Proposition 53K1770

Projet de loi assurant un financement pérenne des pensions des membres du personnel nommé à titre définitif des administrations provinciales et locales et des zones de police locale et modifiant la loi du 6 mai 2002 portant création du fonds des pensions de la police intégrée et portant des dispositions particulières en matière de sécurité sociale et contenant diverses dispositions modificatives.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Oct. 3, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

financing municipality pension scheme police province survivor's benefit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld LDD MR

Abstained from voting

N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Joseph George (LE) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (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 ¶

Oct. 13, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will present the first part of the report, followed by Ms. Fonck.

The committee met on 14 June, 13 July and 4 October. In the first meetings we discussed the state of the RSZPPO, more specifically what was left in the greenhouse.

That was not much, as several consecutive years the expenditure exceeded the income. This was a big problem for the Minister and for the Government.

The Minister announced that on 9 October 2009 he had already been instructed by the Government to draft a law reforming the financing of pensions at the local authorities. The preliminary draft law was to be based on two major pillars, namely solidarity and responsibility.

The technical preparations were already far advanced when the government resigned in April 2010.

However, the state of the financial reserves forced the government to reform the system as early as 2012. Therefore, on 3 February 2011, the Council of Ministers requested Minister Daerden to convene the Technical Committee on Pensions established in the management committee of the RSZPPO as soon as possible.

The committee’s task was to gather all the data on the betting masses of the various schemes and to develop a number of scenarios for a new model of financing for the pensions of the local government.

The Technical Committee consists of representatives of the trade unions of the workers of the local governments, of the various provinces and of the Association of Cities and Municipalities of the three regions.

On 25 May, the Technical Committee submitted a synthesis proposal to the Minister. The following points will be incorporated into the draft law and later explained by colleague Fonck.

First, the connection is generalized. The provincial and local governments that have not yet joined will be joined by 15 December 2011 at the latest.

Second, there is a balance between the principle of solidarity and the principle of responsibility. The basic contribution rate for each pool will be gradually increased to 41,5 % for all polls in 2016.

A solidarity contribution will also be collected from administrations that have made extremely few contributions and have high pension burdens.

Third, the use of reserves. It was decided to create a new fund. This fund will be established by the contribution to the holiday fee and with the bonuses on the family allowance. Now that the family allowance is overdrawn, however, this will no longer be done, Mr. Minister.

Fourth, the regularization contribution due to late appointments. Employees can be regulated if they have worked under an employment contract for five years. A consultation was conducted with the VVSG and all local authorities were registered with the intention of informing them of the consequences for their individual situation.

This is largely the content of this bill. I would like to give Mrs. Fonck the word for the further report of the draft law.

Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Mr. Ministers, my colleague, Mrs. De Block, has taken back the history of recent months.

It was last October 3 that a government bill was submitted and the urgency was requested. Indeed, many provisions must quickly come into force, provisions which will have a budgetary impact for our municipalities.

On October 4th, the commission finally examined the bill that is presented to you today. I would like to thank all the colleagues who, as Ms. De Block said, were concerned about finding a solution for UNSSAPL’s pension funding.

The bill reads many measures that had already been discussed in previous debates. It is based on proposals from the Management Committee. I take this opportunity to thank him for his work.

This bill contains various principles that have been rejected.

First, it concerns the administration of local authorities not yet affiliated. From now on, Pools 3 and 4 will be affiliated by office, except withdrawal by 15 December 2011 at the latest.

Second, it aims to create a balance between solidarity and responsibility with a base contribution rate that will be fixed, as well as the coefficient of accountability. The basic rate will be gradually harmonised between the different pools to reach, for all, 41,5 % in 2016. It will then be fixed annually according to the needs and the increase resulting from the effect of ageing. This basic rate – this is important – will always be known three years in advance by the different employers. Additional contributions will then have to be paid by some employers as individual liability.

Third, this bill provides that the reserves can be used to accompany the reform. The reserves of pool 1 will only be used to accompany the reform relating to the aforementioned pool, which will no longer be so called, but which will include the administrations that are now part of it. The remaining reserves, however, will be paid into a collective pension reserve fund.

It is on the basis of a royal decree that will be taken on the proposal of the management committee to the Minister of Pensions that the various reserves will be allocated both to the accompanying reform, but also to the reduction of the base rate.

Fourth principle: a solution is provided to the problem of late appointments. A regularization contribution is due in case of appointment after a period of occupation of five years as a contractual.

Finally, the Minister recalled that he himself and the ONSSAPL had contacted all local authorities administrations that could be affiliated by office, i.e. the current 3 and 4 pools, in order to inform them of the consequences on their situation and to allow them to choose with full knowledge of the cause.

As part of the general discussion, members welcomed the fact that a lasting solution has been found, preserving the rights of local public service employees.

You will allow me here to not detail the interventions of one and the other, each can refer to the written report. I have no doubt that my colleagues will insist on the points that they consider important.

I think we can put the whole discussion around three points.

First is the issue of financing pensions of staff of public hospitals. The Minister specified the decision of the Council of Ministers, namely the establishment of a working group that will meet to examine the most appropriate measures to neutralize the impact of the increase on the hospitals concerned. Some members stressed the importance of taking into account also associative hospitals.

The second debate focused mainly on the integration of police personnel. In response, the government indicated that if financing problems arise, budget discussions would take place in the committee concerned.

Finally, several members recalled that other elements of the current system should be reformed.

I would like to point out that this bill was adopted unanimously.

I would like to speak now on behalf of the CDH Group.

This bill is all but banal because, today, the ONSSAPL takes care of 100,000 pensioners. This number will be even greater tomorrow because, with the extension of life expectancy, we will have the chance to be retired longer.

This issue is also uncommon given the budget. We are discussing this afternoon an annual budget of 4.5 billion euros, which represents almost half of the annual budget of public service pensions for the whole country.

Was this reform necessary? Yes, it was even indispensable, urgent, since we were going straight into the wall, both for the local government administrations, for all their pensioners, but also for the balance of the ONSSAPL, the viability of the system in the short, medium and long term.

The mechanism is corrected and improved. We are delighted with this. It is guided by two principles: solidarity, which is ⁇ ined, and individual responsibility of each administration of local authorities.

I would like to emphasize three points that I find ⁇ important.

First, all local authorities must be informed promptly. Some of them must make their decision before 15 December 2011. In this matter, this time is singularly short, especially since this decision will have a significant impact on them.

All administrations of local authorities should be informed, since they are in full preparation of their budget. They need precise projections of the impact that this reform will have on them.

Secondly, I would like to talk about the situation of public hospitals, which is not simple. This issue is returned to a working group, in connection with health skills. I call once again for consideration of all hospitals and not just the situation of public hospitals. As you know, associative hospitals also have difficulties. I think of the nursing staff and the pensions that can be allocated to them.

Third, the Court of Auditors had insisted on a thorough administrative control and strict reporting of financial flows. It is obviously unacceptable that undue expenses are borne by the community. We will pay special attention to this in the future.

I think it must be concluded in the form of a perspective. I hope that, as soon as the full-time government is in place, we will be able to fully address the decisions that need to be made for all the issues in the issue of pensions, in terms of sustainability, but also women's pensions, mixed careers, the different types and schemes of pensions and also the information to future pensioners, to empower them and allow them to make decisions during their professional career.

by Mr. Since Gilkinet is bound by an obligation, I exceptionally give him the floor. He promised to be brief.

Mr. President, you are awesome!

This is included in the minutes!

Everything is relative, of course, but I am actually in a hurry.

Mr. Minister, during the debate in the committee, we emphasized positively the dimension of accountability contained in this text. It is normal and logical that local public administrations assume, better than in the past, their responsibilities and the possible imbalance between their pension contributions and the amount actually paid to their former workers now retired.

This accountability contribution constitutes a useful incentive to staturize the workers and, therefore, to feed the ONSSAPL casinos more regularly. However, you are aware of this, there will still be answers for the hospital sector and for the police areas that will also be impacted by the increases of contributions planned by this project.

You have committed, on behalf of the government in the case of hospitals, to a solution within the INAMI budget and at the level of the ONSSAPL Management Committee in the case of police areas through reserve allocation. All this deserves confirmation by facts in new political circumstances and in uncertain budgetary circumstances which are those known to the federal state, in the image of other public entities. We will be attentive to this as we will be attentive to the effectiveness in time of the solutions inscribed in the law by the text that will be voted soon. We regret that we could not have statistical data and projections in a more accurate time frame.

Mr. Minister, the issues relating to the pensions of the workers of the ONSSAPL are logically quite identical to those posed today by our entire pension system. This is primarily due to the ageing population. There are, and will be, more and more pensioners. This is the case in public service as well as in general. We have to prepare this papy boom! This was last done under the rainbow government with a strategy that was worth what it was worth but that had the merit of existing: the Ageing Fund. Since then, there has been no serious debate and effective disposition to prepare this issue of aging in terms of impact on pensions to be paid.

The second issue is that of solidarity and respect for its principles. In the distribution pension system that is our own, we must ensure a sufficient number of contributors. Otherwise, an imbalance between revenue and expenditure is created and solidarity is no longer effective. This is what has happened and will be partially corrected by this text regarding pensions of the local public service.

Some have abused the system by not conducting appointments or by doing so late. They will not be punished, except in the future. Per ⁇ we also were too generous when we created pool 2, when it comes to defining contributions, with contributions too low for the system to be sustainably sustainable.

This is the issue of alternative financing. If we want an effective social security system, we cannot allow it to rest only on the shoulders of workers and employers. We need to find complementary and structural systems for financing our social security. This will be required in this file for hospitals and police areas. This also applies to our entire pension system. The ageing population, solidarity to ensure, alternative financing to develop, a reform of our pension system for more efficiency, this is what we have been waiting for too long.

Today, the proposed reform is positive, ⁇ , but partial. We will support it since it concerns more than a hundred thousand workers and because it goes in the right direction, but it does not solve everything, far from that. So to work!

Thank you for your intervention, Mr. Gilkinet! be cautious!

The importance of the present draft for the affordability of the official pensions of the subordinate administrations is not minor. It is also very important for the budget of the municipalities, the cities, the provinces and also for the budget planning of the public hospitals.

As already mentioned, this file has been discussed for a long time, but no immediate solution has been found. It is a merit of this government that it has finally come to clarity in the affairs. The long-term planning is known and the figures are known.

It is the merit of this draft that we will no longer be aware of the problem, in which at the level of the RSZPPO the expenditure increased and the revenue increased, in the next years in the budget discussions. It will always be a closing budget and that is a good thing for our country.

This was ⁇ the only feasible plan, because we were dealing with a government in ongoing affairs, which would prevent our authority from extending further.

I have already said at the committee meeting that the present draft is a first step. The funding ball is now in the camp of the municipalities and the pension burden will weigh heavily on the municipal budgets. Therefore, the financial viability will have to be balanced. This will not be an easy task for some cities.

However, this design should not be the end point. It must be the start of a second, large debate that we will have to conduct, hopefully with the next government, in which a thorough reform will be needed to cope with the aging of the coming decades in the field of pensions. We have now been able to solve one problem, but the problem of the affordability of pensions will not be limited to this solution. There must be a continuation.

Mr. Minister, in connection with the budget, you have given in the committee the figures until 2016. We got a beautiful table. I asked you whether we can also get the figures in the longer term. You answered that it is not possible to give them up, because the long-term figures cannot be calculated because the economic, financial and political forecasts are not known.

Mr. Minister, I would like to point out that the ageing committee can do this and that it can therefore also submit figures until the year 2030/2050. This information is important for the subordinate management to make a long-term planning.

So I come to the position in the municipalities of pool 3 and pool 4, a very special group. This draft provides for an official association, unless objections are made before 15 December. I have therefore requested, Mr. Minister, that immediately after the approval of this draft, a information campaign be launched to the public administrations so that they can get in-depth information and decide whether or not they can join. You wanted to get them into the system. Significant efforts have been made towards them. They can transfer some of their retirees to the new pool, starting with the youngest pensions. They can retain some of the accumulated reserves. In addition, you give them some financial breathing space.

Finally, they can continue to entrust the administrative management of their pensions to the provision institutions with which they had already concluded a contract. I think these are very important points in the implementation of this project. It is therefore expected that a lot of public administrations, which today are in pool 3 and pool 4, will join.

Regarding public hospitals, Mr. Minister, I have long expressed to you my concern about the fact that the budget of public hospitals is being drastically depleted here. You have reminded the government’s commitment to adjust the difference in the money needed through the Public Health budget. I think this is a great reassurance for them. It has already been cited here by Ms. Fonck. Public hospitals have a special role. They do not select patients. They take care of everyone, regardless of insurance. It is important for the survival of the public hospitals that a cure is given to them.

The financing mechanism you have set up, as already mentioned here, consists of a basic contribution rate on the bets of the permanently appointed officials and should also shape the solidarity between public administrations on the one hand and a solidarity contribution on the other. A solidarity contribution is the closing piece, so that the accounts will always be correct and the income and expenditure will be balanced.

The totality of both contributions is considerable. The contribution rate will rise to 41.5% by 2016 for all Poles and will also rise with the evolution of aging, not insignificant, Mr. Minister, the sky will be the limit. This is estimated to be an annual increase of 1.5%.

Meanwhile, we also know that 495 out of the 1,236 boards of pool 1 and all boards of pool 2 except one will be liable for a solidarity contribution. So, the solidarity contribution will ⁇ be as important as the basic contribution percentage.

Mr. Minister, the administrations ask for guidance and a lot of information about what happens to them. The cost of aging will not only be felt here, but will be felt even in the smallest communities.

There is also good news, we also have reserves within the RSZPPO. These will be used to mitigate the contributions a little.

The reserves of pool 1 will be deployed to the public administrations that have joined pool 1 on 1 January 2012. These amounts to more than 400 million euros. The other non-affected reserves, worth 329 million, will be used to mitigate the contributions of all municipalities.

Mr. Minister, I also asked you in the committee whether you already have a vision of what percentage of contribution reduction one will be able to give. Will it spread over 5 years, over 10 years, or over 20 years? I think that is a very important point. So far, it’s still a coffee-dick look, but I hope, there was a week between the previous meeting and this one, that you can already get ready there.

I have another comment regarding the late appointment of the contracts. We arranged this for the holidays. You have sought a solution for this and for that I would like to thank you. We have long known that the contracts that were appointed at a given time had a double advantage: they had built up a second-pillar pension like that established in Flanders as a supplementary pension, in addition to a public servant pension. The solution you have sought is transparent and ready, but it is of course desirable that we develop a solution for the entire public sector. The next government may be inspired by the work that has been done here.

However, the cancellation of acquired rights also brings with it a number of problems. Many contracts often have already used a part of their supplementary pension at a fixed appointment, for example as a refund guarantee when buying a home or for the matching of a mortgage loan. This leads to problems with the famous law on supplementary pensions, the WAP. If the reserves need to be refunded, we do not know what will happen with the imprisonment. This problem will have to be resolved within the framework of the WAP by the next government and I would like to point you to that already, although I have not addressed it in the committee.

In conclusion, our group supports the draft and takes the opportunity to point out the negotiators for the next government on their responsibility for the second part of the story, the major pension reform. The empty greenhouse for the pensions of the officials of the subordinate administrations is a symptom of a disease for which we have now found a cure. However, this does not say anything about the other problems of affordability of pensions. In doing so, we will have to watch for the viability of the pension system with built-in solidarity, while also ⁇ ining a link between what is paid and what is taken out. There is still a lot of work to be done in the store and that will have to be the work of your successor, Mr. Minister. Thank you for the cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Social Affairs Committee has repeatedly examined the issue of pensions during this legislature. Under the previous, we had spent whole days listening to experts and guests from the socio-economic world. It was about examining this topic in its entirety first. You will remember, Mr. Minister, we spent a whole day analyzing the “Green Book”. This issue obviously concerns Parliament and has been the subject of many discussions, exchanges and proposals.

Of course, this question is vast, and it was impossible that a single reform could transform the whole problem; therefore it was appropriate to series the work.

Today we will approve, I hope, as we did in committee, an essential aspect of the issue. This is the pension of employees of local public services who join the ONSSAPL and whose financing model has experienced significant failures in recent years. If it remained in this state, difficulties would arise with regard to the liquidation of pensions of retired or ongoing employees – whether they come from municipalities, CPAS, local public services, hospitals, etc.

The bill that is submitted to us today has this important thing that it resolves in a sustainable, "permanent" way, you say in the title of the bill, the pension system of local administrations. How to ? It is based on two important principles: solidarity and responsibility. Solidarity does not imply the abolition of the pools or their merger, but it makes them act towards each other in a more equitable way to reach in the coming years a rate of contribution that will be equivalent, whether the municipalities join the pool 1 or 2 or even the others. This is a way to clarify the situation.

This will be done gradually and everyone will reach 41.5%. This is a way of placing all actors on an equal footing, at least at the beginning.

Of course, there are reserves, historical reserves: they belong to the communes that constitute them. They must be deducted from what will cost, beyond the solidary contribution, what you have imagined as a coefficient of responsibility in the system and which will be imposed on those who do not have enough contributors to the system, that is, the administrations that have fewer contributors than their actual pension charge costs.

This differential will have to be borne by the local administrations through the intervention, in order to reduce the bill, of two elements: on the one hand, an amount of responsibility contribution, to be fixed annually, less than 100% to mark also the solidarity, and, on the other hand, the use of the reserves of the funds to partially compensate; of course, they will be reduced gradually, but will allow the amortization of the cost at least in the first years.

From the beginning, I will say that this evolution, which constitutes the right choice, will impose that, in the municipalities, the CPAS, the hospitals, one asks about the choice to be made in recruitment and in the status of personnel. Inevitably, it will be necessary to decide whether to nominate or not, to resume the nominations where they have been stopped or, on the contrary, to opt for a logic of the second pillar. Everyone, wherever they are, will have to undergo this examination.

There is no unambiguous answer: each municipality, each CPAS, each hospital will have to examine its own situation, analyze what will cost and the contribution and accountability and, in view of the results, make choices.

The question posed by the introduction of this new system on the status of personnel will also impose greater responsibility on municipalities and local managers in relation to the status of their own personnel.

This reflection is accentuated by other measures, which are taken in the bill and which bring more justice and fairness into the system. The procedure according to which the appointment of a person must be decided within five years is logical; five years are largely sufficient to assess the quality of an agent, to determine whether to appoint him or not. Furthermore, making it practically impossible to nominate at the end of a career without recovering the non-contribution to the ONSSAPL regime is a reasonable measure.

Indeed, how many municipalities are still engaged in an unacceptable practice from the standpoint of solidarity, which consists in appointing officers at the end of their career to thank them for their contribution throughout the service performed by promising them in fine a public service pension, while they have not contributed at all to the public service pension system? It is unthinkable! It is to make some benefit from the solidarity of the contribution accumulated by others!

This system will no longer be possible. The payment of the delay will be made. The back service will follow. This is a logical, ethical measure. The decision made is correct and will bring the system back to balance. The little mechanic of late appointments, cherry on the cake at the end of his career, lived, and that’s a good thing.

There were still two specific situations to be dealt with, the police and pool 5 and the hospitals.

The pool 5 provided several hypotheses: either it was considered that the former police pensioners, who had remained in the pools 1 and 2, i.e. hung in the communes of origin, before the reform, should be paid in the pool 5 to make him responsible, or it was found another formula.

The formula that has been found is ultimately fair, insofar as the federal will take over 100% of what falls within its responsibility, i.e. all pensions of federal police officers. This will ensure that the system is not paid by one at the expense of the other. Indeed, the municipalities feared that they would have to pay for former federal police officers. Moreover, it was not necessary for the state to have the feeling that the municipalities "sweet" on the back of the federal. The found system will have the merit of clarifying things and reassuring – in any case, I hope – both.

The second particular problem concerns public hospitals.

First of all, I am pleased that, as the minister announced, the government has considered this problem to be a financing problem and not a pension problem. Officials of public hospitals are entitled to a public pension if they are appointed. The question is where the funds will come from to finance these pensions.

The government decided to set up a working group, but said in its notification that the solution should be intervened within the framework of the Public Health budget, which will be discussed on the occasion of the discussion of the budget that the new government will be preparing.

Removing the problem of public hospital pensions from the logic of pensions is a good thing. Officers who have worked in public hospitals are entitled to a pension and the latter will be paid. The question is how to do this, which is another debate. This is the issue of budgetary arbitration. I think the government is making a good choice.

That said, I hear some colleagues say that there are other associative hospitals and that if public hospitals are entitled to something, the same goes for those who work there.

First of all, I would like to tell them that we are not doing anything for public hospitals.

Action is taken to ensure that officers appointed in these public hospitals receive the pension they are entitled to. No additional advantages are granted. They are simply guaranteed this acquired right, as are all public service agents and those who work in hospitals under another regime. There is therefore no need to compensate for the pension of the other workers of those hospitals which fall under a different status or of those who exercise in the private sector in which there is a share of the associative.

And I say rightly "a share of associative", because there is also, unfortunately, a private sector merchant. I do not see in what name we should be solidary with such a network in terms of the status of agents. There is no reason! The employees of the hospitals in question do not perform the same profession and are not faced with the same severity of pathologies. All public health studies have shown this. Read the Kenniscentrum reports on this subject! It is obvious that there is a different load, a different way of working and a different weight of pathologies. This is an objective reality.

So, if in the general debate on the regime of hospital staff, one tries to revaluate their status, I am a petitioner. I believe that this question should be a priority in terms of wages, working conditions and pensions. But this is a general debate that belongs to the budget and to the whole sector. It should not be addressed through the financing of public pensions of employees.

In addition, significant restructuring has been carried out. In Flanders, there are almost no more public hospitals, since transfers have been carried out to ASBLs in particular. Employees have, of course, retained their original public status which will have to be compensated. Most of them went to another system. In Wallonia, there are still clean public hospitals, but efforts have also been imposed by the Region to transform some structures. In Brussels, for more than fifteen years, it has been forbidden in public hospitals to appoint staff. These people are no longer entitled to a public pension paid by the ONSSAPL, except for the elderly.

These old ones need to be financed. This is not an additional advantage over other agents. We must pay attention to this! That we fight for additional benefits for all these agents in all hospital structures, I agree! This is a debate that needs to be conducted and a question of priorities. Personally, I find it abnormal that a nurse doesn’t earn the same as a police officer and I often say that in my municipality. It is not normal that a social worker does not earn what a police officer earns! Of course these people need to be revalued, but this is a general debate that has nothing to do with the issue of pensions! I say this because there was confusion on this issue in the committee. I thought it was important to clarify some things.

I will conclude by saying that the project is important to us because it sets the rules for local managers. Following the news that Mr. The Minister will very ⁇ address the municipalities and all local managers as some colleagues have rightly requested, we will know that, for 2012 and the following years, the scheme of progressive contributions will be that. We will be able to assess the budget mass to be provided for this purpose in the municipal budgets. Finally, we will know that from 2013 the accountability coefficient will intervene and that we will have to adjust the situation.

In a way, 2012 will be a year of choice for these municipalities, especially in terms of staff status. We will know what to expect, at least until 2016. The scheme then plans to set the next steps for three years. This is likely to reassure local managers: mayors, chiefs of Finance, CPAS presidents and others. The situation will be clear and there will be no more uncertainty. The law is passed with its rates and taking into account the evolution!

Mr. Minister, this law has the merit of taking the necessary measures to save the pensions of public officials of local authorities. I hope that this logic of solidarity and responsibility will prevail in the other reforms that will intervene in the other pension schemes. The example taken today should make jurisprudence for you or your successors who will have this charge in the coming months and years.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the present bill on the sustainable financing of the pensions of the appointed staff members of the provincial and municipal governments is a major concern of many municipal and provincial governments. These pensions weigh on their budget and they are very concerned about their future.

The new financial system is to be sustainable. It aims to provide a long-term response and at the same time create clarity through clear agreements and commitments. It was urgently needed, as colleagues have already cited. Forecasts indicate that without these reforms, the contribution rate for municipalities of pool 1, i.e. those that have been affiliated with the RSZPPO for the longest time, would increase from 32 % to 41 % in 2012. Also for municipalities of pool 2, which include mainly the larger cities and municipalities, the contribution rate would increase from 40 % to 51 %.

The alarm bell sounded and a fundamental approach was therefore urgently needed. However, it has had quite a few feet in the earth. There are a lot of meetings dedicated to it. We forgive you that, because after the many consultations there is a broad support for the new funding.

For us, six highlights were important in the debate.

First, the balance between solidarity and accountability is set for five years. The uniform contribution will have to be paid and the responsibilisation contribution, which we believe should be at least 50%, will be effectively borne by the municipalities. That was an important point for us, as this is related to the reserves that will need to be used to keep financing and retirement burden as low as possible.

Furthermore, we find it right and fair that the accumulated reserves of the various Poles will be used primarily to reduce the pension burden for the municipalities within the Poles.

Ms. De Block gave the example of pool 1. Also there, the reserves will be used to keep the surplus cost of the pension charges as low as possible.

The third point is the solution to the problem of the double career. When the contractual employee was appointed late on a fixed basis, this in the past resulted in the inclusion of the contractual pension and the public pension. This, of course, led to financing problems because there were no contributions paid for the public pension. This practice will be discouraged in the future by imposing a regularization contribution. That is a good thing. This will be greatly discouraged.

A fourth important element concerns those who have already built a second pillar and are moving from the contractual status to the statutory status. What was built up in the additional pillar can be recovered to serve as a contribution to the RSZPPO. It is also important to re-inscribe this on the account of the municipality. The money they have accumulated for the second pillar can therefore be used to finance the overall system. I think this is a good deal.

The fifth element is that the municipalities are worried and want to know when the invoice will come in for the first time, especially when it comes to responsibility. You have given a clear answer to this in the committee. You have said that that responsibilization, the first time before 2012, will have to be settled in early May 2013. The municipalities will therefore have to take into account an initial settlement for the accountabilization in the fiscal year 2013. You gave a clear answer regarding the first invoice.

The sixth point concerns public hospitals. Mr. Mayeur has also recently pointed out the problem. It is good that this is arranged. Those who are permanently appointed in public hospitals, of course, are entitled to a pension as a public official, let there be no misunderstanding about this. This is also arranged. The agreement within the government is that this will be arranged through the budget for Public Health. Therefore, we will still have to see how this will be concretely arranged. However, I do not agree with Mr. Mayeur when he says that this does not cause problems for the other hospitals. We must be careful. If this is arranged now, I assume that this is arranged for those who are appointed today.

However, if this would be the step to recruit and appoint a full number of statutory staff members in the public hospitals in the future, we will create a field of tension, not only with other hospitals but also with the contractual staff in the public hospitals.

Today, there is also a field of tension. A permanent staff member in a public hospital receives, as soon as he retires, despite the same career and the same salary, 500 euros more than a contractual staff member. However, the contractual employee has performed the same work throughout his career.

We must therefore pay attention and conduct the debate on the status of the staff concerned in all hospitals in its entirety. The funding that has now been agreed on is good; that needs to be arranged. At the same time, however, the debate on the status of healthcare personnel in all hospitals will need to be held. This should be included in the debate on the new social agreement, which should be concluded in the future.

For us, the previous points are important elements. Good work has been done. We can give the municipalities a perspective and make clear agreements. They will receive accounts for the scheme for the first time in 2013.

Of course, our group will support the project.

Thank you for your collaboration on this design.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the local sector pays the pensions of its permanent employees itself. Its cost has increased considerably in recent years. The reserves that have been built for decades have been summed up in a matter of time.

In ongoing matters, the Government shall introduce a bill allowing to expand the financing base of the system concerned. The payment of public servants’ pensions from local governments is thus reassured, at least for a moment.

Mr. Minister, I wonder why something has had to take so long. The financing system of the pension scheme of statutory officials is based on the principle of allocation. That is, the contributions to the wages of the relevant, active, statutory officials are used to pay the current pensions.

For decades, studies have been conducted, which have always come to the same conclusion, namely that more and more statutory staff members retire and that our life expectancy is increasing. If statutory staff members retire, they are replaced by contractual staff members. The number of contractors in the municipalities amounted to 45 % of the workforce until 1995. In the meantime, this has already reached 60%. As a result of ageing, the number of active statutory officials will decline dramatically in the coming years, which will cause us to get even more in trouble with financing.

All these facts were clear, at all policy levels. The deficit was announced. It was written in the stars for years. Nevertheless, several political generations have repeatedly reclaimed the motto “we solve the problem when it arises”. On the political level, we apparently do not see the dramatics, because on the federal level these pensions are simply paid by the state treasury. We do not know the figures of the local governments and we did not see that the situation was unsustainable.

It is clear that, in addition to the increase in the number of retired civil servants, there are other elements contributing to the increase in pension costs. Our system urgently needs substantial intervention. The Association of Flemish Cities and Municipalities has in a letter, and also yesterday on a study evening, formulated a number of proposals and measures. I mean, for example, the adjustment of the calculation method of pensions in the sense that the last five years are no longer used as the calculation basis, the replacement of the perequation by an indexation of the pension and the limitation of the package of equal periods.

Within the Technical Committee on Pensions, a number of negotiators have already tried to conduct the substantive debate, but they were immediately blocked. I would like to call on you not to ignore the substantive debate. We must react before the water comes to our lips. We can put our heads in the sand, but strut bird policy does not pay off.

Finally, let us not forget the expenses of the contractors’ second pillar of pension. Very heavy budgets are now being set for 40% of the staff. However, 60% of the staff remain with a deprived pension. This bill is too little, too late for us. The N-VA group will therefore abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the implementation of this reform was urgent because the situation of some municipalities, especially those in pool 2, had become unthinkable. The solutions offered so far to help them were not sustainable. Therefore, a balanced solution is needed. It was necessary to demonstrate solidarity, of course, but also responsibility because the provisional municipalities should not continue to pay for those that had been less.

This balance required, first of all, that the reserves of pool 1 be allocated entirely to the local authorities of pool 1, which was achieved. This balance then required the establishment of a complementary accountability mechanism to the Solidarity Mechanism. After that, this balance seems to have been found.

However, many unknown persons remain today. In general, the difficulties accumulate on the local authorities. I don’t teach you anything by talking about Dexia dividends, the reductions in electricity and gas dividends, the transfer of the Road Safety Penalty Fund, so many bad news for local authorities.

This reform will inevitably lead to a significant increase in costs for local authorities. Will specific assistance be provided to help them cope with this?

You announced in the committee that specific measures would be planned for hospitals and for police areas. The impact of the reform will be devastating. Can you tell us a little more about the help you are going to provide to these police areas?

In order to carry out this reform, local authorities will need to have sufficient information. Today and in the future, administrative facilities will have to be offered to local authorities. It is important that easy access is given to the ONSS computer software in order to enable long-term simulations. Each local authority must be able to evaluate its situation day by day, year by year. Are you planning to put these IT resources primarily at the disposal of local authorities?

One fundamental aspect is not taken into account here at all. This is the impact of this reform on the appointments of subsidized jobs. by Mr. Mayeur spoke earlier of the ban on naming in public hospitals in Brussels. You do not ignore that in the Walloon Region the subsidized jobs are legion: APE, PTP, and others. All these statutes will put local authorities in a standstill. Either they will have to nominate, in order to have a low accountability coefficient, or they will have to use regional grants. The community is facing a dilemma. How can she solve it?

Furthermore, measures should be taken to sustainably control pension expenditure: the actual retirement age should be improved; for community and other employees, incentives to remain at work, such as career-end adjustments, should be encouraged; the rule of calculating years taken into account for calculating statutory pension should be revised – one speaker explained that taking into account the last five years was insufficient –; a coordination between the federal level and federal entities should be established to sustainably address the problem of brakes to appointment. Indeed, heavy disciplinary procedures, the accumulation of sick leave at the end of the career, the difficulty of attracting and retaining talents within the local authorities due to the unflexible baremic scales, etc., all these concrete problems make statutarization of personnel unattractive.

A more comprehensive reform should introduce a mixed pension mechanism, involving the provision of a private sector pension for the years provided as contractual and a local mixed pension for the years provided as statutory. This solution seems to me to be the most sustainable given the problem of the ageing population and the creation of supplementary pension charges, resulting automatically from the appointment.

My last point, already addressed by Ms. De Block, concerns the problem of Article 26, i.e. the double advantage granted to local authorities with contractual personnel, to whom a supplementary pension scheme has been granted. In the event of a definitive appointment of this contractual, the public services performed as contractual shall be taken into account for the calculation of the public pension and the agent therefore obtains, in relation to his contractual public services, a double advantage: a public pension and a supplementary pension. This implies a double burden for the employer.

It should be noted that this problem of double benefit and double burden constitutes a major obstacle to the development of a supplementary pension scheme for contractual public sector employees. Except for your municipality, Mr. Minister, in the Walloon Region, no municipality has yet established this service. This is an error. You have shown the example, but you are the only one, which demonstrates the difficulty. There are some of them in Flanders.

However, this shows the difficulty of pursuing this policy.

The solution provided for in this Act to solve this double benefit problem is, in the case of appointment of a contractual agent, to cancel the acquired rights of that agent in respect of supplementary pension and to transfer the reserves constituted for this purpose to the body which will bear the burden of the public pension relating to contractual public services.

Mr. Minister, this solution leads me to raise three questions. First, the problem of double advantage is likely to affect all public sector employees and not only local authorities. The solution to this problem would rather have its place in the law on the financing of pensions and not only in that of the local authorities. We should globalize this problem and not just change the law for local authority agents.

Second, the cancellation of rights acquired in the field of supplementary pension appears to me to be contrary to the Act on supplementary pensions, which is a law of public order, and leaves unresolved the case of the agent who would have assigned his rights in the field of supplementary pension to the refund guarantee. This leads to the problem of mortgage loans that could have been contracted with supplementary insurance. There is obviously no way to transfer these sums that are loaded with a mortgage loan. How will this happen in this regard?

Thirdly, the draft does not refer to the tax conditions under which the transfer of the reserves constituted for supplementary pension would be carried out. It will be important to resolve some issues in relation to this tax problem.

I believe that the most appropriate solution to this problem of Article 26 “double benefit, double burden” would be to adapt the legislation on public sector pensions as a whole, in such a way that it can be harmoniously combined with a supplementary pension scheme that a public employer would have established in favour of its contractual agents, without colliding, in the event of subsequent appointment, with the principle of acquired rights enshrined in the Act on supplementary pensions.

In order to do so, it should be provided in public sector pension legislation that, in the event of a permanent appointment of a contractual employee receiving a supplementary pension scheme for those contractual public services, his public pension shall be reduced from the benefits from the supplementary pension scheme that have been financed by employer contributions. If supplementary pension benefits are liquidated in capital, the reduction of the public pension will be made in the form of a fictitious pension.

What do you think of this issue of double charge/double advantage of Article 26?

These are questions that are not answered in the bill under review and that will require quick answers. Local authorities will quickly deal with these problems.

That being said, we must not forget all the advantages presented by this bill and the dramatic situation we would have faced if it had not been drafted. We will support this text. But it would be desirable for the next government to look at these issues in order to resolve them.

Mr. Clarinval, let me tell you that I regret that all these technical questions were not asked in the committee and that you have waited to be in the plenary session to raise them. You have done a thorough and accurate analysis of the project, but I think you should have done it in commission. Otherwise, either committee meetings or plenary meetings are deleted.

I would like to emphasize the quality of the speech we have just heard. In addition, it seems to me quite normal for a member of parliament to be able to speak in a plenary session on matters that are essential. The complaint you made to Mr. Clarinval is unfounded.

For my part, I would have preferred to get acquainted with this quality intervention by reading the report. That would have allowed me to react.

by Mr. Clarinval raised other aspects in committee. It is normal that in a plenary session, one can make a summary of the observations that one considers necessary and which engage, in some way, the minister through his response.

Generally, a synthesis is shorter, but it is not serious!

Mr. Minister, you started your term with a number of challenges such as the reform of pensions – there was the conference – and in your own words of the RSZPPO. You have announced that you want to invest in a system for the officials, the reserves and the financing of pensions. In addition, there was also the file of the supplementary pension for the contracts in public services.

Collega Vercameren has already expressly stated that we are pleased with the pension scheme for officials of the RSZPPO-affiliated administrations. You have also provided for a scheme for the transition from contracts to officials. This problem will ⁇ stimulate the demand of the contractual staff members for a supplementary pension.

More information is also requested. We rely on the administrative services to provide information on the calculations, so that the municipalities can choose how many additional appointments they still need to do, in what manner and how many people they contractually appoint.

Hopefully, these calculations will already include a supplementary pension for everyone – I call on Parliament to commit to achieving it. The legislation on supplementary pensions has been ready since your predecessor Marie Arena and even before. Under your caution, the provisions of a draft law amending the Act on the Supplementary Pensions for Public Officials would be transposed. If you stay, you can submit it, provided that you submit a hose piece. Otherwise, the provisions should be incorporated into the government agreement, as well as the financing by the Regions and Communities of their public pensions, which has come into question as a result. By the way, the reached community agreement already speaks of the responsibility of the Communities and the Regions in this regard.

Mr. Minister, the pension fund for municipalities and provincial governments is quickly empty, so absolutely something had to happen. The affordability was no longer guaranteed.

One of the main reasons for this was a decrease in the number of statutory officials, reducing the contributions needed to pay today’s pensions. 60% of local government employees are contractual officials. The RSZPPO already receives contributions from 140 000 active permanent employees and is therefore obliged to pay the pensions of 100 000 former permanent employees. That is not sustainable.

It is a pity that we had to limit ourselves to a fragmentary approach. Some speakers have already talked about this. In recent years, we should have carried out a much more global pension reform, with only one purpose, namely to ensure sufficiently high pensions and make them affordable.

For a part, the excuse is used that the government is in ongoing affairs, but when I see that we could reach parliamentary majorities for other topics, then we might have had to do so in terms of pensions.

One in four seniors are at risk of poverty. The affordability of our system is fixed, which is not surprising, given the low level of effectiveness of 55+ in our country. The ageing and problems with regard to the affordability and quality of our welfare state, which underlie the current difficulties with the pensions of local and provincial government officials, are problems facing our entire pension system. So I think what we are doing now is an illustration of what we should actually do when it comes to everyone’s pensions.

But well, with this bill introducing a number of new principles, a good reform is achieved. The contributions to the Federal Pension Fund are increased and uniformized to 41,5 %. In fact, the members of pool 1 paid 42 %, in pool 2 that was 40 % and in pool 5 in the case of police zones that was 27,5 %. The situation of pool 1 and pool 2 was structurally deficitary. The various Poles are now being merged and a generalized contribution rate is being adopted.

There is also a responsibility coefficient, an additional contribution, requested from the local authorities that extract from the pension fund in a disproportionate way.

It is good, I think, that this accountability mechanism is in it, otherwise we could have had the perverse effect that the actors involved would hire more statutory officers in order to increase those contributions.

The phenomenon of late appointments of contracts is also addressed. Due to late appointments, contractors at the end of their career are still insured of a statutory public pension without having contributed to this during their career.

However, this bill, Mr. Minister, must be accompanied by a budgetary effort to ease the financial burden on municipalities, police zones and public hospitals. We ask those who will prepare the next budget – whoever it may be, it looks like we will not be there – to take this into account and to secure the financial capacity of our municipalities, police zones and public hospitals. After all, the financial debacle of Dexia and the Municipal Holding is already cutting deep in their face. The VVSG therefore correctly points out the additional expenditure of this bill which amounts to up to 70 million euros per year. For hospitals this amounts to 180 million euros in the period up to 2016. We all know that hospitals are decretally obliged to create a certain reserve to pay for infrastructure works and renovations. They are now ringing the alarm.

In order to know what the response could be for the police zones and the hospitals, we had asked in the committee to be able to conduct the debate with the ministers Turtelboom and Onkelinx. I am confident that we will conduct this debate during the budget talks. In any case, we will continue to conduct a number of very exciting pensions debates in the Parliament in the coming months.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it is with great pleasure that I come back a few moments on this problem of the ONSSAPL. I am very pleased that we will be able to vote on this project today.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs for the work done, which fits perfectly with all that has been developed.

This project solves only a very small part of the pension problem. Even though this problem of ONSSAPL was not enormous, it remains that this file deals with 150,000 pensions that represent significant budgetary masses. The government was right to say that we should try to find a solution.

By trying to integrate each sensitivity, we tried to find a solution that is very welcomed.

I am pleased that many groups are pleading in his favour.

Many remarks have been made. I assure you that the necessary information will be given as soon as this reform is voted. The government had asked me to contact the institutions of Groups 3 and 4. This has been done. We will contact them again so that they can, with knowledge of the cause, take a position. The last time we saw them, they told us, “Once you’ve voted the rates, we’ll choose. You are still able to change afterward, Michel."This is not true, Mr. President. But we will contact them again so that there is no doubt.

We talked about accompaniment. I will not go back long on the problem of hospitals. I am very pleased with the solution that was adopted and the arbitration that took place with the Prime Minister and Ms Onkelinx, when we found this agreement on hospitals. I think this is a good formula.

Beyond this aspect, and to conclude, I will respond to the comments made on police areas, the impact on CPAS and municipalities, the cost, etc. As one of our colleagues said, all this happens in a difficult context (loss of dividends, etc.). It is true: it will have an impact. One cannot, on the one hand, see that the model has leaks and, on the other hand, not find sources of financing. It is impossible! And, of course, it must be based on solidarity and responsibility.

Now, I’ll tell you one thing, even though I don’t know what my colleagues will think about it. I think we need to act quickly. Which one? It should be told to the municipalities and institutions what will be the cost in 2012. This implies that the ONSSAPL writes to us suggesting us to use existing reserves, with an impact on the base rate at first. In the second, he will focus on accountability. This is something that needs to be dealt with quickly. I’m not going to prejudice what the UNSSAPL will offer me. I try to influence him a little, but well.

This will still need to be discussed in the government. I will ⁇ not tell you today how much this will rise. That would not be normal. I will take a step in this direction. And I understand the message: the action must be stronger in the police areas. This is where the impact is the greatest. The answer will be given soon, and I will do my best to ensure that police areas are prioritized in terms of accompanying.

This is what I wanted to tell you. I am aware that other issues, especially on the basis of Article 26, will have to find solutions in time; we will find them based on applications.

Thank you for your support. Thank you to the chairman of the committee, thank you to the chairman of the House for wanting to register this point quickly: it was expected by many. Thanks to all.