Proposition 53K2405

Projet de loi portant diverses dispositions modificatives relatives aux pensions du secteur public.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Aug. 7, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil servant fire protection military personnel pension scheme retirement conditions police representative of local or regional authority early retirement

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) 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 ¶

Nov. 28, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Fonck, I would like to thank you for the efficient report.

Mr. Minister, we are here barely a year after your predecessor had presented a similar bill on the same subject here in all hasteness. What you are doing now is with right and reason – let that be clear – to submit a kind of repair law, to correct a number of material and other errors that had fallen into the law. All the speakers of the majority parties have confirmed with so many words that at the same time a number of softenings, as it is called, are being applied to the legislation in question.

Of course, something happened after social consultation, with which you must basically agree. After all, it is important that such crucial, important legislation is carried out through social consultation. Of course, however, the parties involved have also done their work in the area of the softening that was previously discussed.

The impression is that the current government in 2011 wanted to create the impression that it was a reform government, a criticism that Mrs. Grosemans then expressed here on behalf of our group. The gigantic pension reform, as it was then called, was chased by Parliament. It was an incredible step.

In practice, however, the reform appears to be a failed step, including on the technical level. Nothing more can be expected. After all, while the government in December 2011 wanted to go very quickly with the Parliament’s pursuit of reform, it has now waited incredibly long to come out with the prevailing reparation law. In the meantime we are on November 28, 2012. The bill has yet to be approved. However, these are measures, some of which will enter into force on 1 January 2013. In terms of service or pure information to the public, therefore, everything is already a certain difficult matter.

By the way, the committee noted that in the meantime, even before the law is passed, a brochure is already available for those who need the information. Of course, this is the world on its head. However, I must honestly admit that I do not want to be too principled on this subject. I would like to look at the issue quite pragmatically.

That in the way of introduction, our group remains of the opinion that what is being discussed here is economically insufficient and at the same time in the ground is socially unfair, which is not insignificant.

I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to become a lawyer, but let it be clear that this is a legal deficiency. If I even see it, then it must be bad, just think.

It is also economically insufficient. Mr. Minister, I asked you in the committee what all this would cost or cost, and you answered me that this still needs to be considered and was still part of the budget discussions. I hope it is a little clearer now. The impact of the pension reform in a broad sense goes, of course, beyond the present draft. Socially speaking, the impact is not too big and, in our opinion, too small.

This data is provided by the Study Committee on Ageing. It has calculated that it is about 0.4% of GDP. I quote from an article in Trends of 13 June 2012: “The policy of the government-Di Rupo will have an impact on the cost of aging of just 0.4% of GDP by 2060. Converted into euros, one and a half billion."And then I read: "Despite the largest pension reform in 25 years, says the former Minister of Pensions, Mr Van Quickenborne, the budgetary surplus costs of aging will reach 6% of GDP in 2060." In the period 2011-2017 the costs of aging will increase by 1.4 % of GDP and between 2017 and 2060 by 4.6 %.”

You will know better than me, Mr. Minister, that there is now a new report from the Aging Committee. This figure is actually even more impressive. I feel that in every report of the Study Committee on Aging, the cost of aging increases by half percent or a whole percentage each time. This is a pretty impressive series.

The reports of such costs are alarming. The alarming tone of those messages shines sharply down from what is only realized in this design.

According to an article from The Time of 9 October, the Study Committee on the Ageing has already published such a report and the alarm bells sound. Compared to the previous report of June 2011, the outlook has deteriorated slightly, and it is now estimated that the share of social spending in the GDP in 50 years will be 6.1 percentage points higher than it is now. That is 0.7% more than what was predicted last year. This is notable because the committee has taken into account the impact of the reforms of the pension system and the labour market implemented by the government-Di Rupo over the past year. But the revenue from these reforms is relatively limited.”

This is of course the core of the problem. They are indeed taking a step in that direction. According to that same article, there would be no savings at all with regard to the public servants’ pensions, which we are talking about now, even the opposite.

Our fundamental criticism is, therefore, that it is not going far enough. It is obvious that this pension reform must be seen as a whole with all sorts of other social measures, in terms of labour market reform, end of career, flexibility of jobs and in terms of starting to work differently. This is all part of it and it is a whole, but society must take its responsibility. Pensions must remain affordable.

We note that you follow that principle, which I hope we all agree on, namely that there is a need for longer work, but that you immediately remove it in this draft by introducing all sorts of exceptions. So what is the softening? The softening is that more exceptions have been added than there were. In the past, there was a possibility of early retirement for the driving staff of the NMBS, for the police and for the military. I would like to support those people, but I have to ask if all of this is necessary.

I can imagine, for example, that a train assistant has a rather stressful job, but must he necessarily retire at his fifty? Can he not find a job elsewhere within the larger whole of the NMBS where he can make himself useful to society? Ultimately, it is society that pays. Should that be possible? Idem dito for people in the police and in the army. Have you been creative at that point?

In addition to the exceptions, one can see that in this design one cycles around a few delicate points. I think only of the perequations, which have been discussed so often by politicians who have been retired for a long time. They talked long ago that the perecations were problematic and that one should look at them. In the meantime, of course, nothing has happened.

The so-called “special systems” become a little less special by this design, but they still exist, and in all clarity.

What is so unfortunate about this design, and also one of the reasons why we will not approve it, is that it does not offer perspective. It is a step, agree, but the larger perspective is lacking. Of course, one cannot say to people who are about to retire that everything will change from today to tomorrow. It does not go. It is necessary to gradually change the path. A politician once taught me, in a language that is not strange to our party: “fortiter in re, suaviter in modo”. And indeed, one must always keep the goal in mind, but the path to it must be the path of graduality. It is not meant to shock, but one must be very clear.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, one of your colleagues recently claimed in many interviews that shocking doesn’t work. According to him, it was already proven in the 1980s that shocking does not work, and that was proven by the governments of which your party was, by the way, part between 1981 and 1988, if I remember it correctly. Indeed, these governments had chosen it. Why did a problem arise in 1992? Since 1988, the choice for "le retour du coeur" had been released. After that, of course, it no longer worked.

This perspective must be ⁇ ined in the long term, otherwise citizens will face shocks, which they will find difficult to digest.

I have already said that the text is socially unfair and that can be proven very simply. In its opinion, the State Council points out that equal categories are treated unequally, and vice versa. This is of course not correct. The answer to this is that it has historically grown so. I would like to accept that, but then it may be “misgrown” and it may be time to change something.

Hence the repair law, which was submitted again at high urgency, while one still had the time. The argument that Parliament was in recess was challenged in the committee by a colleague of sp.a, Ms. Kitir, and she was absolutely right on that point. That is a hypocrisy.

Juridically, everything is not so good. I am not a lawyer, but I also notice that, because all kinds of measures are applied with retroactive effect. Then one asks why this is necessary.

The result of all this is that the legal certainty, to which citizens in this country have an obvious right, is thus undermined. A citizen should know very clearly what his duties and rights are. How can this be clear if Parliament is still busy on 28 November with the discussion of a draft law that comes into force on 1 January 2013? One may have picked up that through an infobrochure, but that is not the correct way of working and, moreover, politics is not entirely correct.

There are also false manoeuvres. We discussed this in the committee yesterday. It is, of course, good that the Pension Line exists, but if you listened very carefully to the Minister’s response in the committee, then it turns out that the phone line does not really work well.

In addition, it shows that we are completely behind in terms of informatization. As a member of the opposition, I am not delighted with this. Over the years, there has been little or too little attention to this, so that the databases, which are indeed important in an increasingly complex reality, cannot be linked together. How can such a telephone line work if the employees behind that line cannot fall back on a device that works well?

This is also a plea for legal certainty. It is a plea to finally push forward a long-term perspective, in which direction one can work, instead of limiting itself to a legislation that one then very quickly pursues, to have to revise them a year later in case of high urgency. This is not really the right way of working.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with a few substantive elements. Of course, we agree that transitional measures are being developed for people who are about to retire. It is normal that one does not take it cold from one day to the next.

However, we cannot agree with a number of provisions of which one asks where they come from. Thus, the period is equated with voluntary firefighter and serves to calculate the pension. That concept of volunteering is, of course, something entirely different and the measure is actually also difficult to explain.

Again, there are then those additional measures; I have already said it. The driving staff of the NMBS received an exception, as did the integrated police, the military and now also former military personnel who are transferred to the civil service. That in itself is a very strange thought, because they work there like everyone else and yet they get other rights because they have worked in the army. I know that this is probably about a few staff members, but the principle is of course not so virtuous.

And then there is a last point: we cheer about the complexity of the legislation. It was said by several speakers. I am very new to the sector and I have asked several times in the committee to explain that, because ordinary people cannot understand that. The answer was, in fact, that it is effectively incomprehensible, but that it is done in this way.

One must fundamentally question the complexity, the wording, which is absolutely unattractive, in order not to express it more strongly. There are exceptions stipulated on the minimum duration “for persons enjoying a more favourable tantième than 1/60e” and one speaks of the “multiplication coefficient that will be applied here to the career hour”. I think that even ordinary people should be able to read legislation, and in that respect the text is ⁇ lacking, especially if one then sees what is principally wrong in it, and then I am talking about the system of availability before retirement, which is really the exception to the exception.

Let it be clear: the N-VA does not intend to slander society and all workers and to deal very hard, on the contrary. We think that one should go to a system that ensures that one is socially speaking also somewhere out. With the proposed step, I believe that is not the case. It does not effectively go far enough. Again, the main criticism is that the perspective to which one wants to go in the long run, in twenty or thirty years, is lacking. Therefore, our group will not approve the draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, during the work in the committee, there was unanimousness on at least one point: the bill is not distinguished by its simplicity. This has already been ⁇ to this tribune and to say it in a less diplomatic way, this bill of repair is characterized, in any case for the public sector, by an unnamed complexity, which will not fail to pose problems both for the beneficiaries and for the officials who will be charged with implementing it. You are aware of this, there is a personal information issue for each employee concerned as well as a staff training issue.

Paradoxically, there is a kind of individualization not in the calculation of the pension but in the opening of the right to early retirement. Each case will be different and will have to be analyzed as such.

That said, this revised and corrected reform of public sector pensions once again proves that the method used in December 2011 to pass a reform as important and sensitive as that of public sector pensions was not the right one. Such a reform cannot be won in rush and without respect for social concertation. In any case, we look forward to the re-establishment of dialogue to lead to a result that can satisfy everyone.

For the Socialist group, it was of paramount importance to maintain the possibility of early retirement, especially for agents who started working very young and in most cases in hard jobs. Those who started their career at 18 or 20 years old will still be able to retire at 60 or 61 years old, even at the end of the transition period.

Furthermore, it was also important to mitigate the impact of the initial reform for all specific schemes, the preferential multiples. Indeed, these schemes were introduced, in particular for reasons of hardship – this is what is called “the active sectors” – and it would have been incomprehensible that these agents could not benefit from a relief of the minimum career condition to benefit from their pension. Sure, the system of multiplier coefficients is complex, but it responds to the need to extend real careers in a reasonable way and in an equity concern.

It remains to be seen whether the system set up will not face a large number of errors or practical difficulties because, ultimately, everything will rely on the correct issuance and validation by the employer of the historical data of the agent who wishes to take his early retirement.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the urgency of a change in the age supplement in the public service. In its current form, this supplement granted for services provided between 60 and 65 years of age obviously no longer makes much sense in the face of the gradual increase in the age requirement for opening the right to early pension.

At 60 years of age, it is obvious that it no longer makes sense, but, even beyond 62 years, it will only have an incentive character for those who now meet the required career condition and who either perceive only too little treatment, or do not count enough years to get the maximum pension. For all those who will not fulfill the career condition, there will be a "income" effect incompatible with the goal of age supplement itself.

We talked about this in the committee, Mr. Minister; I know that you keep well in mind that a reflection is to be carried out and that a measure is to be taken if the government wishes, through an incentive mechanism, to improve the actual employment rate between 62 and 65 years in the public service. The same problem arises with the pension bonus in the private sector. An opinion has been given to you on this subject by the Committee on Ageing.

In conclusion, the PS group supports this second draft law on compensation against public sector pensions, which mitigates, in an interest of coherence and justice for public servants, the impact of the reform initially planned.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the draft that is finally put to vote in the House responds to a long-standing question in the sector, in particular the reform of pensions. By analogy with the adjustments in the employee sector, we can now do this for the officials as well.

We are finally there and we can vote on this today in the plenary session. We can be calm. The above-mentioned texts will be the texts that are executed and implemented.

Mr. Minister, I will not repeat all that we have said in the committee, because I find it meaningless.

The question was whether it was not too late. It should have happened in a different way. The legal security of the people could have been faster and earlier. At the moment, no pension calculations can still be made and people still do not get a complete and certain answer about their situation.

That remains a problem. You acknowledge that, I understand. I don’t know if it helps if I repeat it five times, but we need to do something about it.

I think it is also important that systems are adapted, although the arrangement is complicated by this. Rights are anchored and so on.

I would like to return to two questions that I asked you in the committee, but which we did not get an immediate answer to.

The first question is about the revenue and the cost price. People are asked to work longer. It will also have to be done effectively. I assume that the government also makes sure that this is possible, also in the public sector. Government should also be a model for this.

This was followed by the report of the Study Committee on Ageing. I’m not going to repeat the numbers, but the global trend is there that it’s about saving in the beginning and a cost cost in the longer term, among other things also because of the retirement bonus that is still built in. That is also one of the reasons.

Our question remains. You had said that you could answer if the budget is there. Our question is what the cost and revenue will be of the measures that will be introduced.

The second question was about the lowest pensions. There will be a KB with the fixing of the minimum for pensions with the government. When will it come? What parameters will you use? Can you give some clarity on this? This is important for, for example, officials who are long-term ill or who retire early. Also for them, the living minimum must be established.

Finally, I have a question about information. You know that.

This pension reform will not be the last one we will discuss in the committee and here. In the government agreement, however, the program was somewhat more ambitious.

Yesterday, during the questions, we talked about the pension bonus. There was also a question about working longer, after retirement. However, I also draw your attention – I have done so with your predecessor – to two other issues, which are not always explicitly addressed, but are very clear in the Ombudsman’s report and also occur in the human reality.

First, the unit of career. What is it about? These include people who have worked for more than 45 years before they retire or can retire and for whom in principle the years that earn the most retirement must be calculated and used. I will give an example. A self-employed person has a higher income than when he became an employee, because he then received an initial income, but it is not found to be so easily returned. In theory there is a unit of career, but in practice there is no one.

My question is to arrange that for or along with working longer, because people who worked more until their retirement than the years required for a full retirement are discriminated against. I always give the example of my hairdresser, who says he has a very low pension. He wanted his earnings to be taken into account as a hairdresser, in the beginning, as a self-employed, because then he earned more than when he was still a pupil. This is very important for him because he has a very low pension.

Second, the mixed minimum pension is a very strange system, Mr. Minister. I try to explain it in my own words. There is a minimum pension for employees and there is also a minimum pension for self-employed. These two are somewhat raised. Instead of counting those two together – as our simple mind would say – there is something like a mixed minimum pension that has not followed the rise of the index and wealth. In the case of the minimum pension of the self-employed and the minimum pension of the workers, this was therefore the case. I know that it is a priority that should be raised from the self-employed sector and the worker sector, but it remains overwhelming for those who are in such a situation.

I would very explicitly ask you to pay attention to these two cases as you move on to further reforms.

I am pleased that the large-scale pension reform that your predecessor put on track at the end of 2011 remains. At the same time, it is positive that a number of refinements are introduced in this area.

It was indeed necessary to thoroughly reform our pension system in a precise manner at the end of 2011 and barely a week after the oath of the new government, the legislative texts were submitted to Parliament. The rapid progress of things at the time caused some criticism, but everyone knew for years that action had to be taken and that the debate about aging and its consequences, including for our pension system, had to be held.

It was important that the reform came into effect at the end of last year so that it could come into effect in 2013. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize from our group that, in the meantime, there has been room for social consultation, which has resulted in a number of fair precisions and refinements that take into account and effectively take into account the situation of workers who are about to retire.

It is also important to ensure legal certainty for citizens. Therefore, we must strive for a qualitative information provision – it was placed by many colleagues in the competent committee – both to persons who are still working as well as to those who enjoy a earned pension. I was therefore pleased that the technical means are available to individualize the calculations of pensions.

We are therefore looking forward, together with our colleagues, to the creation of a portal site that will give citizens the opportunity to create simulations and gain clarity. It was a topic that you rightly identified as a priority, as it allows citizens to become more aware of the structure of their pension rights.

Finally, I would like to talk about the reform that we are talking about today. It is relevant to emphasize that this reform is being carried out and that today we are taking effective steps towards a sustainable reform of that system.

Mr. Minister, we know, of course, that in the future new steps must be taken to adapt our pension system to the ageing wave. Other colleagues have emphasized this and we read that in the reports. We must be able to capture that ageing wave as something positive. Our group will always take the lead in the reforms in this regard. After all, these are steps that we must take in the interests of the present and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this is not a surprise, we will support this bill because it is important. It allows to correct the perverse effects, the injustice that had been introduced following the pension reform, about a year ago. These corrections had already been made for the private sector. We are doing this for the public sector. This was stated in the draft original law.

I do not want to repeat the debate that has already taken place in the committee. It would be useless and would bring nothing new. But I will not forget to ask you soon about the questions that remain unanswered.

Politically, in addition to the positive corrective measures contained in this bill, I would like to highlight two master words: social consultation and pedagogy.

With regard to social concertation, this is, here, the demonstration by a+b that concertation does not prevent positive progress. This coordination with all the social partners enables to bring added value through their expertise and their sense of the realities of the field and everyday life.

As regards education and information – this is not new – pension calculations were already ⁇ complex. It cannot be said, Mr. Minister, that you represent here, alone, the whole complexity of calculating pensions. However, it is important to note that these calculations are becoming even more complex. That is why it is important that your services and pension administration services can accurately and promptly respond to all requests of citizens concerned with their future pension, whether they are at the forefront of their retirement or are in the middle of their professional career. Indeed, having accurate information, even if they are far from their retirement, will allow them to plan their career and make professional choices with full knowledge of the cause.

This vast dossier of the pension reform and all the issues related to it cannot be concluded today!

I would like to open an important perspective in this big pension construction site. There is no other way to do this than to extend your professional career. But a mathematical, quantitative vision is doomed to failure if it is not accompanied by a strategy on the qualitative and on the "how". All social partners acknowledge this and are ready to work with you, either by setting up career goals, by finding incentives, or by adapting the work to the professional profiles. All this will allow us to benefit from people’s professional experience without discouraging them!

Not everything can be settled in a law, this one or others.

Mr. Minister, I encourage you to continue to take this important challenge arm-to-body. Working longer does not mean living longer.

Mr. Speaker, we will remember how this pension reform had arrived, to the hussard, with amendments falling on the banks at the last minute so as to prevent a proper parliamentary work, having short-circuited the State Council and snobbed trade unions and employers wishing yet to be associated with the reflection.

At the time, we were told that it was necessary to work quickly, in the urgency: no question of thinking or consulting. Now, almost a year later, we realize that, fatally, just as it is serenized to children, for the sake of wanting to do quickly, we hurt and we must start again. This is what you have tried to do.

I have heard people rejoicing for the repair of this text. The ideal would have been not to break the system: this would have avoided having to repair it.

Today, the text presented to us brings several improvements compared to another text, especially bad in itself. Despite this, unfortunately, it remains equally unfair: in fact, as you can see, some categories will remain on the margins.

For example, for career interruptions, mostly adopted by women, the surcharge on pension continues to increase. For people with long-term illnesses, taking into account interruptions is less favourable than in the past. Not to mention the many uncertainties that continue to plunge a year after the vote, despite this new correctional text.

More generally, as the Study Committee on Ageing has shown, alongside its positive aspect, extending working time will involve a cost: people will work longer and will be entitled to larger pension benefits.

For us, the most important thing is to allow everyone to work even when they are young. Nevertheless, at the present time, due to the crisis, the first people removed from the job market are young people, immigrants, disabled people, all those people who have had the most difficulty in entering the labour market. Yet they are what we need as assets before forcing others, who do not necessarily want to, to work longer.

Another perverse effect of the system is its blurred side. It is so vague that a whole number of people decide to opt for an early exit regime as soon as possible, even if they don’t really need it, because they don’t know how the situation will evolve in the future and prefer to enjoy their rights as soon as possible. Obviously, these blurred and changing rules sow some panic.

This is a real problem!

In addition, as in the first text, an enormous amount of authority is again given to the King. The situation is unclear; we do not know what will happen or what the King will do exactly with all these habilitations.

Today we are trying to work a little more correctly. It is a pity that this has not been done in the past. After hearing the response of the Minister in the committee and given the departure of Mr. Van Quickenborne, I thought it would change and that we might be able to work a little seriously. But the minister’s response is not entirely reassuring. He stresses the importance of the social dialogue that his predecessor has very well implemented as part of this reform and says that he will continue to apply it in the same way, with an emphasis on listening to the different actors. Mr. Minister, I imagine that this is humour because if you intend to continue on the same path as your predecessor, it is really very worrying!

Mrs. Genot, you said you were scared by what you read in the commission report. I imagine that your horror was such that it prevented you from attending the meetings of this committee to discuss it with me, which is somehow a shame!

To return to the content of your remarks, you claim that this is a law of repair because my predecessor did things wrong about a year ago. In fact, we have made some clarifications. We did not fix, but we wanted to clarify some things because the practice allowed to highlight some aspects.

Ms. Fonck, you talked about the fact that the social concertation had demonstrated that the system works well. What we demonstrated during this one-year period is that the combination of the sense of realism of the social partners and the sense of action of political power – there was urgency – gives good results. I think one without the other would not have produced such good results.

Madame Genot, you think there is a wind of panic because people do not know what wood they will be able to heat up. You indicate that people who enjoy certain rights today wonder whether they will not lose them and that as a result, they retire. This is precisely the point that is being clarified. The greatest precision we have made is to say that acquired rights can never be lost! To say that people panic is completely false. The reforms have as a consequence that a possible reduction of duties will never be able to apply. There is no reason to panic!

You also said that working longer was not a wise idea as it would generate higher pensions and that, therefore, from a budgetary point of view, it wasn’t a good thing. I find it hard to follow you. I understood that your party believed that adequate and sustainable pensions were a priority. Here, we take measures that make people work longer, resulting in a higher pension. And you think this is a problem! Honestly, I find it hard to follow your reasoning. But I imagine that we will learn to know each other better in the coming months and that I will understand your logic better!

Madame Fonck, I return to what you said about social concertation. The combination of a political will and a very sharp knowledge of the practice of the social partners is what I am looking for. But, it is clearly a goal that we pursue together and not one above the other or each on his side.

You talked about pedagogy. I think ageing and pensions are a central theme for this government. This leads to more pedagogy. It is my duty, as is the duty of everyone here, to talk as much as possible about pensions, to raise awareness and to continue to conduct the debate on this subject. What we are doing here today, we will also do in other areas of the theme of aging.

Mr De Clercq, you talked about the provision of information and that is indeed a priority that I cited in the committee meeting.

Others also talked about the certain individualization of the calculation of pensions and of the career conditions. This seems to me to be the logical consequence of careers that are becoming increasingly complex. The job for life no longer exists. People of my generation know that they will have to change jobs and that careers are therefore becoming more and more individual. This means that the calculation of pensions is becoming increasingly complex. This should be addressed by our pension services. It is a problem of input and output. If the input, namely the career, is complex, then the output, namely the calculation of the pension, is also complex. That is, we will need to make additional efforts to ensure that we can provide people with correct information.

It is true that in the past year, in the light of the precisions that the Chamber had yet to approve, we have sometimes had to answer people with an estimate rather than an exact calculation. I hope, after the approval of the present bill, that we can fix that. In any case, it will be a priority for my services to ensure that we can give a good response to the people.

Mrs Becq, you, like many, have asked a question about the budgetary impact of the current reform. In fact, I said that I could have talked about it once the budget was completed. I understand that there is a lot of curiosity about the figures about it. I propose that in the discussion of the program law and the budget, I will give more details about the figures for 2013, since we have covered them in the budget.

You also asked a question about the lowest pensions. Currently the following rules apply. If, on the basis of the new calculation over a period of ten years instead of a period of five years, an affected person receives a pension that is less than 1 261 euros, a recalculation will take place on the basis of five years, i.e. on the basis of the old method. However, the new calculation should not result in the pension being higher than that 1 261 euro.

You also asked what parameters we use and whether we would revise that amount. Let me answer this by saying that we want to reform the minimum pensions globally. I would like to look at this in a global context. There are, of course, budgetary constraints that you are also very aware of and that will definitely play a role in it.

You talked about the unit of career and about the mixed minimum pensions. I will also take that into a more global picture that I try to give.

I would like to conclude with the comments of Mr. Bracke. You say it is too little and that certain newspaper articles claim that the impact of the reform we are implementing here will in fact be minimal. I would like to quote another study that has been widely discussed in the press today, namely the OECD study. That study says that the reforms in our country in the field of pensions and the labour market are good reforms and that they will have more impact than previously estimated. If I can make a balance between the degree of reliability of the quotes you cite based on Trends or those based on OECD studies, I tend to listen a little more to the OECD studies. This may be a personal assessment.

You say that it is actually a mouse step, while my predecessor has positioned it as a historical reform. By saying that it is a historical reform, of course, we have never said that this will be the all-encompassing, final reform. I think everyone is aware that we will need to continue reforming pensions. We will continue to adapt to the social evolution. This social evolution is that one lives longer and also stays healthy longer. That means that we will also have to look at longer work and the right way to do that.

I would like to return to the question of whether or not this is a unique reform. This reform in the public sector is the first reform since 1978. It is the first reform since 1978. From that point of view, I would dare to say that it is historical, at least in terms of time. I think it is also the first pension reform that applies both to the private sector and to the self-employed and to the public sector. From that perspective, I think what we are doing is indeed historical. We call on everyone, the entire population, to work two years longer. I know you will say that there are exceptions. These are often for people who are very close to their retirement age. I find it normal that we avoid creating too much uncertainty there. However, this is a very far-reaching reform, as we ask everyone to make the effort to work two years longer. If you now say that this is too little, too late, then I have trouble following that reasoning. I find it difficult because of a very concrete example.

Mr. Bracke, when you ever retire, you will do so within the VRT system. The VRT pension system is a decretal power of the Flemish Parliament. As a federal minister, I have no authority on this. You said in the committee that you actually need a consultant to calculate your pension, because it is so complex. Indeed, the pension system of the VRT is unlikely to be complex. I tried to do an analysis of it this morning and I admit that I could not fully understand it.

What I could understand was the conditions for retirement at the VRT. The conditions for retirement at the VRT are: a minimum age of 60 years and a minimum career of 2 years. That is even less than the career conditions at the NMBS. I would like to hear your criticism of the reforms and the exceptions that we allow for example for the staff of the NMBS, but I now identify the state of the pension system of the VRT, for which a government of which your party is part has the competence, and I now also know that between 60 and 65 years one gets free access to the VRT, whether one works or not. There can be no greater incentive for the VRT to retire at 60 years. The years that follow, however, have no effect.

I would like to conclude with what the Prime Minister said last week in the quarter. I accept criticism with great pleasure, but before you give criticism, I would like to encourage you to first wipe off your own door.

Your response may trigger some criticism, from Mr. Bracke for example.

You apparently felt me coming, Mr. President. I really want to say three more things.

Mr. Minister, I am initially surprised by your answer, when you, not only by me but also by members of your majority, are asked about the budgetary impact. Your answer to this is that you do not actually know it, but that you will explain it later, in the discussion of the program law.

I said I will explain it at the right time. I didn’t say I didn’t know.

Let me explain why you don’t want to say it today. You should have a good idea of what we are doing here. Tomorrow, a major law is likely to be passed here, the majority of which is told that it will later be communicated what its budgetary implications are.

This is, let me say, a ⁇ strange way of working. That is an important law and it is said to all of you, including to Mrs Becq who asked about the budgetary impact: later! If it suits me, I will tell you.

Can we not know that? Is there a reason not to announce it today? I’m relatively new to this steel, at least on these benches, but I find this a ⁇ strange way of working. I would like to ask you, however, for the benefit of the people gathered here, if you cannot say today what the budgetary impact will be. If you say that you will say it later, I am concerned about that. I then get suspicions and then think about things that are not so correct for the whole society.

Overall, the next detail. I have not quoted Trends, but the Study Committee on Ageing. If you say you trust the OECD more than the ageing committee, then you really need to talk to that committee, because I trust it, frankly.

On the ground of the case, you say that there are still reforms to come. It will be necessary, because with this reform you will not really get there. That is the core of the problem, Mr. Minister. You will work with small steps. I do not deny that you are taking a step now; that is so and that cannot be denied. However, it is precisely this method that causes the lack of a long-term perspective. What you say is that the perspective remains unspoken and that it will be achieved in steps. One step after the other. Well, we think you better not do that. We believe it is appropriate to work with a long-term perspective.

Don’t be mistaken, only in a long-term perspective will the people also tolerate and support that reform. In such cases, it is also very important that people support them. They are prepared to do so, if they know where the outcome lies. If you now say, as with the budgetary impact, that there is effectively some criticism and that it is not going far enough, that this is not the first reform and that there are still reforms coming, then you do not hit it. This is a methodological error in my view.

I come to my final point, which I would almost say is a personal fact, in particular with regard to the pension system of the VRT. As I said in the committee, I used to calculate what that would mean for me. A person already asks questions about this, especially at an advanced age and especially when he makes important steps in his family life.

I actually said that then to point out to you how complex the reality is. You should not reverse things here.

It is true, and that is only good, that that one job does not count for the rest of life and that this changes. That makes things complex, but that is not a legitimation to make the regulation on that complex state even more complex. One complexity does not legitimize the other.

By the way, as regards the pension system of the VRT, Mr. Minister, it is absolutely true that if you yourself are in some more difficult papers, you always talk about Flanders and the N-VA. In it you follow your great leader of your government. When I worked there, I have experienced numerous times that when a government came into trouble, from whatever parties it consisted, it always talked about another.

I actually want to answer what you said. If it were true that in the VRT there would be a pension system in which, if one works for two years, one generates rights, then that would be fantastic, but I would then like to ask these to abolish that. It is not true that one can earn a retirement with two years of work, as you say here. That is nonsense. It cannot.

Let us continue with this reform. We are in this Parliament to discuss this draft, a draft which I can only say is not going far enough. Let the Flanders solve their problems. There are parliaments where they will discuss this. If it is true what you say about the scheme at the VRT, then they should abolish it.