Proposition 51K0316

Projet de loi concernant la reprise par l'Etat belge des obligations de pension légales de la société anonyme de droit public Belgacom vis à vis de son personnel statutaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 20, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

public sector pension scheme telecommunications survivor's benefit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.
• Greta D'hondt (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.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 13, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It provides that the Belgian State will re-assume the obligations of Belgacom from the monthly amount due in January 2004. In exchange, a financial compensation from Belgacom to the Belgian State is established in the amount of EUR 5 billion.

For the transfer of pension obligations, the pension fund is dissolved and liquidated. In order to pay compensation to the State, the pension fund is allowed to liquidate its assets.

The draft provides for compensation for all pension rights that were and are constituted until 31 December 2003 by the statutory employees of Belgacom. by

The amount was determined from a theoretical pension since, today, it is impossible to assess the impact of wage changes on the final actual pension.

In addition, this draft provides for the liquidation between what is transferred at the end of December 2003 and the actual rights to pension to be determined on the date of retirement.

Current real assets also create rights after December 2003. These are paid by Belgacom who will pay a contribution based on what other companies perform for the payment of statutory pensions. Indeed, as regards future pension rights, which will be acquired by the statutory staff from 1 January 2004, Belgacom will continue to pay contributions to the State.

The transfer of the five billion is a rational transaction in the interests of all parties. First, the pensions of the statutory staff of Belgacom will be fully funded and guaranteed by the State, giving interested parties additional security. Second, the transfer will enhance Belgacom’s financial performance by eliminating the volatility of profits and cash flow associated with the pension fund. It will thus put Belgacom, from a competitive point of view, on an equal footing with other operators. Finally, while acting in the interests of both the statutory staff and the company, the State has ensured that taking over its obligations will not affect the growth of its financial position, since they will be transferred on the basis of total financing.

These motifs were the subject of sometimes lively debates, some qualifying the operation as a craft, not knowing who of the State or of Belgacom would benefit from the operation. To raise any doubts about the interest of the project for Belgacom, in order to answer the questions of the Commissioners, Mr. Bellens, CEO of Belgacom, was invited before our committee. He stressed that Belgacom’s pension fund was created to pay statutory pensions, the first pillar of pensions, to its retired staff. It is also very exceptional that a company ensures the payment of statutory pensions itself. Other companies, whether or not active in the telecommunications sector, do not bear this burden. The project thus ends an exceptional situation that has a historical explanation. In this regard, the situation of Belgacom was unique in Europe.

The dissolution of the pension fund is necessary due to the permanent monetary fluctuations of the fund. Fluctuations must always be recorded in the accounting of the company and limit its possibilities to conduct a dynamic policy. They therefore constitute a comparative disadvantage for Belgacom compared to its competitors. Furthermore, the fund’s resources are not available to Belgacom. They can therefore play no role in developing a forward-looking policy in the telecommunications sector.

The shareholders of Belgacom have long realized that the pension fund is harming the company. Therefore, they have long been applicants with regard to the transfer of pension obligations. Belgacom will continue to provide all the benefits of its former staff. At this level, there is no change.

Belgacom shall pay, by 31 December 2003, an amount of EUR 5 billion to the State. This operation will be fully attributed to the financial year 2003 of Belgacom. This is more than the €3.6 billion that represents the current balance of the fund. This amount must be increased by EUR 1.4 billion, which is intended to cover the risk of fluctuations in the future, depending on the actuarial calculation.

As Belgacom is a profitable company, as is also evident from the most recent ratings of specialized agencies, the monetization of the 5 billion euros does not pose any problem for the company. Now, 90% of the amount is available in cash. Belgacom currently has €1.8 billion in cash from which €1.4 billion will be collected to be paid to the State.

by Mr. Bellens predicts that by the end of the year, when the entire operation is completed, Belgacom will have 300 million euros in debt, which is little for a company of this size. by

As a reminder, the Belgacom pension fund applies the method of proactive capitalization: participants contribute to all resources and therefore do not save for their own pension. That is why it is a “unfunded fund”. The criterion of investment in shares plays no role in this hypothesis. The fund is placed under the supervision of the Office of Insurance Control and takes into account the evolution of mortality tables. by

In essence, the pension fund is a form of financing intended to constitute reserves for the public undertaking. Currently, the provisions for former statutory Belgacom employees are already entirely governed by legislation, namely that relating to the pension scheme for federal officials. The pensions of former employees of Belgacom are therefore not capitalized pensions. The transfer will not change anything from this point of view. by

The phases that must be completed to enable an Introduction to the Stock Exchange do not pose any problems:

- Belgacom has a clear mission statement. - "corporate governance" is about how all actors working on the development of Belgacom work. - The benefit obtained by Belgacom from the transfer of its pension obligations is not of financial order. The company must pay 5 billion euros as part of the transfer. The operation is, however, indispensable, due to the volatility of the pension fund that limits the company within its range of action. by

Long debates, often very technical, followed on the assumptions of the actuarial calculation of the pensions of statutory employees. Basically, the pensions of Belgacom have always remained public pensions. Therefore, they do not constitute a specific regime for agents. The strategic consolidation forced Belgacom to create its own pension fund. This obligation does not affect the employee’s pension rights. by

The fluctuations of the pension fund due to the fluctuations of the securities it holds in its portfolio influenced not only the value of the pension fund, but also the operating accounts of Belgacom. This situation had to be stopped.

For the liabilities of the already established pension fund, the calculation was made until 31 December 2003. This implies that a number of assumptions have been used. However, the margin created by them does not exceed 200 million euros. Compliance with European provisions on state aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty on European Communities requires, in particular, the utmost precision in the determination of the pension fund at 31 December.

Our committee took notice at the meeting of the very detailed calculation demonstrating that no financial flow that could be assimilated to state aid exists anymore. The Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the 5 billion euros will be allocated to the aging fund by royal decree for 31 December 2003 with the possibility of a delay of the deadline limited to 14 days, beginning 2004. by

For the details of the discussions, I refer to the members of the assembly to the report as well as to the work of the Committee on Finance and Budget regarding the imputation of these 5 billion and their destination within the state budget and the ageing fund.

This bill concerns the existing guarantee of an accumulated value of 3.5 billion euros in the pension fund and a guarantee from the company Belgacom. That guarantee is now replaced by a government guarantee, as it exists for officials. To the extent that Belgacom loses a factor of volatility in its financial household through this operation, we obviously have no problem with this. We have nothing against that.

Nevertheless, we strongly oppose this bill, because the government is not serious about the accounting process in the public accounting. The saved €3.5 billion will not be deposited in a separate silver fund to collect interest and serve as a guarantee for the payment of the Belgacom pensions. No, these 3.5 billion euros and the 1.5 billion euros that the company still has to deposit will be summed up to balance the 2003 and 2004 budget. The amount is therefore used for today and not put aside in order to be able to collect interest from it and pay its pensions later. That is the essence of our criticism of this bill.

The trick used is even more clearly expressed by the fact that Belgacom includes the operation fully in its books in 2003, while the Belgian government wants to spread the same operation over the fiscal years 2003 and 2004. This is accounting madness. We are therefore looking forward to the extent to which the European institutions will accept this processing over two financial years. There are no precedents in this regard.

When Europe opposes this spread of the operation over two fiscal years — which, in my opinion, would not be unlikely — then the government is facing a giant political problem. After all, the trick that allowed the 2004 budget formulation to run smoothly and that allowed the VLD and the other partners to become smoothly, is gone. The 2004 budget will then show a clear and clear deficit.

The critical requirement of the VLD group was that there should be no budget deficit in 2004. That requirement will have to be fulfilled. I assume that the VLD group will then effectively demand the restoration of budgetary strictness. Will there be a change between the period before the elections and the period after the elections?

Today Belgacom is of course a healthy company. It is that despite the heavy loads it has had to towers in recent years. Last year, the company had to give away 1 billion euros. The private shareholders are assured of a lucrative stock exchange course thanks to the fact that the company itself will buy for more than 10% of the released share capital. This costs resources to the company. The federal government also withdrew an additional €1.4 billion of funds from Belgacom as a repurchase of these pension obligations.

Anyone who reads the balance sheet and income statement of Belgacom can see that the 75 percent subsidiary Proximus has become the money cow of the company. It is thanks to the dividend flow of Belgacom Mobile or Proximus that Belgacom can be so generous towards its shareholders.

However, that is at the same time the achilles tail for Belgacom, because without Proximus, the image for the company doesn’t look so colorful at all. The question is, therefore, how long will the federal government still be able to resist the temptation to throw away this last crown jewel. We wonder what the impact of this operation will be on the government income from corporate taxes in 2003 and eventually in 2004, because the one-off charge of Belgacom in the amount of EUR 1.4 billion will in any case lead to an equally large decrease in the taxable profit. This should therefore also lead to a reduction in the income from corporate tax under the federal government, in the amount of EUR 560 million or 23 billion francs. Has this been taken into account?

Since this government processes the acquisition of this pension fund budgetarily in a completely unacceptable way and thus tax the future generations, CD&V cannot approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, I remained ⁇ questionable before this operation.

First of all, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, you will allow me to consider the probable existence of a psychological problem in the head of the Minister responsible for the Budget, since now a little more than four years, given the evolution we have known. by

Indeed, we first knew Minister Vande Lanotte "formi", apostle of rigour, apostle of the permanent will to save to reduce debt. This attitude flourished through two logics: the silver fund which consisted of blocking money from budget surpluses to secure the future of future generations — and God knows how much we have supported it in this approach — and the technique of the “golden hamster”, whose logic was to make rule of rigour in the euphoria era. Over the years, this rigour has gradually disappeared: then we witness the progressive transformation of the golden hamster or ants into a cigaly, which sings especially now so that, in the winter, its successors will endure enormous difficulties.

You started with this principle of anchor. Without a game of words, I would say that your drift begins there: indeed, not only does your anchor not stabilize the state budget situation, but in addition, with this principle, following the statement of one of the highest informed officials, we now find ourselves with permanent, screaming debts, of the order of 800 million euros. As they are not settled, from budget to budget, they are transferred to future years. by

I wonder if there is not in you a syndrome that, in the coming years, I hope, will not be baptized in public law schools of "Vande Lanotte syndrome", which is a true vestibular pathology syndrome. Obsessed with the idea of ⁇ ining balance, you constantly hide imbalances through the use of techniques that do not correspond at all to a normal view of the issue of public money.

At the end of last parliamentary term, in order to comply with European directives, we voted for a profound reform of our public accounting and the way to introduce double-part accounting, and that at the time that this law will apply, i.e. within a year, it would have had to correspond to the "recipe" of 5 billion, the expenses that this provision will entail through the years to come. It is therefore quite paradoxical to find that in the year preceding the entry into force of this change in our budgetary accounting, this technique of the recovery of the Belgacom pension fund was used. by

This technique essentially consists of accounting for a receipt while knowing that there is a cost and considering that the expenditure is not to be accounted for immediately.

Why does the State take over the Belgacom pension fund when in the past this obligation has been imposed on Belgacom and why now? The answer is quite clear. Why now ? Because it is an operation that is neither more nor less than a budgetary artifice since there is no social or economic motive that allows to justify the project. The only reason is vestibular pathology, that is, giving the impression that the 2004 budget is in balance with this confiscation of a fund and without incorporating the elements of future imbalance that it contains.

It must be said that the answer that was given regarding the calculation resulting in the payment of 5 billion by the company Belgacom remains a quite random calculation. I find no proof of this but the reaction of the delegate manager of Belgacom when he says: "From a beautiful lurette, the shareholders of Belgacom realize that the pension fund is harming the company." Why does he do wrong? Because there is uncertainty about the obligations that are contracted.

When I see the calculation elements found in the note you attached to the debate, I realize that we start from a interest rate that remains ⁇ random, that we have mortality tables that are not extraordinarily “prudential” or prudent, and that we have a series of elements, such as inflation, that remain ⁇ optimistic over the long term. Finally, we are not talking about peer-equation. Now, we are in the presence of pensions that need to be perecated and to cover all these risks, we have a margin of 200 million euros. You said it was 4.8 billion. If I calculate correctly, 5 billion minus 4.8 billion, it makes a margin of 200 million.

This is not how I explained it. Then, when you talk about interest, it should be said that when interest rates rise, the gain at the level of debt increases in the same proportion.

What if they go down?

If interest rates fall, it means that you have to pay less and you receive less. Whether they increase or decrease, the consequences are felt on both sides. It is exactly the same thing.

If it is the same thing, why does Belgacom consider keeping this pension fund to be such a bad thing?

Why Why ? This is not because it is impossible to predict what will be paid for pensions, but because it is not possible to predict the return of shares in the pension fund. In the last three years, 1.4 billion euros had to be injected into the pension fund and the deficit has nevertheless increased. This is because the stock market is unpredictable. That was their big problem and they no longer have it.

We agree to say that the problem does not lie in what they owe but in the active management of the fund – or proactive, since that is the word used by Mr. by Bellens. On that level, the State has no better assets than Belgacom in the situation we know.

The predictability is now 100%, this is the gain. It is not the amount you receive or not, but the fact that you no longer depend, for pensions, on the uncertainty regarding the return of the shares.

Mr. Minister, we depend for the future on a whole series of other unknown ones that will affect all pensions. If I am your reasoning, what is the problem posed by the future of our public pensions? It is null since you just said that you predict what will be spent and that, for revenues, we will manage them normally. But if you created the "silver fund", it is because you were concerned about preserving the revenue part. Otherwise, the “silver fund” makes no sense.

It is not about that. The “Silver Fund” was not created due to unpredictability. It was conceived to reduce debt and create margins.

By creating margins, we face the unpredictability that is linked to other factors, demography and evolution. I have a suggestion for you: we take back all the pension funds of all companies!

This is the first pillar pension fund. There has never been a proposal to resume the second pillar pension funds. You know the difference. Are you in favor of funding the first pillar by the state?

I am in favour and you know my position. I am a strong supporter of the first pillar. Only, I would like to know why it was considered at some point that with regard to the first pillar targeting the agents of Belgacom, there was an interest for the State to leave this charge to Belgacom.

We had fears because at some point, before the creation of a start margin, the state would have to pay out much more. From now on, we can resume this fund.

I appreciate the intellectual discussion with you, Mr. Minister. But you are explaining that the state has at some point removed this burden because it allowed, through the Belgacom Pension Fund, to release and create margins through active management and the use of shares. And now, while we are in the middle of the way – I repeat, the Belgacom pension fund is the champion of Europe of pension funds – while we are in a period where stocks rise and where the current 3.6 billion can continue to gain size in the logic adopted at the time when this charge of pensions was ceded to them, you tell us that it is much safer for the State to take things back.

I think there is a contradiction that comes solely from the need to balance this budget. In 2004, for example, the evolution of dividends will experience a decrease.

It is not accurate. At the time this operation was decided, we did not know that the recovery of the pension fund would be taken into account in the budget. As proof, in July, during the formation of the government, we announced that there would be a deficit. At the time, we had made the decision to take the Belgacom fund back because this operation was necessary for the company. It was in September that we found that this fund would be included in the budget. If we had known it in July, we would not have announced a likely deficit!

I am not convinced by this evolution. However, if it is in the interests of the company, it is necessary to join the opinion of the State Council - and we have said it in commission - it is then a state aid.

( ... ) It is not because it is in the interests of the company that it is a state aid. This can be beneficial for both the state and the company. If the European Commission does not consider it to be a state aid, it means that the amount committed is correct. You have to be logical with yourself.

I agree with. We will see. However, acknowledge that there is real imprudence at this stage. There is a disadvantage that it is an advantage for the company. Indeed, if, at the time of the listing of Belgacom, private shareholders and the State had decided to put a share on the stock market, in that case, there was obviously a direct and immediate advantage for all shareholders, including the State.

Here, the advantage for the company remains through the throat when it is known that it will immediately be valued by private shareholders who will cede their share in the stock market.

I will summarize by saying that there is really no extraordinary emergency. The Belgacom fund was so well managed that if it could still be for a year, we would not be at 3.6 billion, we would probably be above.

I find that this liquid, immediately usable advantage that is given to private shareholders is something that one should not adhere to. Indeed, the surplus value that the private shareholders of Belgacom will realize is exceptional and directly liquid from the listing.

If the commission ever says that we are in the presence of a form of disguised public aid, I do not believe that, for this purely budgetary operation, the government will really manage the situation as it should.

We are therefore present, I repeat, of an operation that masks the situation on the budgetary level. At the level of historical forecasts, our successors will see the real results. In the short term, if this advantage translates as I believe and as it would be normal by a stock surplus value through Belgacom, I believe that one can really regret that the listing concerns only the private shareholders of Belgacom. This is a management that is, in my opinion, lower than what could be expected from a serious management of this sector to which we are all attached, which is to ensure the protection of future generations at the level of the demographic shock they will face.

Mr. Speaker, respected colleagues, Mr. Minister, I would like to make a statement on behalf of sp.a-spirit. I would like to address in particular Mrs. Vervotte, co-rapporteur and spokeswoman for the CD&V.

Mrs Vervotte, it is about telecommunications and you are now calling. You will not blame me that I would like to address the word to you and to your group.

We do not really understand the conclusions of the premises that you have made both in the Chamber Committee and here today. You are the grosso modo, two-thirds, agree with us. You say, “Basically, we are not against this operation. In principle, we have nothing against this operation."You mentioned this as a reporter in your report. It is your own statement, which is stated on page 9 of the report: "In principle, we have nothing against that operation. We jointly establish," thus the majority and your group, "that that operation is good for the enterprise and has been requested by the enterprise. Together, we conclude that this operation is good for the existing staff of Belgacom, good for the pensioners of Belgacom and good for the future pensioners of Belgacom.”

Suddenly, however, when it comes to the booking, you talk about the way of booking the acquisition of that fund. Then we are a little surprised. In the draft of the government and in that text, there is nothing about the booking itself. This article is only about the operation. It’s not about booking.

We could understand that you punish that booking method if you disagree with it, let us say through the appropriate channels in the preparation of the budget, but not here in this article, where it is only about the acquisition.

I think anyone with a healthy, critical attitude can ask questions about such an operation because it is indeed a fairly large operation.

Therefore, if you have the tendency — sometimes we have the tendency too — to refuse to believe the competent minister, then you must seek the counsel or the advice of externals. In this regard I must say: honour who deserves honour. The CD&V, on behalf of Mr. De Crem, had a ⁇ favorable invasion, last week in the Chamber Committee. Indeed, Mr. Chairman of the CD&V, your party fellow sometimes also has good incidents. Last week he had a very good attack. He stated, during the hearing in the committee, "It is really strange that the directly involved partner, especially the autonomous public company Belgacom, in that whole debate cannot be heard directly in the Chamber Committee." Therefore, CD&V proposed to invite Mr Bellens to the Chamber Committee in particular.

The majority parties, including the VLD and sp.a. factions, were happy to agree on this. We thought there was nothing to hide. We thought that we could only learn from the testimonies, from the statements, from the answers to Mr. Bellens’ questions.

What has Mr. Bellens, a person beyond any suspicion, taught us? He taught us that the federal government’s acquisition of the pension fund is an urgent operation, even if it was only because Belgacom could focus on forming an active strategy in a highly competitive environment. The fact that one had to engage in financing all the time, with all the fluctuations thereof, is, according to him, nefast to the company’s impact.

Mr Bellens also taught us that in this ⁇ competitive environment Belgacom as a telecommunications company is the only company on the European market that has yet to provide for the financing of the pensions of its employees and thus has a competitive disadvantage in that hypertensive market.

Mr. Bellens also taught us that the price — colleagues from the PS and CDH have big questions about it — may be the right price. He says that there is indeed a margin, because one does not know all the parameters, but overall it is a fair and correct price. That must, by the way, too, otherwise we are at risk of the European Commission or anyone else in the European Union saying that we actually offer a competitive advantage to Belgacom.

We agree that this is good for the company. We agree that it is good for the company’s staff. By focusing on its strategic mission, Belgacom can increase its performance in the future. That is, the staff in that company is much more confident of their situation. It can be said that it is also good for the staff.

I was attentively listening to Mr De Coene’s presentation. I felt the tendency to react, because quite often references were made to statements from, among others, CD&V’ers.

We have the honesty to say that we want to reflect nuancedly on this proposal. We say we want to see if it is good for Belgacom. Excuse me for saying it myself, but I think it is our full right. I think this only testifies to the fact that we are honest with the future of Belgacom.

Absolutely, but...

Secondly, the reason why we asked to see the delegate-director is because the minister in the Senate said very convincingly that he would first make clear what the universal service would be, and secondly, that he would clearly define the matters surrounding corporate governance and discuss in Parliament. The Minister has boasted that he has promised this and I regret that I have to return to it. We have had a debate on this. He also promised that, for which we are grateful. However, we found it necessary to recall this commitment.

Third, with regard to your accounting operation ...

This is not my accounting operation. And in addition, today it is not about the accounting operation, it is about the acquisition.

With regard to your presentation, today it is all about the fact that this will be included once at Belgacom – that is stated in – in the budget 2003-2004. We have problems with this.

That is not in it.

I would like to agree with what Ms. Vervotte has just said. I would like to stipulate that Mr. De Coene does manifest disinformation here when he says that there is absolutely nothing in the law related to accounting. According to Article 8, the deposit of the Belgacomfonds must take place on or before 31 December 2003 at midnight.

It is about the deposit, about the transfer. This is not about accounting technology.

Furthermore, according to Article 8, the King may extend this period for the whole or for part of the payments by a maximum period of 14 days. I have never seen in a contract that one can suddenly allow a 14-day delay. The sole meaning of Article 8 on that point is to give the government the possibility to spread the Belgacoms spar pigs over two deficit fiscal years. That is the only reason why this paragraph is contained in Article 8. Mr. De Coene, you and the Minister also know this well.

I want to clarify something. If anyone is for or against this operation, it is of course his or her full right. However, this law does not concern the budget appropriation. The article that Mr. Bogert quotes does not prove that at all. Of course, one cannot say that the Pension Fund will be overwhelmed, without saying when it will happen. I have never seen a contract in which one agrees to do something without saying when one will do it. If there had been a law here without a date, you would have rightly said that there was no agreement. It states that it must take place on a certain date and that a two-week delay is possible. I explained at the committee meeting why. This was to take into account a number of unexpected circumstances.

Mr. Bogert, if you have never seen a contract stating that you must pay at a certain date, but that a delay with a maximum of as many days as possible, then you have seen only a few contracts. I think almost everyone in this room has seen such a contract.

However, the possibility possibly existed to include in this bill that the money for these Belgacom employees would be kept separately. That was a possibility. Now they are included in the big pot.

That is unconstitutional, Madam. You cannot keep a non-fiscal receipt separately. It is a non-fiscal receipt and we have said that we would put them in the Silver Fund, which is the only possibility. You know very well that this receipt simply enters the entire state income. There is the principle of universality; money goes to the treasury. You know that a fund is only possible for very specific income and not for this, you know very well. It is not possible. What do you mean? You suggest — an interesting suggestion — that we should tell the employees of Belgacom that the money that serves Belgacom is for their retirement and for no one else. This also means that if half a euro is ever too little, the fund is empty. This is in conflict with the entire pension system, you know very well. These are state pensions and they are paid out of the general resources and that is why the money should go to the general resources. If we would explain to the employees now that their fund is a separate pot, I don’t think they would agree to such an operation.

The last thing we want and apparently should say about this is that our fear, as we have also made clear in the committee, is the following. This fund would be full-sized by the company and then included in a large pot. If there were then legislative changes concerning pensions, it would be easier for the employees of Belgacom who are retired to knock on their company with the demand for the fund that they had and that was full, than when they are included in that large pot and they have to knock on the whole government.

You could not attend the committee you talked about for good reasons, but I will repeat it again. Today, this right no longer exists. It is today that, if one jota is amended to the general system of pensions, which automatically and ipso facto applies to the employees of Belgacom, even if there is more or less money in the pension fund. That does not change anything. You say they should get more for the fund’s sake, but that’s not the case, the law prohibits it. The law states that the pensions of Belgacom and those of the government are identical. Any change in the state pensions ipso facto changes in the same way up or down the pensions of Belgacom. The staff of Belgacom cannot request an adjustment in the event of a change in the government statute because they have a fund. The result is that the fund would be less financed, because this has been clearly provided in the law since '91.

Mrs Vervotte, I would like to comment on your statement that you have a good relationship with the company and with the employees of the company. In all openness and collegiality, I do not doubt for a moment. I know your trade union background and would not dare to question that. Exactly for this reason, if the head of the company and the trade unions of the company ask us ourselves to hasten with the acquisition of that fund, it cannot be other than that you are logical with yourself and approves the acquisition of that fund by the federal government. You should make an abstraction of what is present today in this design, as it is not part of the design. You should make an abstraction of the accounting operation, although we could still grant you the benefit of your doubt.

As for the accounting operation, we can accept that you feel called to be the guard dog of the Minister of Budget in particular. However, there are institutions for this. The operation, both of the acquisition and of the accounting techniques, will be evaluated by the European Commission. As far as the operation itself is concerned, you could rely on Articles 86 and 87, the rules of competition of the Treaty on European Union. This is where the operation manages to eliminate a competitive disadvantage that the telecommunications company Belgacom has today. Instead of providing a competitive advantage, one is eliminating an existing disadvantage.

As for the accounting technology, let’s wait. The minister says he is reasonably calm about it. We do not know that, but we do know that a few weeks ago the European Commission approved an analogue operation in Portugal, in particular with the company CTT. This is an analogous and similar case. The opinion of the European Commission is a few weeks old. Therefore, we would be very surprised if the European Commission would say in relation to the Portuguese company that it can, and a few weeks later would say that it can not in the case of the Belgian company. However, I also know that there may not be a judgment immediately, but the case has been initiated.

I have one last consideration. Whatever way the funds go to the federal government, to the public funding, this is a correct move. Let’s bear in mind, the pension fund and the funds for it were then co-built under a government monopoly of the RTT, later Belgacom. It was a government monopoly with monopoly gains, of which everyone who used the phone was the suffering object. If today the funds accumulated with it go to public funding, the public is given back what comes from the public.

If it is then in the form of an improvement of the debt ratio — be it the speck of the Silver Fund, be it that it allows Europe to realize a budget surplus by doing so — it is public resources. Public funds are getting better.

I have one last concern for the colleagues of CD&V, without unnecessarily wanting to polemize. During the discussion in the Chamber Committee, you proposed an amendment, which was rejected by the majority. However, the explanation of the amendment tells something about the setting with which you approach the file. You say it is good for you. This is not the case, colleagues. Let me speak, please. You said you are doing well with the company. You said you have a good relationship with the employees of the company. I doubt that if I read the explanation of your amendment. You actually insinuate that the government will not fulfill its obligations towards the pensioners of Belgacom or the future pensioners. If you claim that, where both the autonomous state company ...

The [...]

Can I take a moment?

If both the autonomous state-owned company and the current draft guarantee that the obligations will be fulfilled, then you actually say that almost to make the employees of Belgacom nervous. As a result...

The [...]

No, the company is not only performing at the grace of financial stability. It is also performing at the grace of stability among employees. So if you feel so good about Belgacom, do not sow unnecessary commotion among its employees and future pensioners.

Just a moment, Mr. De Coene. Mrs Vervotte wants to replicate.

( ... ...

Mr Leterme, Mrs Vervotte of your group wishes to speak.

Mr. De Coene, I thank you for your commitment. You are apparently very committed. However, I think you should make a distinction—you must remain correct—between the genuine concern we have for the employees there today and the developments that the company might experience. We absolutely want to participate in this. However, we have made the only note that we will have to pay attention to all the costs that the exchange transition for Belgacom will entail. Will the company be able to pay for it and how will it pay for it? The entire stock exchange operation is a very difficult operation. No one will deny that. Meanwhile, 1 billion euros went away last year and the private shareholder has once again become wealthy. I cannot say otherwise. Belgacom was the chicken with the golden eggs. Furthermore, a one-off payment of 1.4 billion euros will have to be made to complete the fund. That is our concern. Our concern also goes to the 75% daughter and the revaluation that may take place there, as well as the purchase of the shares that they will have to realize themselves to enable that stock exchange. We are concerned about the company today, about the pensions in the future as well as about the people who have stepped into the restructuring plans – also that is a huge challenge for the future – and also about everything that has to do with the extralegal pensions.

We have the right to ask questions about this and it is not fair that we are judged as if we were not interested in the employees and want to mortgage their future. All we demand is a guarantee, both for current and future employees.

What I have said is that after the guarantees you have received, both from the Deputy Administrator of the Autonomous State Enterprise and in the explanation of the Minister, what you are now on the edge to do is to make the staff unnecessarily nervous and insinuate that the pension obligations will not be met.

This was the maiden speech of Mr. De Coene in the Chamber.

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Vervotte has indeed said in the committee that if she is sure that it is a feasible operation for the company that does not cause the company to be overly indebted, she is in principle for that operation. That was a rightful comment.

That is also why we, at the request of Mr. De Crem, have brought Mr. Bellens. Mr Bellens has made it clear that for Belgacom it indeed requires an effort, but that that effort is also effectively tolerable. He said that we will have no debt and that our society will be able to operate without debt again by the end of 2004. He said this clearly and that was very reassuring. It was also the analysis we had done.

Mrs Vervotte, your legitimate concern in this regard has been fully clearly expressed by Mr Bellens. He said: the only problem that one could have with Belgacom is that the company would not have borrowed enough and that it has insufficient debt, because that means that it has not invested enough. But well, that is because Belgacom in the past in my opinion - fortunately - has not participated in some trends of the time. Their

I would like to emphasize once again that if one thing came out clearly from the interview with Mr. Bellens, it is that he found it a correct price. That correct price can be paid by Belgacom for the company without any problem.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister refers to the conversation with Mr. Bellens. In this, we have received a beautiful overview of a number of historical facts. However, two things were remembered. First, until the time we speak here today, the auditor’s report has not been published. The report of the auditor has not been published in this matter. I have never experienced that in such a transaction the report of the auditor is withheld to the members of the committee. Per ⁇ the Minister can make another gesture and present the auditor’s report? Their

Second, the report of the Inspector of Finance has also been withheld to the members of the committee. How can we decide on such a matter if we do not have the most basic indication information?

This decision to take over the statutory pension obligations of Belgacom with respect to its statutory staff finally provides a satisfactory response to a request that has been repeatedly repeated by the leaders of Belgacom. It should be recalled here that the five billion euros that Belgacom will pay to the State have been determined based on the current assets of the fund and the appropriations necessary in the future, to ensure the payment of pensions of statutory employees according to the regime of public pensions. The five billion is the current value according to different assumptions, in particular in terms of inflation rates and the different long-term rates needed to cover pensions.

I would like to remind you of the words of the Executive Director, Mr. Bellens, during his hearing on November 5, stating that the bill only solves a single problem in Europe for a telecom company, a problem that should have been solved in the past. Always according to Mr. Bellens, this is a correction of a completely exceptional situation.

I would like to ask you a question. I agree with you: for the company, this is a good thing. But, when the company was partially privatized, the weight of Belgacom’s pension fund obviously weighed on the price of transfer of the shares to private partners. How do you win twice? They earned it in the privatization and they earn it in the stock market. It is a famous gift.

No, because today you are reducing the company’s net assets by 5 billion.

and no. The fact is that if we had removed the pension fund at that time, we would have earned more. So, it is normal that when Belgacom had, in its time, to pay...

You give me right when you say that. They paid less and they went out at a better price. This is a double gift.

They have lost approximately 4 or 5 billion euros in profits between the time. Last year, it was 1.4 billion profits that they did not have.

But they made the calculation when they bought!

In 1997, four months after the State took over the statutory pension charges of the Belgacom staff, John Goossens recalled in the press that neither La Poste nor the SNCB should bear their pension charges. The delegated administrator of Belgacom also considered that there was a factor of concern and an element that weighs on Belgacom’s search for competitiveness.

The interested party insisted on the importance of reducing the burden of the company and added that a partial reduction of the contribution to the pension fund would contribute to this effort. Already at that time, Belgacom claimed to be a unique case in the world, citing the example of France that had relieved France-Télécom from 600 to 800 billion French francs corresponding to the management of the pension fund.

This speech was also held during the exchanges of views in the Infrastructure Committee both in 1997, when the autonomous public undertaking was preparing to face competition on 1 January 1998, or in May 2001, when Mr. Goossens presented the accounts for the financial year 2000.

Qualified at times as a weight of the past at times as a heavy disability, this exceptional obligation resulted in 2001 and 2002 in an annual allocation of €176 million, to which was added in 2002 an extraordinary allocation of €281 million which decreased the dividends that shareholders could receive. This charge represented, in 2002, 6.8% of the turnover. The indirect effect of this charge on the financial result of Belgacom is therefore not negligible.

Who makes a good deal thanks to the late recovery by the State of the statutory pension obligations of the Belgacom staff? Are these private shareholders of the ADSB consortium who, in 1995, paid a price that took into account this exceptional burden and who, in 2004, will cede their shares, whose surplus value includes the disappearance of the burden? Is it rather the state that collects 5 billion euros that will contribute, through the feeding of the ageing fund, to the reduction of public debt?

We dare to say that the first beneficiary of this operation is Belgacom itself. As Mr. said. This transfer allows Belgacom to develop a long-term strategy that - all observers agree - will be based on an industrial partnership, as provided by the law of 10 August 2001 which allows the State to sell all or part of the shares of Belgacom, as part of a strategic partnership involving Belgacom and one or more telecom operators.

Following the period of strategic consolidation, the State’s re-assignment of statutory pension obligations is therefore a necessary but not sufficient step in the development of the strategic partnership initiated in 2001.

It is now up to Belgacom to control the programming of its strategic alliances and, therefore, to the State to exercise its prerogatives of majority shareholder until today. by

Our group will support this bill.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs for the report that, in essence, is a correct reflection of the various positions taken in the committee 14 days ago or even last week. We were, of course, able to exchange extensively of thoughts on the draft during the committee meeting, with a suddenly hallucinating display that also took place during the meeting of the committee for Finance. It became a welles-niess game, where everyone remained at their own equal. This is reflected in the last minutes of our plenary session. To stay in the atmosphere of the bill, I suspect that we will only know the truth when we will all be retired for a long time. This does not prevent me from shortly dismissing the position of our group.

What do we think is the purpose of this operation? As such, it has little to do with the well-being of Belgacom or that of the employees or that of the current or future pensioners of Belgacom. It is not a long-term vision. It is simply an opportunity that occurs in these difficult economic times. It’s a mistake and even the government acknowledges it. It is a convenience solution in the absence of better measures, in the absence of a real long-term vision. That is the essence of this bill. That is, of course, the opinion of an opposition party, how could it be different.

There are also experts in the field who question this. I cited in the committee the example of the former chairman of the Belgian Association of Pensions Institutions and I cited the example of the current secretary-general of that association. Both were ⁇ harsh for these measures. The confidence in the entire financial sector of this country would be severely undermined, especially if the government could decide from day to day to simply confiscate a fund. What did they say? The government is removing the difficulties. The fact that this is happening now and that the line on that level is not consistently passed on to the other statutory pension funds shows that it has become a purely budgetary technical matter. These are harsh words. The future will tell who is right in this.

This also applies to the approval that Europe still needs to give for this operation. The minister is clearly reassured, but the mere fact that questions arise about this proves the delicacy of this operation. This was also well reflected in the committee, where the discussion about funded and unfunded pension funds was not out of the air.

There was also a discussion about assumptions, using or not secret tables whose numbers were questioned. In this regard, too, it remains a welles nones game without the preceding.

The essence of the story, however, is that the government intends to catch three flies in one stroke with that so-called case — the takeover of the Belgian Compensation Fund. The pension fund will be used simultaneously for three things: for the payment of pensions of the employees of Belgacom, for the reduction of public debt and for the specking of the Silver Fund. Explain to the people of the Belgian Compensation Fund that it serves to pay the retired Belgian Employees, that it serves to make the budget reach a positive balance and that it can then be used again for the Silver Fund, for the benefit of Jan and Alleman. You have to be able.

There is no structural strategy or long-term vision behind this operation. The same can be said of the Silver Fund. It was, of course, psychologically a good thing for the government, but the fear remains that sooner or later we will get the cover on the nose.

You must not blame me. I may not have understood exactly what is happening here, but then I am not alone. The sale of the fund’s assets is a bad signal. With an invested portfolio of 3.6 billion, Belgacom had the largest pension fund in this country. In addition, its assets consisted of fair values, such as domestic and foreign shares, domestic and foreign bonds and liquid funds. However, for purely opportunistic reasons of the government, this portfolio had to be liquidated.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the acquisition of the pension fund is an artificial construction. This means reducing debt and balancing the budget. Such measures remove any incentive to restore public finances. In reality, the budget has a deficit. The government would rather take structural measures to avoid such situations in the future rather than shifting all problems to its successors. Therefore, the Flemish Bloc will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, we have had very interesting discussions in the Infrastructure Committee and I see that these same discussions have been resumed in the plenary session. What distinguishes us from each other is what we believe we have heard. For my part, I heard clearly that the estimate of the five billion created for the pension fund for the transfer to the state was based on mortality tables, but also on an estimate of the baby boom that will quickly become a papy boom. by

Additionally, Belgacom CEO Didier Bellens himself, who had come at the request of the opposition, assured us that the transaction posed no problem of monetization of the five billion euros, that 90% of the liquidity was in cash and that the market was able to withstand the total liquidation of the transaction. by Mr. Bellens also explained why it was important for the company to carry out this transfer operation. According to him, he was disabled in his willingness to conduct a dynamic policy for the company, by the need to take into account the pension fund in his accounting and supply it at the expense of other possible investments without being able to dispose of them.

In relation to what has been said concerning the workers of Belgacom, I wanted to clarify that these employees were entitled to the same pension scheme as that of the State and that if one touches the pensions of the State, one automatically touches the pensions of Belgacom. The transfer will not change the rules in force. On the contrary, since the base of contributions is wider, the State provides them with additional security.

Finally, it was clearly answered that the extra-legal benefits granted today to Belgacom’s retired statutory employees would continue to be so since it is an internal agreement of the company that will not be denounced by the transfer of the fund. I also heard the minister say that the five billion would be paid into the ageing fund. Either we trust or we believe in the honesty of those who answer our questions, or we do not believe them. For my part, I decided to believe it.

That said, the Socialist group has other statements to hold that come in annex to this transfer of the pension fund. I am talking about the public self-employed company. This implies the pursuit of a primary goal: its financial profitability, which strikes us in the case of a public enterprise that is supposed to offer a universal service. So you will understand that it wasn’t our cup of tea. by

If we finally adhered to this idea, it was only the only possible alternative to the will to withdraw the minority shareholders of Belgacom.

Therefore, it was necessary to frame this stockpiling by applying three principles that I would like to state.

The first is the maintenance of universal public service, i.e. an identical service rendered to all citizens regardless of their financial or geographical situation, for example. We could only accept that, in the name of a certain financial profitability, the company decides to provide only a minimum service as defined by European regulations. The state must be able to invest in its instrument. He must be able to modernize it because it is his responsibility to judge services indispensable to the progress of society and to the quality of life of each of us.

In order to ⁇ this, we want to support a second principle. Thus, it is necessary to keep what is still public in the company and not go towards a total privatization, even though for some, privatization is synonymous with success, modernity, efficiency. For us, the state must continue to be a regulator of the economy while being an actor of the economy, especially when we think of the important role played by a telecommunication tool in the development of the knowledge society.

Finally, last principle, the Belgacom staff could not cover the costs of this listing. Therefore, we make it clear today that we will be extremely vigilant with regard to the dismissal of executives, which has been undertaken since the beginning of this summer.

We are convinced that these “initiatives” are to be paralleled with this publication because it is, in the end, a toileting of the various spending posts of the public enterprise so that it appears more attractive on the stock market.

We know, of course, that the ratio of executives within Belgacom is higher than in other European companies. However, we believe that this is only valuable in the eyes of the market. For us, it is employment that matters.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you a question that may seem technical, but that has its importance.

Today we know the composition of the banking consortium that will accompany the listing of Belgacom. These include Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Dexia and KBC, three American mammoths, one Swiss and two Belgian. Is the share of the securities that will be reserved for institutional investors and private investors already known? And what will be the share reserved for the Belgian market and foreign markets?

A decision can only be made at the last moment. That is why we insisted at the time of the agreement – even if it is not the State that sells since it has nothing to say – that two Belgian banks be part of the management group in order to ensure a certain balance between the institutional investors, who buy to sell very quickly, and the investors of our Belgian market. This is the only guarantee we can have because it is a bit predictable. I repeat that the only guarantee we can have is that Belgian banks will be part of the decision group, which has been agreed and executed. At the time of the IPO, it is this consortium that will decide on the allocation of the different market shares.