Proposition 51K2534

Projet de loi relatif au contrôle des institutions de retraite professionnelle.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

June 8, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive supplementary pension administrative check pension scheme

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Abstained from voting

Ecolo

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 ¶

July 13, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to thank the services. Late in the parliamentary year, they were given another complicated piece to process. There was a three-time re-numbering, there were late serving amendments and late serving opinions. There was another examination area in the Social Affairs Committee. Their

We met on 13 June, 21 June and yesterday 12 July in connection with this bill on the supervision of the institutions for business services. Their

In the introductory presentation, the Minister outlined the dual purpose of this draft. First, this draft is a transposition of the European Directive. Second, it aims to coordinate the existing prudential scheme. Their

The main objective of the transposition of the Directive is to enable a Belgian undertaking to join an institution for occupational pension established in a European Member State for the purpose of its management of the pension scheme. The opposite is equally true. In other words, institutions can develop cross-border activities. Their

In order to allow these activities, the Directive provides for a minimum framework for the operation and supervision of the institutions for occupational pension services. This framework implies that the Directive provides sufficient options for Member States. Many of the obligations imposed by the Directive are already present in the current Belgian legislation. Their

The second objective of this draft, namely the coordination of the various existing supervisory arrangements, relates in particular to the law of 9 July 1975 on the control of insurance undertakings and two royal decrees relating to this law of 1975. Finally, the Minister noted that he is also introducing a new terminology. Pension funds and funds are now referred to as institutions for occupational pension benefits. Their

In the general discussion, colleague D'Hondt had some concerns about the design. She supports and supports the draft, but noted, among other things, that the importance of these funds is that they do not deviate excessively from the basic requirements of solidarity and that the principle of paritary management is reinforced. Their

Mr Bultinck also took the floor. He pointed out the importance of the second and third pillars and welcomed the fact that the social partners take responsibility in this regard. He also commented on a number of comments from the State Council. According to him, the government did not respond to these comments. Their

For my comments in the general discussion, I will refer to my reasoning later. I do this to keep it short. Their

Then followed the discussion of the articles. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we held another final committee meeting at 10:00 and 14:00, where the discussion of the articles took a deeper look at the opinion of the State Council and where a lot of amendments were submitted and discussed by me and Mrs. D'Hondt. The report has just been printed, but this was also agreed with the consent of the members. Their

We concluded after a little discussion about whether or not to adopt the amendments. A major amendment from us was not adopted by the Minister – Mrs. D’Hondt will soon return to it – an amendment that deals with the general liability of the directors in such insurance institutions. Their

In the end, the whole draft of 234 articles was unanimously approved by the committee members. I would like to thank my colleagues for the constructive way they participated in those discussions.

Mr Sevenhans, Minister Flahaut has returned. I do not like to interrupt a discussion, but I also do not want you to wait until the discussion of the draft has been completed.

Unfortunately, I was a little late with this question.

You were too late?

I do not want to overload the agenda.

Mr. Minister, I thank you for your benevolence.

Mr. Minister, on Friday morning of last week I received a question from a naval officer, you may think a sour officer. He had news for me. He told me that you had begun something again that day, and I replied that this was not news. When he said it was about the Dutch fregates, he naturally immediately got my attention.

Colleagues, it is about the purchase of two Dutch fregates, the Karel Doorman and the Willem van der Zaan, named after two shots at night who died in a naval battle.

The Minister knows very well that I am a pretty big advocate of the purchase of those fregates. After all, those fifteen-year-old fregates will replace our thirty-year-old fregates, which carry names such as the Westwinder, the Wielingen, the Wandelaar, the Westdiep. As you can hear, our fregates have beautiful, Flemish names.

The commander immediately lighted a tip of the veil. He said that the minister that Friday would announce the names of the fregates. He got more than my attention. As he communicated the names, there was silence on the other side of the line. I asked if he could repeat the names, what he did. The Leopold I and the Marie-Louise, or rather the LouiseMarie. I confused the name with a name that appears in a Flemish song.

“Le Léopold I; do you not mean that?” I asked.

Mr. Minister, you know your reputation in Flanders. You have been proclaimed by The Last News the least trusted and least skilled minister of the federal government.

Mr Sevenhans, coman

I am not saying that, it is stated in the Latest News.

This is a message from the latest news.

You should read the Belgian State Gazette, Mr. Annemans.

Mr. Minister, I would ⁇ never dare to call you someone with ridiculous ideas, ⁇ not.

I told the officer that this could not be done, and he replied that I had not heard the best yet. He asked if I knew the city of St. Petersburg from the new fregate Léopold I. I thought of Brakel.

We do not have a sea port, Mr. Sevenhans.

"No, Mr. Sevenhans, you should not start laughing," said the officer, "it's Nijvel, Nivelles." I know Minister Flahaut, and I thought he would not do such a thing. That would be too ridiculous, I thought to myself. After a discussion, however, it turned out that there was something more going on, and where there is smoke, there is fire.

Mr. Minister, I have been informed about the procedure for the designation of ships. It is customary that the Chief of Staff of the Navy — now that was the Navy component — makes a suggestion to the Minister. The Minister normally endorses this proposal.

Mr. Sevenhans, you have to decide. You only got the speaking time to ask a question.

Mr. Minister, I would like to know from you why you deviate from normal practices and why you, as Minister, choose that name. I know you are not concerned with the big lines, but with the details. Of course, it is a detail and so you keep working on it. Why did you do that yourself?

I come to the ham question: how do you still get to give a king and a queen name to a ship in 2006? This is no longer usual. Our NATO allies don’t do that anymore; it only happens with us. I would like to hear your motivation.

You have gone a little over your time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify that I was unable to be present for the hour of questions due to an unexpected occurrence in the preparations for the parade of 21 July.

I had taken the precautions of use by asking my colleague Demotte to take the text of my answer. I joined the House as quickly as possible, especially since I have an important project to adopt today. This project concerns all the victims of war.

Secondly, I am surprised that I was not questioned in commission because the names of the fregates were already known. You could have questioned me yesterday instead of waiting today and wasting time on the whole assembly!

Your questions are as follows.

Why the name Leopold and Louise-Marie? Simply because it seemed to us that in this year anniversary of the dynasty, it was logical to give the frigates a name reminiscent of the first king and the first queen. I still want the state, Belgium. So I give symbols where I can give them.

As for the choice of Marraine cities, you know that the wallon cities are Floreffe, Arlon, Charleroi, Malmedy and Mons. Flemish cities are Ostende, Bruges, Diest, Thames, Boom, Gand, Blankenberge, Willebroeck, Vilvorde and Brussels — Brussels is not in Flanders of course. It is obvious that the cities of Nivelles and Saint-Nicolas were offered to me by the Navy General Staff.

Point on the line!

Mr. Minister, you suggested that, of course. I know you are a royalist, but I have always informed who were Leopold I and Louise-Marie. LouiseMarie was the second wife of Leopold I. I can understand it because it is also about second-hand fregates. ( ... ...

Mr. Sevenhans, now you are talking about the writing! I removed that. There are things that I do not accept in this room. I respect all opinions, but you’re talking about the writing. A widow can get married a second time, Mr. Annemans, which is also a historical fact.

Mr. Minister, that Leopold I became king of Belgium. We did searches. He was a rent-a-king before the letter. We found him in England. Leopold I wanted to become the de facto king of England. You will know that history better than I do, I had to read it all because I didn’t know it. That was his first dream. His second dream was to become King of Greece. This has also failed. Then there was something left, Belgium. Maybe a third time, maybe a good time. I want to remind you of the following. I will speak clearly, although the Minister understands me well enough.

Do not make a show.

I quote from letters of Leopold I: "I find Belgium only a messy country - c'était en français, of course, but well, it is a free translation - "also the ministers". At that time he probably did not know Minister Flahaut yet because otherwise he might have found it much worse. He also found the banality of Belgium shaking and talked about the apathic little people.

If this is a tribute to this man... And you are a socialist, Mr. Minister! You want to be Minister of State. Well, I offer you to become Minister of State. Then this is the last time I have to interpell you about such silly things you are dealing with.

Mr. Sevenhans, you have gone over the writing, but I will give the freedom of speech in this Chamber... You know that. However, you have gone over the writing.

The incident is closed. The incident is closed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will keep my speech on my bench, because it will ⁇ not last long.

I would like to say in advance, Mr. Speaker, that in the last few days we have demonstrated from the opposition that we are willing to work constructively and with the necessary commitment to solve important problems or, as here, the transposition of European directives. I must honestly say that both ministers — later the Health Act, which we have yet to fix this morning, will also be discussed — were lucky that the work was done in the afternoon. If another socialist secretary of state shouts me, such as Van Middag, they will have to go further in the coming months to get the same constructive cooperation.

I think our reporter presented in a very concise but correct manner the style and atmosphere in which the discussions on the draft law on the supervision of the institutions for occupational pension services took place. I would like to use the short time, Mr. Speaker, to ask you once again to pay attention with even greater vigilance that such bills should no longer be discussed in this way. The draft law is very technical and one must therefore gather all the courage to read and process it. It was supplemented in the committee by the government with a hundred amendments. It is almost impossible for a parliamentary to do a good parliamentary work. I have the fear, Mr. Speaker, even after the constructive discussion of the past days, that we will be faced again with this bill in the not too long term, because in the hurry with which it was handled together with the amendments, it will probably still contain legal deficiencies.

We were ⁇ susceptible to the question of still dealing with the draft law, because we are actually too late with the transposition of the European directives on this subject. The CD&V group did not want to hinder the discussions in the context of the social consultation this autumn, in which a number of sectors will hopefully be willing to invest in the establishment of second-pillar pension schemes.

The vote was unanimous, as the rapporteur said. Here, in the presence of colleagues who were not in the Committee on Social Affairs and in the presence of the Minister, I would only like to emphasize that I continue to regret that the amendment we submitted was not taken into account.

With this amendment we wanted to avoid what is now in the text, in particular that directors of pension associations can be personally liable for errors or deficiencies. It can be said that we interpret it too sharply.

We confirmed to the Minister during the discussion that we also believe that the management of postponed wages of employees should be done in the most correct way and with the most caution. Not every volunteer director of a pension association is aware of all matters taking place in the enterprises that join such a pension fund. We find that the personal responsibility of the volunteer drivers goes too far.

The Minister, with the explanation he gave and which everyone can read in the committee report, has intended not to intervene. We have voted against this article in the text in the committee and will do so immediately at the vote. We have approved this from the opposition.

I conclude with the urgent request to stop doing this kind of work on such important matters at this rate. There are two possibilities. One comes to the committee and sits them out while one has not yet opened the book. If there were 15 pages missing, it would not have been seen after the vote. Either one has the courage to read it and the pace at which we must work here is not a good way to get to proper legislative work. I think it is still a bit of pride in this Parliament to do a good job.

Mrs D'Hondt, a technical note. Yesterday two long bills were on the agenda. Mr. Tante asked me why I quoted each article. Do you remember the debate yesterday? Articles can be discussed and voted. I understand you. If you wish, you can ask for a vote on a specific article. You can do it later. I will treat the article separately.

I just want to say that I play it very openly. If you say you want to vote on a particular article, I will let that vote separately. You decide whether or not you will abstain. I do not have to explain to you the rules of this House. You know them very well.

I also note that the committee has devoted three meetings to this huge and very technical piece.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs. D'hondt and Mrs. De Block for their very useful involvement in this case which was handled under very difficult conditions, as it was mentioned just a moment ago.

The CDH welcomes the adoption of the bill on the control of occupational pension institutions.

Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of occupational pension institutions.

The project provides the legislative framework necessary to allow a Belgian company to affiliate with an occupational pension institution with its headquarters anywhere in the European Economic Area. It is about allowing occupational pension institutions to carry out cross-border activity as it has been allowed to insurance companies for more than a decade. Furthermore, the project also aims to coordinate the various provisions relating to the prudential supervision of institutions responsible for the implementation of pension schemes. by

This was an indispensable task given the difficulty that exists today to go through this disparate regulation that was beginning to pose serious problems in terms of legal certainty. The discussions in committees have clearly demonstrated this, given the difficulty we sometimes had to distinguish the new provisions of the draft from those already in force. by

I would like to express two regrets. by

This project has not been used to overcome the differences existing between the different types of pension funds and which constitute an obstacle to the proper functioning of the market. In particular, I think of the need to harmonise the tax statutes of pension funds and apply the same rules to pension funds and insurance companies.

My second regret joins in part with the first. This project could have been an opportunity for a broader debate on the future of the second pillar pension schemes. I would like to remind you that my party is in favour of the adoption of a first pillar bis in addition to the legal system of pension by division. It would be about developing a compulsory solidary capitalization system within the social security itself. For the CDH, this system should account for about 20% of the workers’ pensions. For this purpose, the tax advantages of the third pillar and partially those of the second pillar should be transferred to that first pillar.

Given the precipitation in which the debates on the project we are going to vote on took place and the other work, especially done yesterday in the plenary session, it was difficult to deepen these issues.

The majority and the opposition spent a lot of time — yesterday again throughout the day — filing multiple amendments to improve and save your original project from shipwreck.

Despite this fierce and last-minute work, you have agreed yourself, Mr. Minister, that imperfections will still need to be corrected in subsequent legislative work.

That said, we support the main guidelines of the text that is presented to us today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will speak of on my bench because I think I have already stood enough on the speaker’s seat.

These are your words, not mine.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has taken advantage of the transposition of the European directives on the supervision of the institutions for occupational pension provision in order to make Belgian legislation competitive with those of the main competitors such as Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

This bill is not complete. Decisions on the tax section, a very important part, should be followed in the coming months, preferably in October. After that, Belgium will have better prudential supervision and will be able to offer an attractive tax regime and a flexible legal vehicle. It was clear from the beginning that we had to score strongly on these three points in order to realize Belgium’s ambition as an attraction pool and place of establishment pan-European pension funds.

First, a good prudential supervision can be developed. This required an adaptation of the current regulation to the European Directive.

Second, a good legal vehicle. For a long time, it was clear that existing corporate forms would not meet. The draft was clearly amended by the government in this regard. A new legal form was introduced. In the committee you called it so beautifully the organ for the financing of pensions, l'organisme pour le financement des pensions, the organ for the financing of pensions, three times OFP. That was a hit. With a hundred articles, this new legal form is created. This is a good thing that solves a lot of misunderstandings. The existing VZWs and OVVs are not known abroad.

Third, we need to be fiscally attractive. For this tax section to this draft we will have to pay sufficient attention in the coming months. Preparations are underway in this regard.

Brussels thus becomes interesting as a turntable for OFPs.

Regarding prudential supervision, the VLD considers that they have scored good points. The draft provides for a supervisory authority, in this case the Commission for Banking, Finance and Insurance - CBFA - This committee will be provided with a number of instruments to carry out a number of functions. The expectations regarding the supervision of the CBFA are high.

Important in the implementation was also that one would meet all requirements regarding corporate governance as set out in the OECD guidelines. This structure is fulfilled.

There is a general meeting and at least one operational body, which is a management board. Between these two levels of policy, there has also been a place for other bodies, which are expert, technical committees, so that everywhere people with the necessary expertise, integrity and experience can participate. I think this can only benefit the functioning of these structures.

Definitely new are the social committees, which should allow for the smooth application of the applicable provisions of the social and labour legislation applicable to the implementation of the pension schemes managed by the OFP. The statutes may regulate the composition, powers and functioning of those committees, so that each OFP can come to function in accordance with its own institution.

As already stated, this draft does not provide for the third condition to make Belgium an attractive place of establishment for pan-European pension funds — in particular the fiscal gap — but this will be followed in the coming months.

I come to the special comments. Mrs. D'Hondt has already mentioned this, Mr. Minister. I feel like these are missed opportunities. As regards joint liability, the original Government Amendment introducing a new article 9-19 states: “Member of the operational bodies of a pension funding agency shall be jointly liable to the members and beneficiaries of the pensions, for any damage resulting from non-compliance with the obligations imposed or under the laws relating to the pension schemes managed by the pension funding agency.”

You said you won’t go under it. This has been said by the Control Commission, also for other insurers and other pension funds. We are not talking about the extent of responsibility, but about the vast area. We believe that one can only be held accountable for the laws that one determines. I will give an example. If a pension scheme has been developed by an employer, then those people must also take care of it if it is not complied with. In my opinion, one can only be held responsible for the matters in which one himself plays a role or makes a decision, and not for other decisions.

It would also have been better set that one could only be held liable for the implementation of this law and the implementing decisions, point to line. The area was chosen too widely. I remain there. Maybe history will give you or me the right.

Second, there is the Government amendment which better outlined the difference in content between the concept of “pension benefit” and the pension benefits authorised in Belgium.

You have complied with the general definition of the Directive. I think you would have better defined it differently. After all, if a worker wants to receive a benefit in Belgium, this must be done according to the rules of the WAP. In other countries, however, there is no WAP.

What will happen if we talk about pan-European pension plans in a few years? Pan-European pension funds are already being discussed. However, if the evolution remains what it is, in a few years, pan-European pension plans will be discussed. Belgium will at that time be the exception to the rule, because here we must always play according to the rules of the WAP.

That is a conscious choice of you, in which you must also take your responsibility. We will talk to each other on this issue in a few years. You may have to return to your position.

I would like to point out that this is already a very positive bill. I also expect much more from the tax regime that in the coming weeks will have to allow Belgium to become a ⁇ attractive place of establishment for the pan-European pension funds. This is not without importance for our country, that it must have the know-how. Everything that can lead to employment, we must seize and try to get to Belgium.

The total assets of pension funds in Europe are estimated at approximately €3,200 billion. It is unnecessary to explain to the colleagues that if we could attract only a large fraction of the aforementioned amount here, this would be very attractive for Belgium, both in terms of economy and in terms of employment.

The VLD will therefore approve the bill with great conviction.

Mr. Minister, can you give a brief explanation to conclude the general discussion?

Mr. Speaker, I will not return to all the substantive discussions held in the committee and referred to by several members. Those who are genuinely interested as experts will consult the report. Their

I am aware that, as mentioned, this was a very delicate, complicated and technical design. It was, by the way, further burdened by amendments by the concern to come to the creation of a special body at the end. I am reasonably confident that the committee has done good substantive work and that the fear of some of incomplete work and revisions will prove to be unfounded. Their

I would like to thank all committee members very sincerely for the constructive way in which we have been able to conduct 99% of the discussion and for the clear way in which we have been able to speak out the other percentage.