Proposition 53K2539

Projet de loi confirmant certains arrêts royaux récents concernant les pensions des travailleurs salariés.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Stefaan Vercamer
LE Catherine Fonck
MR David Clarinval
Open Vld Mathias De Clercq, Patrick Dewael
PS | SP Jean-Marc Delizée
Vooruit Meryame Kitir

Submission date

Dec. 5, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

pension scheme retirement conditions crew white-collar worker

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶

Dec. 13, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Bert Maertens, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Our group will abstain from this. This is emergency legislation. This is also written literally. The applicants want to avoid some recent royal decisions on employee pensions being ratified by the legislator too late. So that happens with this. This is absolutely on the trail before problems arise. However, this is not good governance.

The argument here is again, very striking, that the social consultation has taken a long time. The last comment came on October 30. Again I have to say here that you can also give those people limits. You can also say that they should give their advice on time. You did not do that.

The only thing that is true is that if you don’t do this, it would be even worse, but that is, of course, no reason to endorse this. We will therefore remember.

I would like to note that Mr. De Croo, Minister of Pensions, is absent. I can only see Mr. Magnette, Minister of Public Enterprises and Ms. De Coninck, Minister of Employment.

The government is represented by two ministers, Mr. Gilkinet. The government is collegial ... I invite you to intervene, otherwise we will withdraw your intervention. This is no problem!

I'm going to go to the tribune, but I'm sorry.

But they will transmit your words!

Is it true?

Absolutely of course! I am convinced! I have their commitment that they will repeat your remarks to the Minister of Pensions!

Nothing is worth a good dialogue, as here with Mrs. De Coninck!

Mr. Magnette, you will relay the words of Mr. Magnette. Gilkinet to Mr. of Croo?

The [...]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had a specific message for Mr. by Croo!

You can give it to me, I will give it back to him.

I will do it myself, Mr. President.

Oh, you know, this is not the time for the effects of the handle, Mr. Magnette!

Remember, Mrs. Fonck, a year less than fifteen days ago, we voted for this pension reform, adopted by the Hussard at the end of the year, under conditions absolutely unsatisfactory from a democratic point of view. I find that this first piece of law, adopted during the era of De Croo son, was an opportunity to return with him on the question of the future of pensions.

At that time, we had criticized both the form and the substance of this project. The Ecolo-Groen group considers that it is unacceptable to treat such a matter as important and sensitive as pensions. Neither do we think, in essence, that the way to settle the pension and the problem of ageing is to further diminish the rights of workers with hard or incomplete careers, especially women.

This is the path chosen by the government. Van Quickenborne, the predecessor of Mr. From Croo, rather than contributing capital income or improving access to employment in our country. Indeed, more jobs involve a natural financing of our social security system.

It can be considered a mistake to return to what happened a year ago. However, this recent past will determine the pension level of several thousand people.

I still have the hope that this government will change its way of working so much on the form – in this regard, there is progress, one can say – but above all on the bottom.

In itself, the provisions on the agenda, namely the confirmation of two technical royal orders, do not really pose any problem except that of unceasing deadlines and delays. It is said that they were necessary to conduct a good consultation. So much better and brave for the consultation! It is a shame that it did not take place on the fundamental arrangement that is the amendment of the law.

On the other hand, what worries us is what is yet to come, the decree that will implement article 122 of the law, the one that regulates the issue of assimilations, of assimilated periods, accounted for in the calculation of pensions. I interviewed the Minister of Pension. His response is not very reassuring. He said: "For the royal decrees that are yet to be taken, the interviewer refers to the government agreement on the basis of which the assimilations of unemployment of the third period and of time credit will be limited by means of, of course, the adoption of a number of transitional measures which are still under consultation."

As my colleague Wouter De Vriendt said in the session, this is the principle of double punishment. On the one hand, increased degressivity of unemployment benefits in the third period and, on the other hand, impact on the calculation of pension. Who will be the victim of this measure? These are the people most distant from the labour market, those who have incomplete careers, those who have difficult functions and who have difficulty physically or morally to assume the entire career allowing to open their rights and, mainly, women. This is the reality of our current pension system. Women’s pensions are much lower than men’s pensions and tomorrow, with these reforms, with this decision coming, it will be even worse!

This was worth saying to this tribune, even though it is late, even though the Minister of Pensions is absent.

We find, with my group, that this dangerous pathway risks further aggravating the situation of people who are currently or in the future receiving the lowest pensions either, as I said, because they have incomplete or interrupted careers, or because of the painfulness of their profession forcing them to leave work earlier than they wanted, or because they have had long periods of unemployment, or – and this is often the case – because they accumulate these characteristics.

The ideal would indeed be that the government reverses the decisions made in this matter by the previous Minister of Pensions, because if you don’t change anything, if you don’t change direction, Mr. Van Quickenborne, it will cause terrible damage.

As a committee, I asked the Minister that the provisions for the application of article 122 of the law to be taken by decree be closely coordinated with, on the one hand, the social partners – this is the least of things – and, on the other hand, with our parliament, so that we can, as far as possible, ensure that the rights of the interested parties and especially of the interested parties are preserved who are somewhat insulted and misled by the reform taken by this government in terms of pensions. This is a debate that we will have to continue with the new Minister of Pensions, whose absence I regret tonight.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, members of the Government present, allow me to warn of the following specific element.

This bill ratifies two royal decrees. I am ⁇ focused on the Royal Decree of 24 September 2012. It identifies the periods on the basis of which the equalization takes place for the calculation of the pension.

I am addressing colleague De Clercq, the chief proponent of the bill. You know we are waiting for the Royal Decree for execution. It is one thing to determine which periods are eligible for equalization, it is another thing to know to what extent those periods are counted in the pension calculation. It was promised to us in the law of December 2011.

I would like to warn my colleagues for the next.

First, make sure that the social consultation goes well. I hope you will recognize that this was the mistake in the pension reforms of December 2011.

Second, I hope that we can conduct a serious and sound debate in Parliament on the modalities for the implementation of the Royal Decree. After all, I am rather concerned when I see what equations were decided at the time of the pension reform at the end of December. For example, one went towards a limitation of equalization on landing tracks and the government limited the unmotivated time credit to one year equalization for retirement calculation.

In this bill, a number of periods are already considered. That predicts little good. These include the motivated time credit, the thematic leave and the unemployment rate of the third period.

I quote a few figures from the yearbook Poverty. The poverty risk for the categories of persons affected by the equalization is higher than the average. These are people who are already in a very vulnerable situation.

I do what I say more specifically. We see that the average poverty rate in Belgium is 15.3% and that in Flanders it is 9.8%. I have comparative data for Flanders. For women, however, a risk group when it comes to equalization in terms of time credit, care leave and so on, it is 10.3 %. 22.2% of single-parent families are in poverty. 18.1% of those over 65 are in poverty. These are figures from the most recent annual book presented last week in Antwerp. If you go too far in limiting that equalization of motivated time credit and of care leave, then those categories are hit again. These are categories of people who are already in a very precarious situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around. I would like to warn of too much voluntarism when it comes to limiting the equation for the calculation of pensions. I want to give this signal. I hope that together we will be able to conduct the very concrete debate on the implementation KB that still needs to be developed.