Proposition 53K2232

Projet de loi relatif à la semaine de quatre jours et au travail à mi-temps à partir de 50 ou 55 ans dans le secteur public.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

June 4, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil servant work part-time employment arrangement of working time civil service

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) voted to reject.

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 ¶

June 28, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Catherine Fonck, the rapporteur, refers to her written report.

This proposal, in itself, is a good thing for us. We can find ourselves in it. Flexibility in career planning, if it comes from both employers and employees, usually takes away our approval. Even after the discussion in the committee, however, we continue to have a number of concerns to which we have not received an answer.

First, the distinction between permanent employees, statutory employees and contracts is also not eliminated here. This is a missed opportunity, one could have started here.

Second, the definition of heavy professions is still unclear. It is said that this will be settled at KB someday, but I fear that "someday" very quickly becomes "never" in this country.

Finally, the question remains how this will be framed in a global pension scheme. This debate needs to follow. It will at least be very exciting, not to say that it will run typically Belgian. We have seen another example of this during the questioning hour. On the one hand, there were the concerns of Van Quickenborne and on the other hand of Magnette about the European master plan of the new European guru, President Herman Van Rompuy, who will once again interfere with all that debate. Therefore, the question remains open as to how the structure of pension rights and the impact on the career credit for the fourth scheme and the half-term scheme will be part of a global pension scheme. No one knows that today. This is also a missed opportunity. For these reasons, we will abstain from voting.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we are very satisfied with the present draft that finally brings rest to the public sector. It allows officials to use the system of part-time work from a certain age. The previous scheme expired on 31 December last year and was not renewed. This gave the Secretary of State the opportunity to revise the system in the light of today’s needs that no longer correspond to the labour market situation underlying the 1995 Act. After all, then the emphasis was on a labour-sharing measure while we now give the civil servant the opportunity to make career planning within the limits of the budget itself.

Everyone may agree that we should be able to keep people working longer. To this end, we must provide that from a certain age and limited in time a better combination between work and family is possible.

At that point, CD&V makes the difference with the N-VA, which rejects the proposal. Apparently, the N-VA is intended to allow people to work longer than until they are 65 years old. In addition, according to the N-VA, they must still do their work at the pace of a 25-year-old. That, at least, made the party appear in the committee. Although she voted against the present draft, we were not allowed to hear her alternative to the draft.

Colleagues, CD&V considers it a balanced proposal, which allows the combination of work and family. However, it will also give people the breathing space to continue working longer. We will ⁇ approve it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, it is indeed the intention or it would be the intention that we approve an important reform. Those were at least the ambitions that we could read in the memorandum of explanation to your bill. You correctly analyze that both leave schemes should no longer fit into an employment policy, in which in a period of low-budgetation a number of officials are replaced by unemployed. It does not really fit into a vision of a modern government apparatus.

The intended objective is now, among other things, to transform these systems into a HR tool, in order thus to make the combination of family and work easier. Other objectives included ensuring affordability, improving integration with private sector schemes and partly placing the financial responsibility on the staff by limiting their use and providing for a system of pension rights.

Everything sounds good. At least that was what we thought when we read the memorandum of explanation on your bill. But what appears? In the end, we do not notice much difference between the old and the new system. I have already tried to clarify this in the committee and will therefore not do this here extensively, but I would nevertheless like to point out a number of things again.

To all the questions I have asked you in the committee, in order to be able to understand the difference between the very small amendments in the bill, but which in practice may have large implications, I did not get a response in any way. You have not performed an impact analysis. You do not have detailed figures. Why is it so? I would like to quote the committee report. You said, “Because it is difficult to reach reliable figures.”

What should we do today? We must approve a so-called important reform, whose impact we do not know at all. This is stated in the report on page 11, Mr. Secretary of State. If you were to look for it, I found it there.

So you do not know why this reform is important, and why we should approve it today. No one seems to know it, no one can give numbers about it. Today you will approve a “Law-Bogaert”. That is fun for you. You have your second law in your pocket. Unfortunately, this is a worthless law, which has only a few differences from the current law. We supported the ambition you had in the beginning. If in the law had been stated what you brought with you in the memorandum of explanation as a justification for this law, we would have very much supported them. However, the fair conclusion leads us not to support your bill, because you have admitted too much in it.

As I said in the committee, you have held a number of talks with the trade unions. If I compare your memory of explanation with what ultimately remains of the law, I find that you have admitted to everything, and that the proposal is now an outcome of everything that the trade unions want. That is not enough for us. It is an ambitious law and that’s why we don’t want to support them.

Mr. Secretary of State, to conclude, I would like to address very briefly to your colleagues of CD&V. Colleagues, you always want to know the program of the N-VA. I understand that. Per ⁇ we can agree with the Chairman that we will hold a hearing on the N-VA program. Then I will invite some people and we can talk about the program of the N-VA for an hour. This, on the other hand, is a bill of your secretary of state, and not a bill of the N-VA. That bill was to be discussed in the committee, we have made our opinion on that, that is what we are talking about here.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, through this bill, the government reintroduces mechanisms of conciliation between private and professional life in the public sector that were normally extended year after year by royal decree.

The idea of legislation once and for all may seem interesting. It does not convince us because some restrictions are introduced in this bill and many questions remain.

It is, clearly, a four-day week and a four-fifth-time or half-time work for workers arriving at the end of their career.

This year, the government is taking advantage of the opportunity to restrict those mechanisms that, previously, were much more accessible, as it did with time loans within the private sector. In doing so, it applies – it is true – its government agreement.

Just like in the private sector, the issue of assimilation of these periods in the calculation of pension is not addressed in this project, which sometimes creates a lot of uncertainty in the head of citizens who ultimately do not know how these mechanisms will be taken into account in the calculation of their pension.

Let me tell you that environmentalists are not ready to give their white-seed to the current Minister of Pensions on these points.

It should be noted that the project does not address career interruption, another mechanism of conciliation between private and professional life within the public sector that the government agreement also plans to restrict. At the level of career interruption, a part of the reforms has already been passed at the beginning of the year, namely the part that plans to limit taking a career interruption to 60 months. Another part of the reforms in this area is being discussed in Committee A.

There are still many questions, including one that I think is important and that relates to the four-day week. Thus, for some permanently appointed staff members (those who have occupied a heavy occupation or those who have an old age of less than 28 years), the age requirement is lowered to 50 years to be able to benefit, as a last, of the four-day week, in an unlimited way. The problem lies in the fact that the current definition of "heavy work" is too restricted. What are the heavy jobs in the public sector today? We do not have a list of such occupations. In any case, such a list has not been communicated to the Commission. The government gives itself the right to decide by royal decree. Once again, a white-seing is given while this aspect has not, a priori, been defined, which is regrettable.

During the exchanges in the committee, Mr. Secretary of State, a parliamentary colleague of the MR defined this project as center-right and therefore, a priori, as a good project. This is a project that, in my opinion, definitely starts with a good intention in your head because you know the budget constraints. You have to manage a position and it is not obvious to release funds.

However, good intentions are not enough and the questions are too many at this stage for us to support you, ⁇ in terms of pensions. It is indeed very insecure for workers not to know how they will react and adapt to a project that is submitted to them. Not knowing the consequences on your pension when you reduce your working hours is quite problematic. This is what is happening.

It would seem that a green number is available to answer these questions but, currently, it is asked to call back within three or four months. We will not call back in three to four months, but we will not vote on this project!

My colleague Eric Jadot followed the discussions in the committee on behalf of my group. I have read the report and, in my opinion, there are still a few questions to be asked.

For all clarity, this is not a career interruption for officials. The government has also put the knife. Our fear was that achieving the goal of working longer will be made more difficult by limiting the combination of work-family possibilities. That is why we resisted it.

I have 5 questions on the bill.

First, how will the equalization of pensions happen? This seems to me quite essential. We all benefit from the fact that the security of the officials involved increases. Now there is some uncertainty. In the report of the committee discussion, I read that you said one or two sentences on this subject. I quote: “Limitation of pension rights for the four-five-year scheme to sixty months. There would be a political agreement on that.”

Can you explain that? What do you mean by this?

Is there a complete equality for people under 55 who have worked four-fifths for sixty months and the 55+’s, or the 50+’s in the case of a heavy occupation, who are in a landing track?

Secondly, who is entitled to the half-time and four-fifth landing course from 50 years old?

In the text, for example, heavy professions are mentioned. Are there other categories? What are heavy professions?

The current definition is too limited. The law of 12 August 2000 stipulated that the Minister of Pensions would issue another royal decree to enter a list of heavy professions. You also know that this is ⁇ difficult in practice. Heavy professions are constantly evolving, both in nature and in name. It is better not to follow that path.

Third, is it the government’s intention to make it impossible or discourage part-time employment under the age of 55 without premium? Now it is four-fifth work with a prize. My question is about working without premium, half-time or four-fifths. Is it intended to make it impossible or discourage it in some way?

Fourth, this question is about social consultation. There was a discussion within the Committee A. What is the substantial outcome? What is the opinion of the social partners? On our banks we find an erratum with the report, in which you ask for a certain passage, namely that the bill was adjusted to some comments from the trade union side, but that in the end two of the three representative trade union organizations did not agree with the bill.

Fifth, this question is about a comment from the State Council. The State Council says that the scope of this bill is not sufficiently clear. There is, after all, an extension of the federal public services to staff from other federal services or even to other public authorities. For the State Council, it is not clear enough to whom the present draft law applies.

Mr. Secretary of State, you are given the word for your answer.

I would like to thank all the members who spoke here and at the committee meeting.

Mr Valkeniers, you are rightly drawing up a number of points, including in connection with the heavy professions, which has also been suggested by other colleagues. The definition of heavy professions is, of course, a delicate point. The discussion on this subject has been raging for years.

We will address this as follows. The regions submit lists that come to us in Committee A, where we negotiate with the trade unions on the whole of all public officials. There will also be input from the Committee of Public Companies. We will discuss this in Committee A. Our protocol, with an agreement or no agreement of the trade unions, we will then forward to Minister De Coninck, who will make the decision.

We do not do anything about the difference between permanent and statutory officials, but that is, of course, only about the law-Vande Lanotte that had to be updated. By definition, it is not about contracts. These are very different systems, one is compatible with the other. Consequently, we have not been able to discuss everything in the present draft law, because a discussion about it is already planned in another place. We have tried to reconcile things in different places.

Let me get to the questions about pensions. There is an agreement on the construction of pension rights, but that needs to be further developed in the legislation on pensions.

Mr. Van Esbroeck suggests that little or nothing would have changed. Of course, this is not at all so. In the current voluntary four-day week and the half-time early departure, the accumulation of pensions is unlimited. If someone works 5 days instead of 4 days, that 5th day counts in full for retirement. That is the current situation. The new situation is completely different. There, the fifth day will only count for 60 months. This is an important change. Hence the notion of financial responsibility.

Does that mean that people will be able to enjoy less of the four-fifth week, Mr. De Vriendt? No, there is a distinction between, on the one hand, the possibility of up to the fifth week and, on the other hand, the accumulation of pension rights or the premium.

Mr. Van Esbroeck, it is true that the premium that now applies for the entire career of the fifth week is limited to 60 months. This is an important change.

People who say that nothing has changed, I advise to review the file thoroughly. Certainly something has changed. The concept of financial responsibility is clearly stated in the law. In addition, there is the idea of trying to keep the combination between private life and professional life intact.

Mrs Slegers, I thank you for your comments. I hope that it is indeed a balanced law that unites different principles, that keeps a good course and that ensures that we do not radicalize in this or that direction. I thank you for the attention you have paid to this bill and the interesting questions you have also asked in your presentation in the committee.

Mr. Van Esbroeck, my question for an alternative remains. For the construction of pension rights, you did not provide an alternative. For the prize, you did not offer an alternative. For the exemption and the social security contribution, the N-VA gave no alternative. For the term, the N-VA did not provide an alternative. The paper remains blank, even with regard to this law.

Mr. Jadot, I think I have answered your questions regarding some heavy jobs.

Indeed, based on the opinion of the Regions, the negotiations will take place within Committee A, also taking into account the opinion of the committee that negotiates on behalf of public enterprises. All this information will be collected and will serve as the basis for negotiations in Committee A to give rise to a protocol of agreement or no agreement. All these opinions will then be forwarded to Minister De Coninck.

In fact, the MR described this law as a center-right trend. Center-right or center-left, for me, it is right! The important thing is that the project moves things, regardless of whether it is right or left, regardless of its orientation. My opinion is that we are currently transforming Belgium, including through a combination of work and private life.

You are right about pensions. Many people, many agents were concerned about their retirement rights: will the provisions applicable to date be ⁇ ined? I hope that this law will calm the fears of our agents and our employees.

Mr. De Friend, you say that we put the knife in it. This is somewhat antagonistic to what Mr. Van Esbroeck has said. The N-VA above all must then say where one would have cut further. If we stay on the ground here today in this regard, we are on the right path. It was not the intention to put the knife, but to find a good balance between, on the one hand, financial responsibility and, on the other, a good combination of work and family.

I answered the question related to the heavy occupations and the question about the premiums. The four-fifth scheme is always possible, but then without a premium. With premium, this will remain possible for five years, including building up pension rights. Part-time employees and four-fifth employees in landing tracks can accumulate pension rights for 84 and 120 months from the age of 55 or from the age of 50 for the heavy occupations. That is now the proposal.

As regards the Council of State, other governments in the country may adhere to this Act. We consciously follow a policy in which the federal government sets up matters and other governments can respond to the law in question. We no longer have the ambition to declame what needs to be done with other entities.

I hope that I have answered all the questions.

I have listened to Mr. Van Esbroeck. He invited me to discuss a number of alternatives at a meeting. However, we have met in the committee a whole afternoon and now we have been meeting here for half an hour on this bill. I have not heard any alternative. If I look at Terzake tonight, I may hear a party member there offer an alternative, who knows. Then we may be able to discuss this.

I would like to emphasize again that we find it a balanced proposal and will adopt it. This makes it possible to combine work and family and thus we give officials breathing space to continue working longer.

I think everything was clear. We wanted to express our disappointment. The ambition was good and we were able to get behind. If you want to make proposals, I suggest that you read the motion and the explanation attached to the bill. I have always said that we can find ourselves in it. But we do not know how the story will eventually be drawn up and what the consequences will be. You have also acknowledged that you do not know. You can’t calculate it and don’t even know what numbers it’s about.

Mrs Slegers, I understand that you want to get to know the N-VA program, but I don’t think it is intended that I propose that here in Parliament, unless the Chairman so wishes. In that case, we can organize a number of hearings, as I had suggested. I will then invite a few people who can come to explain our program. I want to reassure it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to allow the discussion to last long, but it is once again clear that the N-VA has no alternative in this regard either.

One can then refer to the general party program, but a party that does not even have the courage to submit even the slightest amendment, I would still recommend a little bit of modesty. If one takes the parliamentary debate seriously, a number of amendments should be submitted. If one is unable to do so, if one does not dare or does not want to do so, then I would still temper my criticism a little.