a number of questions that I would very much like to have an answer to. If the present minister can answer, I would like to take note of this, but on a number of questions there must be a very clear answer.